Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 24 December 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)

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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike

User:Jojhutton

In early December, User:Jojhutton began removing "United States" (both the link and the text) from articles, primarily geographical articles about cities, townships, et cetera, but also from biographical and other articles. He was quickly questioned about this on his talk page, and in the ensuing discussions he often cited WP:PLACE, sometimes referring to WP:PLACE#United States. He was informed again and again that this guideline is about naming conventions, and that nowhere in that guideline (or any other policy or guideline that has been identified so far) is there a call for the removal of "United States" from the infoboxes or bodies of articles. The principle stated by many opposing editors (including myself) has been that in an international encyclopedia, articles about people and things in the United States should not assume that the reader knows which country is involved, but should specify the country consistently. However, he has doggedly continued to remove this information from articles (albeit a small number of articles thus far), even after a public discussion at the Village pump. His practice, when questioned about this on his talk page, has been to archive discussions using the "hat" template, so as to "close" the discussions, thus indicating that he is not willing to discuss any further. So far, it appears that at least 11 editors have questioned him on this on his talk page since December 7, and that no one has supported him; additional editors disagreed with him in the village pump discussion. This seems to have had no effect, as the edits continue through today, December 19. He is a well-established editor, and I believe his edits are typically of good quality. It's just that with this particular issue, he believes that various (non-Misplaced Pages) manuals of style tell him to remove the country, and he seems determined to do so in spite of opposition from many other editors, lack of support from any other editors, and the lack of supporting Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines that anyone can find; so far he has not cited any that stand up under scrutiny. What makes it worse is that in these discussions he has had a tendency to accuse other editors of wikilawyering, gaming the system, stalking, et cetera and using sarcasm and insults; and he resorts to these devices very quickly. He accused one editor of stalking after a single isolated revert. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss this and have remained civil throughout; but I'm not sure what else to do, so I am mentioning it here. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant related discussions:

• in this ANI archive about Jojhutton
• this long section in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)
• talk:MOS

Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute that has sparked a minor amount of edit warring and incivility. Forgive me if I'm a little bit green on this particular issue, but as a style / content matter there seems to be no absolute rule or overwhelming consensus to include "United States" in place names within an article and in infoboxes, when the lede has already clearly established that the setting is the United States. Sure there are strong arguments on both sides. The proponents claim it is America-centrism and disrespectful of non-American readers to assume they know something is in America, or to have different rules for American place names that seem to assert that the United States is some kind of default location when the country is unnamed. The opponents claim that articles should be written for clarity, not to encourage equality among nations, and everybody knows which country we're talking about when we say that someplace is a city in California. The outcome of those discussions isn't really relevant. You can't legislate consensus from a guideline page. What's relevant is that consensus is not so clear that choosing one versus the other is anything other than a content choice. Like a lot of style choices (American versus British spelling, punctuation inside versus outside the quotes, citation styles) deference should be paid to status quo, the opinions of regular editors on an article, and consistency among related articles or within a project. Making mass changes or mass reverts just to enforce your favored version is disruptive and can lead to lots of wikidrama. So best not to do this on either side, just stick to the articles you enjoy editing. I sympathize with Jojhutton's frustration, but calling it "stalking" is unduly inflamatory. Technically it is not stalking. Stalking is when you follow someone from one article to another to pursue a grudge. By contrast, noticing one bad edit, then checking up on the editor's other recent activity to see if it's a pattern, is only good wikignoming. The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative. If someone really wants to add, or remove, or link or delink, the country name "United States" from a bunch of article bodies and infoboxes, they need to get a strong prior consensus not only that this is the correct way to go style-wise, but that the mass edits are a good idea. Best to get approval for a semi-automated bot or the like. But this is such a tiny issue. The two editors have been reverting each other to 1RR or maybe 2 on perhaps five or six articles in the past few days. Administrative mediation could be useful, but I don't see anything warranting sanctions here. Just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It began as a content dispute, and content is still at the heart of it, but the issue now seems to be a refusal by User:Jojhutton to accept that every time he makes an edit to remove "U.S", someone disputes it. Not always the same editor, so it's not a simple matter of two editors disagreeing. The issue as I see it, is that User:Jojhutton has an opinion that the United States is redundant when discussing a place name for a United States town or city and his contention is that it should be presented as "City/State". He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion should not and does not carry any more weight than that of any other editor. It has moved from a content dispute because, he has used WP:Place#United States as justification for removal, and although every editor who has commented has said either strongly or weakly that he is misinterpreting that part of the guideline he has dug in his heels, told everyone they are wrong, and has continued to use it as justification. You say, "The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative." I would say that Jojhutton's edits in the face of opposition, and without anything resembling consensus is more provocative. I've been concerned mainly with the use in the infobox, rather than the article body. I've pointed out to him that several infobox instructions explicitly state to use the "City/State/Country" format, with no exception made for "U.S." and I've also given numerous examples of WP:FAs that use this format. I've also pointed out that consensus is not always achieved by a formal discussion, and often consensus is indicated by the fact that something exists, is used commonly over time over a wide area, and has remained without opposition, which is the case for at least the infobox component of this disagreement. His response has been to say that it's very interesting but still completely wrong. Clearly there is some kind of consensus in place to say that the use is at least "acceptable" given that it's used widely, and even in featured articles that have been more closely scrutinised than many articles. He does not need to accept that it is a preferred style, because nobody is suggesting that, but he does need to accept that there is nothing to say it's incorrect, and that editors who choose this style are not wrong. I'm disturbed that he reacts to some editors as "stalkers". That's particularly hostile, and in the case of User talk:Omnedon and you need only look at this user's page to see that editing American geographical articles is a primary interest. I was concerned with this edit at Marilyn Monroe which removed "U.S." from the infobox and added sources with the edit summary "removing original research and adding a ref to support current version" Having "U.S" in the infobox is not original research. This suggests that User:Jojhutton is either unfamiliar with or is misinterpreting what is meant by "original research" or is providing a deliberately misleading edit summary. Neither is acceptable. "United States" was first added to Marilyn Monroe's infobox when the infobox was included with this edit in April 2006. (Admittedly as "Los Angeles, United States" which is not correct either). Since April 2006 this has not been a contentious point, and it is only a contentious point now because one editor has decided it's not appropriate. I believe that due to widespread use, support by infobox template instructions, and the fact the some of Misplaced Pages's best articles use the country name in the infobox, there is a consensus to say that it is acceptable, and anyone wanting to add this to the infobox should not feel hindered - but there is no such evidence to support the removal. It is currently, as you say, an issue primarily between two editors, and a small issue, but when User:Jojhutton first started this about a week ago, he got a response from several editors who seem to have moved on now that he is not making such widespread edits. I would have too, if not for the Marilyn Monroe edit which shows that he has not accepted the other viewpoint, and has put the change through with a dodgy edit summary. I would hope that is the last time that happens. Rossrs (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it seems not such a big deal to people who have memorized the names of the US states, their postal abbreviation, etc. and who speak English as a first language. Leaving out "United States" (and it has been removed from the lede in some instances) is not a tiny thing: it encourages confusion and can mislead. Believe it or not, not everyone outside the US knows what an Arizona is or that AZ is its postal abbreviation. Some will think AZ means Azerbaijan, CA Canada, and KY Kenya. Without the country name somewhere obvious, we run the risk of misleading international users. I don't think that's encyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there are those who do not understand that New Mexico is part of the US and not Mexico. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There would be a not-small number of Americans who don't know that either. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This being an English encyclopedia, most people who have learned the language know that California is in the United States. Those who have not can probably figure it out from the first sentence of the lede if the article is written properly, e.g. "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California", not "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California, US". Anyway, I agree that the arguments are strong on both sides but not unanimous, which makes an isolated edit on the subject a matter of editor discretion, not behavior. If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing. Also, edit warring is bad, making accusations in edit summaries is bad, and doing mass bold edits over others' oposition outside of one's normal editing space is bad. Is he on some kind of campaign, or does this just affect articles he's actively editing? If he's minding his own business on a small number of articles and other editors are ganging up on him outside of their normal editing range, that does approach some kind of hounding. I'm reminded of the geocoding fights and date delinking, kind of funny that people get so passionate about the details. It's like, war of the wikignomes! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I must point out that I came into this situation after several other editors had already taken issue with Jojhutton's practice of removing "United States" from articles. Those discussions have since been moved into an archive; they started here on 7 December. There were four such discussions which took place (three of which were "archived" with the "hat" template) before I even became aware of the situation. I became involved when some articles on my watchlist were similarly edited some days later; these are articles which I've been involved with in the past and which I watch. Among these were articles for several (but for some reason, not all) townships in Marion County, Indiana, as well as articles for several Indiana towns. For example, here he removed "United States" from Decatur Township, Marion County, Indiana. Because of these edits, I calmly questioned the practice on his talk page like many before me, and was quickly accused of wikilawyering and gaming the system. However, I have not engaged in edit warring with him.

So, this is not simply a content dispute between two editors. Rather, it is part of an ongoing pattern in which at least 10 editors (not including myself) have questioned the practice on his talk page over the last couple of weeks and have been met with the same answers over and over without any resolution or progress at all. The practice itself is not the core issue here; rather, it is the way this particular editor is dealing with the situation. The validity of the reasons he cites has been questioned again and again, but though he has altered his edit summaries, the edits themselves have continued in the same manner throughout the various discussions (albeit on the same small scale as before). Given that everyone involved in the discussions on his talk page has disagreed with him, his determination to continue, combined with his tendency toward sarcasm and accusation and his unwillingness to have discussions, shows clear disregard for any kind of consensus-building. Basically, he seems not to be interested in anyone else's opinions. Consensus is a frequently-discussed concept on Misplaced Pages, of course, and its application and methods of development are sometimes vexed questions; personally, I think it's easier to define what consensus is not rather than what it is, and it is certainly not ignoring the well-founded objections of a dozen other editors and pushing on regardless with a dismissive attitude. Omnedon (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dismissive" is one way to describe it, but given the accusatory and ridiculing tone in some of Jojhutton's comments, "dismissive" is probably the most tactful way of describing his approach. His frustration is duly noted. I also note the frustration of those that have attempted to discuss this with him. Regarding the earlier comment : "If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing." That was exactly what he was doing with some of the actor related infoboxes despite the fact the the infobox itself, supported by WP:ACTOR says that for birth and death place the format is city,state,country. Jojhutton removes and reverts against this consensus and the clearly expressed opposition of several editors - this is a behavioural issue which stems from a content/style issue. If Jojhutton can accept that there is a community based consensus to allow the use of country as acceptable -not preferred, not mandatory, not standard - just acceptable, there won't be a problem. If he can also accept that removing against the objections of other editors is unacceptable, again there will be no problem. That's what we've been trying and failing to achieve over the last week or so. I believe Jojhutton has the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart, but I'm not as confident as he seems to be that he has all the answers on this topic. Rossrs (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion started here on ANI just yesterday, Jojhutton has continued his practice by removing "United States" from more than 20 articles about places in California, once again citing WP:PLACE#United States in the edit summary. That guideline has been shown again and again to have no bearing whatsoever on what he is doing. He has been questioned repeatedly by many editors on that, yet he is clearly determined to continue anyway. He is continuing to operate against the clearly-voiced objections of many editors. Omnedon (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I share the concerns of Omnedon, Rossrs, Cptnono, Cybercobra, and the various other editors who've been trying to grapple with this problem recently. A couple days back I politely suggested on Jojhutton's talk page that he should refrain from carrying on with these edits, given that it's clearly provoking concern from many editors, none of whom seem to support his campaign. Unfortunately, he seems intent on ignoring these concerns and just doing his own thing.

As others have already pointed out, Jojhutton cites the Place policy when making these cuts, but the policy has been shown to have no bearing on what he's doing. Alternately, he references in discussions and on his talk page "every English language manual of style" as the basis for his activity. Manuals like the APA or MLA handbooks are certainly fine resources, but a) I see nothing in my own copy of the MLA Handbook that addresses this (and he doesn't cite any specific sections/pages, despite my request), and b) such handbooks don't control Misplaced Pages content anyway.

Various editors' voicing their concerns has so far had no effect. Attempts to engage Jojhutton in debate haven't been fruitful, and reverting the cuts simply prompts him to quickly put the cuts back (often with accusations that the editor is "stalking"), resulting in 3RR violations and edit wars, for which he's already been warned. Guidance from administrators on this would certainly be appreciated! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The addition to the FAQ on his talk page, made while this discussion is taking place, does not inspire an assumption of good faith. The FAQ seems to anticipate another stream of questions and complaints. The link to this : "This archived discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style seems to agree that the convention is (City, State)" seems to overlook that although four editors discussed it, they stopped short of endorsing it as a blanket rule. It's cherry picking. There is no mention of the discussions in which his viewpoint is challenged and his edits disputed, such as this discussion, or the several on his talk page and talk page archives, the one at Village Pump or even the one at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Is there a convention for use of country when refering to US cities. It looks a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. His talk page is his business, but the FAQ hasn't been added for decoration. It's a shame to be talking about an editor rather than to an editor, but when an editor appears to have withdrawn from the discussion when there are still things to be resolved, it doesn't leave a lot of choice. Rossrs (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how people are always claiming Americans are geographically ignorant, but won't allow the removal of "US" from place names on the grounds that people outside of the US don't know where American cities are located. They attack Americans for wanting to label things like Paris, France as proof of American ignorance, but won't allow the removal of the country name from Paris, Texas, USA (for example) on the grounds that nobody outside of the US could possibly know that Texas is in the US. Woogee (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think removing country names from English speaking countries is a great idea. Surely every English speaker knows perfectly well where Cumbria, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nunavut, Otago, Somerset, Taranaki, Tasmania, Victoria, Waikato, and Yukon are. --GRuban (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What? I'm a life-long English speaker and I no idea what/where Otago, Taranaki or Waikato are. Either way, it's beside the point since this thread is in regard to the actions of an editor and related edits. Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Woogee, there are so many things wrong with that statement that I hardly know where to begin. And no, GRuban, not all English-speaking people automatically know where all of those places are. But in any case, as has been mentioned, this isn't about content, but about a behavioral problem with an editor. Omnedon (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly my attempt at humor failed. Apologies. Carry on. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it did occur to me that you might be joking; but it's hard to tell in text without any other hints. Certainly in my experience (not necessarily here) people have occasionally expressed views to me that I privately considered to be outrageous, yet they were quite serious. Omnedon (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping you were joking GRuban. I've never even heard of Nunavut. At least one other person took you seriously. Kinda funny :-) Rossrs (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be funny, Rossrs, except that this situation is still continuing. GRuban, with hindsight, it's obvious that you were joking, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted it at the time; I think it was partly because of the association with Jojhutton's behavior, as well as the comment that preceded your joke. It's hard to understand why an editor would continue making these edits under these circumstances, yet it's happening, and as Rossrs mentions, the editor continues to avoid any substantive discussion, and continues to cite WP:PLACE in his FAQ. Omnedon (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed Jojhutton's continuing cuts too. :( Various editors have asked him to refrain from continuing, have pointed out that WP:Place (which he always cites) doesn't cover them, and certainly doesn't mandate them. I've tried twice politely on his talk page to make the point that there isn't consensus on this, that carrying on while there's active contention isn't helpful, but to no avail. Despite already receiving a 3RR warning on this exact issue, he still restores the cuts if anyone tries to undo them. Advice anyone? Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic insult

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

Ethnic attack by Meowy (talk · contribs). The advocated account turned to be another sock. Brand 07:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my naivete, but what part of that was an ethnic insult? Is it the "Azeri" bit? If so, could you elaborate on how that is ethnically insulting? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"A silver bullet for Azeri wolfishness". This is a subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 in particular. Brand 10:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the further explanation. Perhaps it's simply due to my unfamiliarity with the conflict, but I don't see the comment as being overly offensive, certainly not moreso than other comments that routinely fly on Misplaced Pages. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone were to say that uti possidetis is the silver bullet for Irish Nationalism, something I'm much more familiar with. While I could see the comment being inappropriate and inflammatory, I can't really see it being actionable in and of itself. I'm aware that Meowy has a history of being blocked for personal attacks, but I think this particular instance would have to be part of a larger pattern of anti-azerbijani comments from Meowy for it to warrant anything more than a warning. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it warrants an administrative warning, given the unveiled groundlessness of the comment, in compliance with both general and arbcom principles. Brand 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fair. If any admin would like to issue a warning, then please feel free to do so. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me for being too literate. "Silver bullet for Irish Nationalism". Why would you think silver bullets would be effective against Irish persons? Well, obviously you are making some allusions as to the only effective way to stop werewolves. I could nit-pick and ask what have wolves to do with Ireland? Not so with Azerbaijan. As you say, you are unfamiliar with the subject. Wolves are used as a symbol by those at the extreme end of Turkish and Azeri nationalism (see Grey Wolves for example, and Azerbaijan National Democrat Party). Those same wolfish Azerbaijanis go tediously on and on and on about the "de-jure" status of Nagorno-Karabakh (and certain editors want that phrase to appear on every Misplaced Pages article that mentions anything connected to Nagorno-Karabakh), but "de jure" is quickly shot down by "uti possidetis". My comment is thus not groundless, uses a completely acceptable metaphor, and would be well understood by those who know the subject. Meowy 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say any metaphor that involves shooting is borderline from the start. I'd certainly consider it threatening. I'd suggest you withdraw the statement. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Of all the many silly comments I've seen on Misplaced Pages (and there have been a fair few) the above ranks amongst the most silly. So, following exactly the same silly reasoning, I'd say any poster who uses metaphorical phrases like "borderlines" probably has an unnatural interest in ethnicity and the control of populations. I'd certainly consider talk containing such metaphors threatening, just one stage removed from barbed wire fences and genocide. Meowy 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You ask "Why would you think silver bullets would be effective against Irish persons"? Well, contrary to common belief silver bullets will hurt non-werewolves as well and is not a recommended method of distinguishing between Irish and werewolf. Chillum 16:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also a bit of a waste of money, what with today's sky-high price of precious metals. So, to placate the worried brow of The Hand That Feeds You, I can easily assure him that I have no intention of shooting any Azeris, or werewolves, or vampires, or even the Irish, using real silver bullets. Meowy 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My two cents, since I have been at the receiveing end of so many attacks, insults and slurs by this user. I have a few samples here:

The NY times citation is a fake, there is no such article (all NY times reports for that period are available online, and nothing for Bitlis exists for that date). ... Meowy 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC) (It is not!)

BTW, reading that http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf the initial feelings are one of amusement and astonishment that someone could come up with such breathtaking lies.

All you seem interested in doing is inserting out-and-out lies into articles, using as "sources" extreme nationalist Turkish propaganda. Little wonder nobody chooses to engage constructively with you. Meowy 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More skillful propagandists of Hudavendigar's ilk realise that in some articles it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. However, he has chosen to awaken this article, so let's now tear him apart by telling in the article the full horror of the history he wishes to rewrite and whitewash. Meowy 20:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Editor Murat, the main culprit for this article's lamentable state, has inserted and reinserted a section titled "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule", which is full of fabrications. There were no "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule"". Meowy 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"your 6Dec post is a POV diatribe that could have come from a card carrying MHP fanatic"..."Your Turkish nationalist propaganda sources"... "straight from a Turkish propaganda website"..."Murat's obscene misuse of the word "revolt""..."which is actually a tawdry pack of lies" Meowy 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the above have been punished as far as I know. Meowy has proven time and again that he is a disruptive editor, has degraded the quality of wikipedia, considers it an ethnic battleground, throws ethnic insults around with impunity, deletes and distorts as it fits his nationalistic agenda, and amazingly he is still allowed to do so. At what point will other editors and wikipedia be protected from this predator? He was banned from this very topic if I am not mistaken anyway. What other outrage needs to be committed so he does not get away again with slap on the hand?--Murat (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

By making the above post you are breaking your editing restrictions, Murat. As you know, because of your persistant POV-warring and insertion of Turkish government propaganda into articles you are forbidden from making any posts anywhere on Misplaced Pages that concern the Armenian Genocide. Similar but even broader restrictions apply for Brand, btw. So he also has broken his editing restrictions by making this complaint becasue he is banned from making any posts connected to "the ethnic and historical issues related to" Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran. Meowy 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. An ANI thread relating to you doesn't count. And this thread is pointless. I've asked Meowy to tone down the rhetoric, as it certainly can get OTT every now and then. But frankly, I've seen worse. This one we can let slide. Now can everyone please find something better to do? Moreschi (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, but you are a reasonable administrator! I'm sure other administrators would say it did count. I recall one editor, banned from posting anything Russia-related, was warned by another administrator that if he uploading a photo of Fidel Castro that happened to have been taken by a Russian photographer, he would be breaking his ban. Meowy 00:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job Moreschi... he already looks wiser and surley learned his lesson.--Murat (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Murat, while baiting Meowy may well succeed in getting him blocked, baiting me may well succeed in getting you blocked. Not a good idea. Moreschi (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Point of Order

Although I may agree with the finding that meowy's comments did not consitute an actionable offense, I find it disturbing that Moreschi closed the thread personally, given that the alleged offense occurred on his talk page and he is very much involved. In the interests of transparency, fairness, and due process, could an uninvolved admin please review the case and determine if it should indeed be closed? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've contacted User:Wehwalt in regards to this matter, as I've found him to be a stickler for due process in the past. I await his verdict. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What latest silliness is this? I am the go-to admin for matters Armenian-Azeri: I am familiar with nearly all the participants and their history (having blocked most of them at some point, including Meowy). This does not make me "involved", as I have never participated in any of the content disputes (or at least, very few), nor am I from the area. Just because Meowy chose to say the words "Azeri wolfishness" on my talkpage hardly means I permitted him to do so, or gave the impression such verbiage is normally acceptable; it is generally understood that that is the place to sound off - far better there than on an article page.

As it is, he has provided a reasonable explanation of the phrase and its context. While I have warned him recently a couple times to tone it down, this didn't cross the line. It wasn't even really close. Based on my previous work on this area, upon reflection I decided to let it slide. Now why, precisely, should I not do so? Moreschi (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My only concern is that of openness and transparency. I would be more comfortable if another admin closed the case, given that the alleged offense occurred on your talk page, but w/e. I don't mean to call your judgement into question, I'm simply concerned about due process and the optics of you closing the case yourself. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, really? I checked Wehwalt's talkpage and learnt to my amazement that I am "undoubtedly on Meowy's "side"". Comes as a great shock to me, and I'm sure to Meowy , given the large number of over-enthusiastic Armenian patriots I have blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned. Even a cursory look at the log of WP:ARBAA2 would have shown this to be nonsense.

Shades of...oh, I won't mention him. But really. Could people please assume I vaguely know what I am doing and don't go round abusing the status just for the hell of it? Or somewhere down the line did I acquire the reputation of uber-rouge nutty abusive sysop, and nobody told me? Nobody has still explained to me exactly how I cannot deal with incidents on my talkpage in which I played no part. Moreschi (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Relax. You're seeing demons where there are none. I never claimed you were "on his side" in the armenian conflict I know nothing about, merely that you were on his side in this particular incident. Seriously, relax. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So because I didn't think the comment was sanctionable, I shouldn't have closed the thread? Only those prepared to dole out sanctions should close threads? Because this is one of those threads where you can't be "neutral": by acting, or by not acting, you take a position. It doesn't matter who closes this thread: myself, Wehwalt, the man in the Moon; they will have to make a judgment call. What is your logic here? Moreschi (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'd ask you to relax. As I've stated several times, I was merely concerned about due process and the optics of the situation. That's why I asked Wehwalt, an admin whom I know is a stickler for due process, to take a look at the situation and tell me if my concerns were justified. At no time was I questioning your judgement, in fact I specifically stated that I wasn't a couple of times. Your strong reaction here confuses me, as I said nothing against you personally. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Since it's a question of due process, what process have I not, perhaps, complied with? Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad analogy because a) I didn't invite Meowy to my talkpage, it's open to all the public; b) the relationship between Meowy and myself was and is far more difficult than that between party host and guest (to say the least: I've blocked him once and possibly applied other sanctions as well); c) the supposed object of the comment, Grandmaster, doesn't seem to have complained or indeed even noticed, and d) even granting your analogy to have any merit, who better to try to damp down tension between the parties of the dispute than someone who knows them both well?

This insidious drip-drip-drip of low-level ABF directed at admins is simply terrible. It's demoralisng, degrading, and is slowly killing off will to live of the admin corps, bit by bit. Increasingly even the most uncontentious of decisions can't get through without somebody, in carping tone, squeaking out that meaningless phrase "involved admin!" This ludicrous thread is a particularly entertaining microcosm of a much bigger problem.

The majority of sysops make the right decision most of the time. Please, just have some trust. Moreschi (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway, if it help I'll close this thread instead. In future please remember that our primray aim on wikipedia is to develop articles and ANI is just a tool to serve that purpose; so, as far as possible, we try to deescalate disputes here (as Moreschi tried above), rather than raise bureaucratic hurdles to extend them. Hope all involved can move on now. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To all concerned, I hope there's no hard feelings. Never intended for it to be a debate, just a procedural matter. Happy editing all! Throwaway85 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600

Sigh. Despite pledging to be "topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change," Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is right back at it on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Per this recent ANI thread, this was supposed to be the last straw. I'd like to propose that the indef block that was lifted following his pledge be reapplied. At the very least, a block of considerable length seem warranted. Should be a no-brainer this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the edit you cite, , he says that "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs", so he is not violating the conditions of his unblock, and I see no immediate reason to re-block. (Whether that unblock was a good idea in the first place is a different question.)  Sandstein  22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the edit I cited "climate change" was specifically listed, but Grundle did not rule it out as one of his conditions. So interpreted strictly, he violated his own pledge. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So? You are still editing at a politically-controversial, left vs. right hotbed article on climate change. That's as clear an indication as any that you intend to continue the actions that got you blocked in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that you think are in violation of any wikipedia rule. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? You pledged to avoid "climate change" and then went back on your word, as far as I'm concerned. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey is falsely attributing that pledge to me. I never pledged that. According to the text at the very link that Scjessey posted, this is what I said:

"I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Jules Verne, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."

Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.

I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, the concern was with your editing behaviour in regards to any article with political connotations. As part of your unblock request, you said you would like to be able to edit articles on animals, etc. Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle should not have been allowed to add his own qualifiers and interpretations to the conditions laid out at Proposal to unblock. But that ship has now sailed unfortunately, as I'd say the fact he was unblocked serves as an implied acceptance of those "modified" conditions. So like a defendant who gets off with a lesser sentence because of a clerical or judicial error, here we are. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, totally agree. The conditions that were added by Grundle substantially weakened the proposed restrictions. Shrug - nobody said anything about it then, so I have to agree with Grundle that they were accepted by both sides. Based on the modified restrictions, his comment is not in violation. Ravensfire (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85, you said, "Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge." You are wrong. It's exactly within my pledge, which states, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any judgements about Grundle's involvement, since I know nothing about the previous discussions on the subject. However, it should be noted that the article in question, while not a BLP per se, is fundamentally concerned with BLP issues since it relates to accusations against several individuals and organisations. It has been persistently affected by (and a number of editors blocked for) violations of the BLP policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Allow Grundle to edit politics articles again and topic ban him from BLPs and anything related to science. Articles in the latter two categories are serious articles; you don't want problematic editors to edit these articles. Editing politics related articles is more of a recreational game on Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this. Grundle has shown nothing but contempt for Misplaced Pages policies on any article that has even the slightest hint of a political flavor. This latest transgression should be the end of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that shows "contempt for Misplaced Pages policies"? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, ban me from science articles? Why? Please see User:Grundle2600#Articles_that_I_started for lots of science articles that I started. There's no problem with any of them. And there's no problem with BLPs that aren't related to politics either. Can you point out a single diff that I made since my last block ended that violates any wikipedia rule? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Grundle is making an honest attempt to abide by the restrictions he specifically agreed to as conditions of his unblock. On the other hand, due to his history of using Misplaced Pages more as a journalism/investigation site than an encyclopedia, I don't have a lot of faith that this will work in the long term. But until and unless he violates policy again, or goes back on his pledge to avoid political BLPs, I don't think that any further action is needed. -- Atama頭 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about:

"I vote for calling the article Climategate, as that is the most commonly used term, just as the article about Panthera leo is called Lion. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

"Q Science said, 'By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email.' I think that statistic should be added to the section of the article called 'Content of the documents.' It also seems odd that the only subsection in that section is the one about the emails. Perhaps the info about the rest of the documents doesn't have any reliable sources - yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - Grundle has been WP:ICE CREAM-ing the regulars. I think this calls for an immediate fudge sauce with walnut sprinkles. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I support Wikidemon's proposal. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that Grundle has made no effort to apologize for this infraction, and continues to argue that he has done nothing wrong. Wikidemon attempts to make light of this, as he has done in the past, but frankly Grundle's "I'm a nice guy. I've done nothing wrong" routine doesn't work on me anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, the only "infraction" is that you falsely attributed a quote to me which I never said. At first, I said that I thought that you had made an honest mistake. However, since you have not admitted your mistake, and you have not apologized, and you continue to pursue this matter against me, I now believe that what you did was a deliberate, bad faith attempt to get me blocked even though I did not break any rules. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing that. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Last week, on one of his unblock requests, he stated "Then they should ban me from all political articles from all countries, instead of blocking me, so I can still edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture" I hate to say "I told you so", but when I declined his unblock request last week, I stated "I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so." It seems clear to me that Grundle is not interested in editing in a way that avoids controversey. Immediately after being unblocked, he dove in head first into one of the biggest edit wars going on at Misplaced Pages right now. This is completely unacceptable. He claimed while blocked, several times, that all he wanted to do was avoid political articles and edit innocuous stuff. He gets unblocked, and goes right back to the same behavior has before. Can we just return his indefinite block, and call this done with. The experimental unblocking has failed after less than a week. --Jayron32 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a different unblock request, which was denied. Also, if you think that what I did was so bad, then why have you not cited any diffs to show that I broke any wikipedia rules? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section from "Grundle" to "Grundle2600" because there is another wikipedia editor named Grundle. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Having exhausted the community's goodwill, the indefinite block of Grundle2600 should be reinstated.

• Support — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• support --Jayron32 07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just a clarification, is this a proposal for a community ban? That's what we normally do with people who have exhausted the community's patience. If what is proposed is a normal block, what would be the conditions for an unblock? (I have not yet formed an opinion about the merits of either proposal.)  Sandstein  08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• One way to get unblocked is for the person to acknowledge that they broke a specific wikipedia rule, and promise not to do it again. Since I have not broken any wikipedia rule since my last block ended, there is no wrongdoing for me to acknowledge, so I could not use that argument to get unblocked. The only other way to get unblocked is to argue that the block was not justified. In this case, no block is justified, and several people have already explained why. Even the people who support blocking me have ignored my multiple requests for them to cite any diffs which show that I broke any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose So far, no one has posted any diffs of me breaking any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending some showing that Grundle2600 broke a policy or what he agreed to on his talk page. And please, could the usual suspects please avoid cowboyship by going and blocking in the middle of a discussion? Let's talk this out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, I have to agree with the two users above, someone needs to demonstrate how Grundle broke policy before we even think about a lifetime community ban. WVBluefield (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt & WVBluefield.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - No policy was broken this time, but Grundle2600 broke a pledge to avoid politically-controversial articles after being indef blocked for breaking policies in the past. Agree with Wehwalt that this needs to be properly talked out this time - let's not make this a thing that crops up every week or month. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Why not just re-apply the original conditions, without his qualifications? The case is murky, because Grundle was seemingly allowed to agree to restrictions only conditionally. If we reapply the restrictions and he breaks them, the case for an indef block will be much more clear-cut.--Cúchullain /c 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose regrettfully. Too much confusion over the exact terms of the unblock (terms asoriginally posted or as modified by Grundle) giving plenty of doubt that anything was violated. Wikilawyering by Grundle on this? Obviously! But in this case, because of a lack of clarity on the community's side, not Grundle. Ravensfire (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment What makes this even more ridiculous is that Grundle’s “violations” were made on an article talk page and not an article. This whole thread smacks of pettiness and demonstrates how one user can game the system to squash another editor. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  I beg your pardon? You'd have to be extraordinarily naive to think that article discussion does not have a direct affect on article changes. Also, I don't care for your suggestion that I am gaming the system. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Its becoming clear from the discussion above that not only has Grundle not violated any terms of his unblocking (as he wrote the terms favorably) but that you are using this forum to punish him for past run ins and not any current conduct. And for the record, an article talk page is not an article. WVBluefield (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. This matter is nothing more than the logical result of Grundle2600's actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Suport I propose modifying Grundle's ban to include any articles with political connotations. I realize this may be difficult, but Grundle has editted productively articles which have nothing to do with politics, and it would be a shame to lose those contributions. I suggest modifying his block, and having rigorous administrator oversight to ensure future relapses do not occur. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per Throwaway85. I wish either my original unblock conditions had been left intact or else people hadn't allowed so many revisions by the blocked individual. He must have known this AN/I drama-fest would happen the second he set foot in that Global Warming email hacking nightmare. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, no. Given that my talk page comments were perfectly reasonable, it never occurred to me that anyone would file an ANI complaint. And still, even now, no one has cited any wikipedia rules that I violated with my comments. There is no legitimate reason to topic ban me from articles related to global warming. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Objections to complaint based on confusion over quote attribution

Scjessey, the person who created this ANI complaint against me, wrongly attributed a quote to me which I never said. Then after I explained his mistake and posted what I really did say, I said, "I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part."

However, since then, Scjessey has not admitted that he mistakenly attributed something to me which I never said, and he has not apologized, and in fact, he has continued arguing against me. Therefore, I no longer believe that what he did was in good faith, and I no longer believe that it was an honest mistake. Instead, I now believe that Scjessey deliberately attributed a quote to me which I never said, in a bad faith attempt to get me blocked for something which I never said.

Shame on him.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about the topic ban quote here? Yes, I'd like to see Scjessey address that. Given that what is being discussed is the privilege of one editor to edit Misplaced Pages, we need to make sure what we post is accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we are talking about here.

Scjessey said:

"Despite pledging to be 'topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change,'"

But I never said that.

This is what I actually said:

"I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Jules Verne, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."

Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to see Scjessey address this point. If Scjessey is maintaining that Grundle said this, and certainly that is the implication, I'd like to see Scjessey post a diff. We get enough drama at AN/I without questionable bases for persuing a matter, if that's what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this yesterday. I'll do it again if you like. Here's the gist of it in easy-to-read points:

• Grundle2600 was indef blocked for various violations of policy, including the most sacred (see archive of ANI discussion)
• A list of "sanctions" were proposed (see archive) by User:Multixfer. "Climate change" was specifically mentioned in the list of points.
• Grundle2600 pledged (with conditions) to abide by these points diff, but no mention of "climate change" appeared in Grundle2600's conditions.
• Grundle2600 violated the agreed-upon terms by joining the debate on a highly controversial climate change-related article.

I think this is a direct violation of his "promise to be good" pledge. Even if you don't agree, you'd have to argue that it is at the very least a violation of the "spirit" of that pledge. Grundle2600 has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit or discuss political (or politically-controversial) articles in a responsible manner, either by directly violating policy or trying to push a political agenda. How much more of this must we put up with? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In Grundle's defense, his version of the conditions includes the phrase "I reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs...". I think that does cover the climate change articles for the most part. His changes are pretty cleverly written to include many of the articles that he wants to edit without imposing too many new limits on him. Ravensfire (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page Grundle2600 edited has a BLP tag at the top of it, as pointed out by another editor above. It may not be a biography, but for the protection of the various individuals being discussed within the article it certainly falls under the auspices of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does not have a BLP tag. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't have BLP tags, their discussion pages do - as in Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (the very first tag on the page). If you are going to pledge to avoid BLP articles, it would certainly be helpful if you could actually identify them! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

Grundle is to abide by the original unblock conditions without any qualification:

1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change.
3. Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to WP:SYN
4. Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes.
5. Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had disputes with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months.

This will clear up the confusion about what restrictions were placed and agreed to.--Cúchullain /c 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, I disagree. Grundle has several restrictions on him at this point from previous discussions/cases plus these new ones. Let's see if he can abide by his own restrictions without causing disruption. If he can - great! Job well done! If he can't, it should be easier to be get additional restrictions. I think he got let off the hook on this one, but maybe he'll work better under restrictions that he was able to modify, rather than have them dictated to him. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Extremely disgusted and reluctant oppose - I'm sorry to say but the unblocking admin seriously screwed the pooch here by accepting Grundle's conditions, so unless another admin wants to start the ol wheel-war fun, we're stuck with dealing with the consequences. I have no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident, but the unfortunate outcome of the unblock is that it will have to be tolerated until it crosses the line. Perhaps this will serve as a cautionary tale for the future; don't let the accused dictate the terms of the probation. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, it looks like Grundle2600 is going to get off on a technicality. Ambiguity is the friend of the accused. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Scjessey, the only "ambiguity" is that you attributed something to me which I never said. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc stated, "I have no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident." You are mistaken. The most recent edit that I made to any such article was this one from December 9. And if you look at the current version of the article, you will see that the information that I added to the article is still there - 2 weeks after I added it. In fact, even Scjessey, the person who filed this current ANI complain against me, has edited that article since I added that info, but left intact the information that I added. Thus, I have just proven that I am capable of making a positive contribution to such an article. However, if you think that my edit has made the article worse, you are free to remove that information from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• A single edit is not much of a sample to go on, and the bulk of your past disruption stemmed from talk page contributions, not article edits. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about. It's on the talk page. It's a perfectly reasonable edit. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• You continue to ignore the facts, which I have laid it in an easy-to-follow form above. You are less likely to get sanctioned if you admit your error (or even admit it could be seen as an error), instead of arguing with every editor who disagrees with your version of events. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Grundle, I voted to oppose, albeit reluctantly. Take your victories where you can and stop quibbling. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I believe it to be in the best interests of all concerned for Grundle to maintain his editing priveleges, with the caveat that he refrain from editing, or commenting on the talk pages of, any article with political connotations. I propose, as above, that an administrator undertake to monitor his edits, and ensure he does not violate said condition. While I agree that technically, he has not violated any rules since his previous block, I feel his recent edits violate the spirit of what was imposed. The unblocking admin was perhaps too quick to accept Grundle's proposed conditions. I think we can avoid much future drama, and Grundle avoid future blocks, if he agrees to adhere to the condition I have proposed. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose blocking - But this should be considered a "last chance" for the editor. I think that's the consensus I see here, most people opposing an immediate reblock do so because of a technicality and because no disruption has occurred afterward, and I'm in that camp. But I don't see many people putting a great deal of faith in him. I say that if he can somehow avoid trouble, despite his history, then great. If he acts as everyone expects he will, then there's cause for the indefinite block to be reinstated. -- Atama頭 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is not a last chance for Grundle, because as far as I can tell, he has not done anything wrong. He is within the scope of his editing restrictions. Now, I will say that possibly the unblocking admin should not have let Grundle amend the understanding that way, but it did pass by unremarked, and Grundle's entitled. The edit itself seems unobjectionable. I would say that I'm far more upset at Scjessey. Either Scjessey's complaint that began all of this lacked clarity, or it lacked candor. I have my opinion on which, but I AGF. Frankly, I see nothing further to do here. Let's close all of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the thorough explanation you requested. As far as I am concerned, Grundle2600 agreed not to involve himself in politically-contentious areas of Misplaced Pages, and he went back on that agreement. That is my interpretation, which I have made in good faith. Indeed, Grundle2600 continues to involve himself in the same article, with this proposal. Bear in mind that Grundle2600 was expected to act "whiter than white" in order to get the indef block rescinded. If Grundle has not done anything wrong, then perhaps the failure to properly restrict Grundle in the first place should be addressed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is within the scope of his editing restrictions. Thus, he did not do anything wrong. Nothing further to be done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Grundle has wriggled out from under this one, but his choice to wriggle is disconcerting. This edit to the Irish Famine article is disconcerting, too: he tries to put the famine in the context of laws that had been repealed a generation or more before. So, he'll be back, and I will gladly bet the under for January 5. PhGustaf (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• PhGustaf, I was not aware that those laws had been repealed. I was just citing what was in the source. I am interested in accuracy, so thank you for pointing that out to me. This was not a deliberate attempt on my part to add false information. If you look at the source that I cited, I think you will see that my edit was done in good faith. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first line of Section I of your source says, "The Penal Laws, dating from 1695, and not repealed in their entirety until Catholic emancipation in 1829,...". PhGustaf (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's my fault for not reading every word of the source. It was a careless mistake on my part, which I should not have done. But it was not a deliberate attempt to add false information. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Legendary Sky Attacker

User:DIREKTOR

I decide to write this WP:ANI because DIREKTOR made fun of SirFloyd once more, ignoring my requests of changing his way of talking one more time. User:DIREKTOR keeps making fun of other users editing on http://en.wikipedia.org/Josip_Broz_Tito. He keeps assuming their bad faith and he keeps teasing them, using provokingly language towards them. Even if many users have pointed out to him that they felt offended by his way of talking he keeps refusing apologising or at least changing his way of talking towards them. He keeps de-legitimating other users sources too even if they are from academics saying that the passages which may be perceived as critical towards Tiro (in his user page he says he supports "Josip Broz Tito's views") are based on fascist authors even if it isn’t true (for example “Heh, lol. Unsurprisingly, the source of that is Borivoje Karapandžić, a well known Ljotićevac ("Ljotić-ist"), a Serbian fascist. I'll get back to you on him”). ”). See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito) in the “unsourced”, “Hoping you're not just deleting passages”, “Encyclopaedia Britannica/BBC UK-History”,”This article is an embarrassment to the free Western world”, “This week in the news”, “Question” and “A week at the Tito article” sections. He keeps refusing confrontation too (for example “Enough of this nonsense”). He keeps calling User:AP1929 an Ustase (which is an insult, as Ustase are generally portrayed as criminals) for example when he, out of nothing, says the other users to “be advised that User:AP1929 is a well known Ustaše POV-pusher” in order to de-legitimate his comments, he keeps saying AP1929 edits because of a “political agenda”, he keeps assuming his bad faith accusing him of trying to deceive people (“you are either mentally unable to grasp … or, which seems more likely, you are trying to deceive people here”) and of pushing “incredible nonsense”. He keeps acting like this even if User:AP1929 says “I am highly insulted by several things DIREKTOR has produced right here on this very page” and he didn’t apologise. He admits "I find it personally hard to work in such a environment". He keeps accusing User:Sir_Floyd of editing because of a “political agenda” too (“you're intent on adding unrelated information to push a political agenda”), of being “simply unable to comprehend” “as always”, of “keep(ing) on pushing your POV” (“User:Sir Floyd added his standard cherry-picked quotes”), assuming his bad faith too. He keeps making fun of him (“Ah, User:Sir Floyd talks of "offensive behavior" and "productivity"”). He keeps acting like this even if User:Sir_Floyd says “I agree! It's offensive and it's not productive” and “Good one Mr Director, insulting the whole Croatian people (& Kosovo) to the core. This time you have gone too far. In order to clear this up, can you please explain your comment” and he didn’t clear his comment nor he apologise. He keeps making fun of other users (me, Sir_Floyd, AP1929 and User:ShadowRangerRIT by adding brief comments -to other users’comments- like “LoL” and “Heh, always fun”). He keeps accusing me editing because of a “agenda” too, saying my “criticism is nonsensical” when I asked to him why he deleted passages without transporting them elsewhere. He keeps assuming my bad faith too (“I see my unavoidable temporary absence was exploited to full effect”,” Its not "collaboration" (you seek) if you just insert your POV because I'm away”,” you just added the tags after pieces of text you disliked”) accusing me of “undecency” (a thing which I paticularly think it’s offensive) and threatening me of deleting my edits (“You may rest assured that 90% of the undiscussed POV edits you quickly sneaked in will be promptly reverted”), even if my edits were only insertions of requests for citations and the transportation of quotes to wikiquote. To understand the situation maybe you can see here too (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:AlasdairGreen27_trolling_once_more_2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Legal_threats_by_User:AP1929). In the first (and last till now) WP:ANI I opened I discovered users here on en.wiki thought articles on the Balkans should be avoided and that they were considered battlefields from two opposite groups of users, pushing their POVs. As you can see from the WP:ANI above they may be right. However, even if the discussion is often harsh there (to my surprise) this fact mustn’t justify a behavior contrary to wikipedia policies. When an user makes me understood that one comment I made could be perceived as offensive towards DIREKTOR I apologised to DIREKTOR on Tito’s talk page and on his talk page. So it is possible not to be unpolite on those articles. Then why can’t he use a different way of talking, like other users are trying to do? Why hasn’t he apologise like I do? Why has he made fun of my way of talking because of its politeness? Why i keep writing on the talk page what i have changed in order for others to question my edits and he can’t? Why when I told him “Can't we discuss instead?” does he have to make fun of me (“I'm sad that you're so sad. :)”,” He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way”,” Its a mad house, a maaad house”) even if I pointed out a lot of times to him that I was offended by his way of talking (“Telling to another user he/she has not behaved in a decent way is offensive, even if you put a smile after it. Can you please stop talking this way to me? Maybe you think it's not offensive to write that way, but i feel offended. Thanks”,” keep ignoring my request to stop talking to me like this, because saying "He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way" and "Its a mad house, a maaad house" or calling other users "Ustase guy" (as the Ustase are generally portrayed as criminals) is offensive and irritating, as you are teasing and making fun of me and of other users by saying those kind of things. Please use another way of talking towards me and the others. Thanks.”)? . The fact that this WP:ANI deals with a Balkan article shouldn’t make this WP:ANI different from any other WP:ANI. The fact that an old user (DIREKTOR) is involved shouldn’t have to justify his behavior too as he hasn’t gained a sort of immunity because of the numbers of its edits. I hope you’ll do something. Even if it is restricting all users involved in this and the previous WP:ANIs on the same article from writing on it for a year or more, as the situation as to be solved. Thanks. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. This should get some kind of prize. Mathsci (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The user obviously needs a warning, and I would suggest a block only if he kept this up. For some reason, I want to think his account is compromised, as this seems to be a lot from such an accomplished user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, if someone actually bothers to check these quotes one can easily notice that there is nothing malicious in these comments, at all. A warning for not matching the painful politeness of the other guy? Do I really have to go through these quotes one by one?

To save some poor soul the trouble of going through all this, the gist is: 1) I have not even come close to insulting anyone, 2) User:AndreaFox2 is annoyed by informal conversation, and 3) the fellow is trying to get me banned for daring to oppose his edits, by cherry-picking perfectly benign comments and presenting them in a "sinister" context. The trouble he faces is that despite his best efforts its still plainly obvious there is no malice in them at all. --DIREKTOR 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of turning out "manipulative" or something, I'll still say I am confident no serious Wikipedian will be deceived by this collection of out-of-context quotes. I deal with controversial issues, there's a lot of guys trying to get me banned so they'd have free reign over these obscure Balkans articles. A reminder: no insults have been presented here. WP:NPA has not been violated. 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)--DIREKTOR

I withdraw the statement above, as no one else has complained here. I guess one can get ticked off, but I'll remain neutral and suggest that you get a trouting instead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I deserve it. I wasn't being as careful as I should've been with this guy. Apparently he'll manipulate my words whenever he gets a chance. Best make sure he does not get one. --DIREKTOR 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing to watch how this DIREKTOR goes away with his disruptions each and every time. "his account is compromised", "out-of-context quotes" etc etc. yeah right. whats next? the dog eat his homework?  Dr. Loosmark  02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, it looks like it'll work eventually. If these guys just keep posting nonsense reports like this eventually it'll look like I "get away with it every time". I suppose it only a matter of time before one of these ridiculous-type reports eventually gets me blocked. After all, it wouldn't be "fair" if I "got away with" every single report, would it?

Guys, I'm not "getting away" with anything - there is practically nothing to get away with. Please, please look carefully at these sort of cunning traps before making a decision, please look at every one separately, and please bear in mind there's a lot of weekend-editor guys here who want to push the POV of their petty Balkans faction - a lot of people want me banned and will write-up the equivalent of War and Peace here if they think it'll do the job. Over here, the people who just want everyone to get along are a minority. --DIREKTOR 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Every time everybody else is pushing their POV while you are the objective protector of the NPOV.  Dr. Loosmark  02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What can I say at this point? You're making an assessment of my neutrality based solely on the number of nonsense posts that have been flung at me. What do I say to that? Study-up on ex-Yugoslav history and then investigate my edits?

All I can tell you is that I have so far been attacked by supporters from every single Balkans faction - Serbs, Croats (I'm a Croat), Albanians, Bosniaks, and even Italians, and that it seems like all I ever do is keep screaming: "show me the sources". --DIREKTOR 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, the only thing I find amazing is that every time someone complains about DIREKTOR, you appear and complain about how he gets off easier than you. Just let it go, not everyone's situation is the same.

DIREKTOR, some of those comments weren't the most civil, I hope you admit that. But there's nothing actionable that I can see. Just don't throw gasoline on the fire if you can help it. -- Atama頭 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're making an assessment of my neutrality based solely on the number of nonsense posts that have been flung at me. Not at all. I have checked some of your edits the last time you were a "guest" on this board and I have to say that I have noticed a certain type of self-rightness which annoys a lot of people. Mind I'm not saying that some of those editors with whom you interact aren't nationalistic POV pushers, they are. Still your constant cries that you are attacked by all those factions is over the top. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a nationalist attacking you.
@Atama indeed not everyone's situation is the same. Had I done 10% of the stuff we have seen in this report I'd be blocked already. But let's not go into that.  Dr. Loosmark  03:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

@Dr. Loosmark. I've seen guys get blocked or even banned on a whim or without the situation being properly addressed, I'm sorry if that happened in your case, and I hope you realize its something I'm actually trying to avoid. You should probably keep in mind that I'm working in the "Balkans department", "the trenches" as AlisdairGreen27 calls it. Proper civility is rare. Which brings me to my next reply

@Atama. Of course I admit it, but I was obviously being careful not to take things too far. I can only say again that its taken out of context. A few half-joking comments on someone's habit of unnecessarily apologizing in every post is nothing compared to some of the stuff being dished out there. Just for example, I've been accused on two occasions of insulting my own country, and all sorts of other crazy nonsense... --DIREKTOR 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"half-joking comments on someone's habit" hmmm.  Dr. Loosmark  16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(TLDR) It is you AndreaFox2 that should have been banned long time ago under the Balkans policy for extreme PoV pushing on the Tito article. Last time I checked it 95% of your "references" were removed because they were cherry-picked defamatory quotes you intentionally twisted to make Tito look as bad as possible. Now you want to take revenge on DIREKTOR because he's one of the last normal guys that has enough patience to deal with your ilk. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think my TLDR tag was appropriate. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is strange he is "one of the last normal (are you saying i am "unnormal"?) guys that has enough patience to deal with your ilk" as i have written on Tito's page only starting from few weeks ago (two weeks exactly, if i remember correctly). I "should have been banned": why? Because I disagree with you? Do you understand that i'm reporting exactly your type of behavior, which is aggressive and offessive even if you haven't been provokated? You forgot to say that you and DIREKTOR were the ones deleting them. If you have something to report about my behavior you should have to open a WP:ANI about me: there, not here, you can discuss about my behavior. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator attention likely needed

DIREKTOR puts up with a ridiculous amount of BS over on Balkans related articles. Does he always react to it perfectly? No, but rarely is he the instigator. If you look at DIREKTOR's history on AN/I you'll find a string of POV pushers who bring him here that are inevitably indef blocked or banned for said pushing or for socking. It's a frustrating area to edit in, and if anything he should be commended for putting up with so much crap. He'll likely end up at ArbCom at some point, and likely we'll see an expansion of WP:ARBMAC. In the meantime, the articles he's editing likely need some admin attention. I've edited extensively in the area, so I can't use my tools and am frankly still burned out from the conflicts. User:Ricky81682 may be burned out as well, though User:Future Perfect at Sunrise does some work policing the area. It's not fun and you will be accused of everything under the sun, but it's also necessary. Any admins willing to step up? I think the two most likely articles that need some eyes are probably Josep Broz Tito and Ante Pavelić. AniMate 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He does have his own uber-NPOV POV of sorts (see Talk:Communist Romania), but I don't recall him doing anything remotely blockable. Pcap ping 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) But others did, apparently Pcap ping 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here he is edit-warring once again deleting NPOV edits (mostly citation tags) from other users even if his behavior is being questioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history. Here he is talking about an other user in Slavic (Croat?)and he admits he follows his contributions to delete them ("I've undone most of the damage by following his contribs, this has to stop"):http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Mljet.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Here he refuses to change his behavior:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Sorry.2C_but_it_seemed_necessary_to_me.Here is an example of how users thinks "that the wiki works better when you stay away from and don't disturb the editor Direktor": http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sir_Floyd. As it isn't the first time he is being reported for the same things, maybe something should be done, like the proposal i made in my first comment. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To keep out the potential socks & newbies. Those articles-in-question should be (and remain) semi-protected (including the respective talkpages). GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@Atama: here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Foibe) you see he and an other user were the instigators of what happened later --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

P.s. He even admitted making "half-joking comments on someone's habit" ... --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaFox2, I see you really are doing your absolute best to get me blocked. Either that or you're trying to ruin my holidays (and not just mine). You're even going around calling in anyone you think may support you. I expect we may hear from User:AP1929, as "he was mentioned". I might consider mentioning all my buddies on Wiki too, so that I may canvass as well. And yes, I admit, in my opinion you apologize too much - you caught me. I said you would "get what you want apologizing all the way". This is what the "half-joking remark on someone's habit" was. I apologize for the personal attack. If you require therapy to get over it, I'm willing to cover the expenses (that was another :).

I am trying, as I was then, to lighten the mood of the overly-serious conversation. There was nothing at all malicious in my comment, I suspect all this is is an attempt to win a dispute by getting the other guy out of the way. --DIREKTOR 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks that way to me too. AniMate 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:PCHS-NJROTC has unilaterally declared another user to be "banned"

User:PCHS-NJROTC seems to have a particular interest in what they refer to as "cheerleader vandals". They have seem to have decided that there is a ring of "cheerleader vandals" who spread their message via secret "chain letters". PCHS-NJROTC has recently added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader, the account which they seem to believe is the ringleader, despite having only 11 edits. The edit summary was "Has been banned for a while, ought to be tagged". LBHS Cheerleader does indeed appear on the list of banned users, because PCHS-NJROTC added them.

When I asked PCHS-NJROTC about this, their responses were somewhat evasive. Apparently there was no community discussion of a ban nor any decision to ban this user. I am concerned that a user has been improperly labeled as "banned", based on the somewhat dubious decree of a single editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's already been settled. Not officially banned, taken off the banned list, template removed, issue resolved. PCHS-NJROTC 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just be to clear, LBHS is indef banned: 19:18, 28 January 2008 Philippe (talk | contribs | block) blocked LBHS Cheerleader (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean to write "blocked"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, seriously, I'd not letting a troll win this by convincing a user that I am "power hungry," so unless admins here seriously think there's a need for an "official ban," let this one drop as simple vandalism for my sake. The vandals will be blocked one way or another anyway unless they behave and contructively contribute, in which case there's no reason to hold their past against them in my opinion. I feel as if the general community has been very supportive of my efforts to fight this particular vandal, but I'm done with them entirely. This is not worth my good name. PCHS-NJROTC 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood why I brought this here. You declared a user to be banned when they weren't and then you dissembled when asked about it. Apparently there were other accounts affected by this, based on your actions since this thread started. Edits like this are not appropriate even if you suspect someone of being a vandal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I quit, since you're going to try to persue action over something I was never warned about, and occured when I was practically a newbie, after I chose not to run checkuser on your account. Bye Misplaced Pages. PCHS-NJROTC 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One person complains about you, no one else backs him up, and you quit within 4 messages? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I quit because this is not the first time I've been sanctioned over this kind of mess. I realize I am imperfect, and I tried to handle this within reason, but I will not be sanctioned because of a troll, which is why DC is being so... unreasonable? This was not over 4 messages. I hope this point is heard loud and clear. PCHS-NJROTC 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in where it is really none of my business, I don't feel that Delicious carbuncle is being at all unreasonable. In fact he could of been much more direct in his communication, and told you quite plainly that you are way out of line putting banned messages on any pages. Beach drifter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocks where no admin is willing to unblock is pretty much a ban. Since the vandal keeps coming back under new accounts, we're tossing the socks as we find them. PCHS-NJROTC is familiar with the long term abuse and for ease of processing, tags the account(s) as banned. Not seeing the problem here. Shell 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this SPI case. Absent the bogeyman of "cheerleader vandals" why did User:Jess Selders 2012 get indef blocked? A 2 minute Google search show that there is a Jessica Selders at Charlotte High. Let's not get into this bans are just blocks etc bullshit. PCHS-NJROTC is quickly undoing all of their edits relating to this "ban", so I think they see the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's over DC. Someone block my account at my request please, that way this discussion can just be closed and forgotten. I feel I have seriously wasted my time with certain elements of this project. For the record, just because Jessica Selders is a real person doesn't mean she has the right to edit. Are you trying to say that LBHS Cheerleader is a robot? Seriously... PCHS-NJROTC 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As my last request, I would like a full blown sockpuppet investigation on DC; I think more than ever now that he is the same as the Cricket IP user troll. PCHS-NJROTC 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made my point for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe they're undoing it because you've continued to push the issue despite it being clear that PCHS-NJROTC really isn't doing anything but defending the 'pedia from rather long term abuse. PCHS hasn't blocked any of these accounts and has used appropriate channels. Laying this on one editor's doorstep with some rather nasty accusations and hyperbole might just be the real problem here. BTW editors interested in playing around rather than contributing have been known to use real names before, even one's that aren't their own (shocking, isn't it) - that's hardly an indication of good will given the contributions of that account. Shell 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. What if Jessica Selders wasn't even responsible for that, and she got into some real life "crap" over it all? Wouldn't that just be special? I reverted everything to sastisfy you, which was evidently a waste. No, undoing everything like that right now in order to "hide" something would be stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't really see me as that ignorant. You're probably going to be nailed for AGF among other things. You have this entirely backwards, and you're just mad that I made a big deal about the name issue. Bye. PCHS-NJROTC 05:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I lied that I'm done with this entirely; I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible (and may I add she most likely was not), and if not, I personally feel the username needs to be changed and her edits be oversighted. Of course, that will be my last contributions to this project, although I'm having second thoughts if the community isn't going to unreasonable as DC has. But only if. PCHS-NJROTC 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In short, I realize it looks kind of silly that I'm leaving this over one person. It's not that I can't handle it, it's not that it's just this, it's that I need a break from the drama. I realize I have a lot of support here, and probably some opposition too. Fact is, I know just being the subject of a report here hurts one's reputation no matter how outlandish (unless it's blatant abuse, where it gets reverted immediately), and I feel it's time to seriously take a Wikibreak or even retire to cool down this stigma that has been brought upon me. PCHS-NJROTC 05:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it, anyone who doesn't take the time to look and see what happened doesn't matter. See you later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the retirement templates so that the IP troll won't see "victory" and try it with other users. Bascially, I have to continue to contribute now just so the troll don't get his wish. DC wouldn't even satisfy with that anyway. I restored the entry at LTA because it appears consenus that consenus has been in my favor here. But I'm done fighting LBHS Cheerleader. I never lost my cool or anything; I only wanted to settle the dispute. See, when it comes to legitimate users, I prefer to settle issues without getting into a lot of heat. Sigh, guess I'd never pass an RfA, but who needs RfA anyway? Darn, all of this to try to stop baseing everything on a possible link to another banned user, what a misunderstanding this has been. PCHS-NJROTC 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude. When you start talking in terms of "you" and "them" and using words like "victory", you are getting trolled. Just relax, move on to an area where you aren't emotionally involved and come back in a week's time. It is not important to win. Look at it this way. Your "opponent" has nearly limitless time, resources and entry points. Attempting to resolve the issue through provocative edit notices, formal bans and direct engagement is a fool's errand. The only course of action which will avail you is to drain the emotion out of the issue, limit the time and extent of the impact on mainspace and wait for them to grow bored. No one is served by your flaring up. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restarting serious discussion

There is a real issue here seems to have been lost under a torrent of emotional outbursts. An editor who had made a total of 11 edits (assuming there are no deleted edits) was indef blocked for what is very run-of-the-mill vandalism. That isn't abnormal. Having a single editor -- who seems to be on some kind of crusade relating to the high school which they attend -- decide that they are banned, is abnormal. The "a ban is just a block that no one is willing to lift" argument is a false equivalency, since we don't add all blocked accounts to a page which states "Banning is different from blocking".

From what I have seen of the "cheerleader vandal" threat, it is nothing more or less than simple vandalism and it is unproductive to elevate it to anything more. It seems likely to me that IPs and accounts have been blocked on spurious grounds because PCHS-NJROTC has associated them with this bogeyman. Certainly labeling users such as User:Random Chick236 as "banned" when they are not even blocked is wholly inappropriate (as is the edit summary "Give up kid, you're not funny. Try being contructive for a change"). Can we deal with the issue (unilateral declarations of bans by a single, overly-involved user) now, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A user who has edits that solely consist of blanking articles on various high schools and replacing them with a message that praises his/her own school and does so consistently and with several possible alternate accounts after the original is blocked seems to be an indefinite block candidate to me, especially when subsequent sockpuppet accounts deliberately vandalize and attempt delete articles on rival schools. Whether it is right or wrong to label a de facto banned user as banned is besides the point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Without having confirmed it, I suspect that PCHS-NJROTC personally identified most of those as sockpuppets, just as they decided that certain users were "banned". Take a look at User:Monsterbob234. PCHS-NJROTC added the sockpuppet template and "Hello to you to, here's my welcome wagon unwelcome wagon:" and the edit summary "Go to hell pollywog". The user appears to have made exactly one edit that is at all related to cheerleading. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that this particular usage should be unblocked since they appear to be a vandalism only account, but I doubt they are a sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader and I don't think the message or edit summary were appropriate. Do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DC, although some of what you say about being "tag happy" may be true, you must see how holding what happened over a year ago (before my grandmother's death even for goodness sake) is unreasonable. I'm sure there's actions you took as a newbie that you would not take at present because of experience. I have learned a lot since then, but I cannot go back and erase my "renegade, tag happy vandal fighting" past. More recent cases have been blatantly obvious. Jess Selders 2012 was not just blocked because of a random sockpuppetry accusation, but rather because there was a pattern of abuse, and because CheerleaderAgainstROTCFacism jumped in the middle of the discussion, pretty much proving my point. Now lets WP:AGF, say the latter wasn't the same person, the Jess Selders account actually belonged to Jessica Selders, and Jess only wanted to help the project. If that's the case, it should be the troll behind CARF on trial here, not me. If the two accounts are not linked, Jess was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If JS was indeed responsible for Jess Selders 2012 (and there's a significant chance that she was not), and she wants her name cleared of the sockpuppetry stigma, then she needs to request a username change. If the real person is not responsible, then I imagine she'd want the username changed so that her name is not involved in all of this. PCHS-NJROTC 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion you have manufactured a false threat of "cheerleader vandals" which you have used to have editors blocked for small amounts of simple vandalism. I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence that any such group exists, or is a cause for concern if they do exist. Your histrionic message in this SPI case is ripe with speculation (and includes the all-caps "THESE GIRLS ARE RELENTLESS TROLLS AND NEED NOT BE FED!"). In that rant, you again asserted that User:LBHS Cheerleader was banned when you said "So does the "wiki-love" for those who (unknowing of their ban) give them a second chance". Editors can look at the details of the SPI case themselves, I'm not interested in getting sidetracked by going into the details. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is that DC is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, and I'm sure you can all agree that I've been completely reasonable in the handleing of this case aside from contemplating retirement. Actually, retirement, along with my removal of all references to the user in question being banned, was all no more than a failed attempt to compromise. No emotions, no anger, just an attempt to compromise. Thought if I left just like that he'd have been satisfied. It seems as if I have set DC on fire when I challeged his disclosure of my real life name in a particular discussion, which he claims was coincidental. Is biting a troll really any better than him biting an established user? It should be clear to everyone here that anyone that would continue to persue action at AN/I after an honest user in question has already agreed to cave is seeking punishment, not prevention. We block and ban as a preventative measure, not to punish; it's all laid out at the blocking policy. IMO, consensus is that LBHSC is defacto banned. My only intention in adding LBHSC to the banned list was to stop assuming that LBHSC could be considered banned under User:Bobabobabo as the idea was pure speculation anyway. I see nothing unreasonable about the movement; we can't use such speculation against users suspected to be linked to LBHSC, but since she's been considered banned for quite sometime, I felt that she needed to be added to the list independantly. I was being WP:BOLD, which is encouraged here, and I didn't discuss it first because I wanted to WP:Deny recognition. PCHS-NJROTC 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever this LBHSC person is, she is not Bobabobabo. Bobabobabo edit warred over anime episode list articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, I got involved in this issue only because I watchlisted User:LBHS Cheerleader's page after you made some frankly bizarre accusations on my talk page and elsewhere. For your sake, I won't link to them directly, but the discussion is http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#WP:VILLAGE here]. I believe you know that what you did was wrong and I believe you lied about it in our initial discussion because you knew that. Your subsequent actions suggest that you are trying as hard as you can to get out of this without admitting that. I think it's too late for that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that PCHS's concerns were not real. I am not saying that you did or did not correctly guess his first name there, but if someone posted MY real first name in an on-wiki discussion about me or with me, I'd be a little disturbed and confused myself. This is beginning to look more and more like a personal battle, and I think both sides need to disengage and return to neutral corners. There does not appear to be much to be gained here, and its getting nasty in both directions. I'm not sure any admin action is appropriate here, but the entire mess looks just like personal sniping, and not much more. --Jayron32 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I used a very common male first name in an example of trivial vandalism during a discussion with PCHS-NJROTC (which was my first encounter with them). PCHS-NJROTC claims that it is their first name. I will assume good faith and assume that it is, but I have repeatedly said that I did not, and do not, know their name, so it was not deliberately chosen. That they now believe that I am a meatpuppet of the "cheerleader vandals" should speak to their eagerness to find connections where none are likely to exist.

This isn't personal. I'm not here complaining about possible personal attacks or esoteric content disputes - PCHS-NJROTC unilaterally decided that another user was banned, used that label to influence block on likely uninvolved users, reverted edits of at least one user (who wasn't even blocked) as a banned user based on their mistaken identification as a sockpuppet of the original target. I have absolutely no stake in this or any influence over the actions of any of the parties. At the very least a clear statement from a clueful admin condemning their actions is required, but I would suggest that a topic ban on vandalism would be wise. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban? That's sillyness; talk about "cool down blocks" and being counter productive. No, just let it drop as half of what you're rehashing is ancient anyway, and did I mention that there was a checkuser in all of this way back when? In fact, the very term "cheerleader vandal" was not my invention, but rather that of User:Zzuuzz in a request for checkuser which was followed up by User:Alison. DC seems to be "out to get me" here as if I'm the only one working with this. User:PMDrive1061, who blocked the sockpuppets in the most recent case, has not challenged my actions, neither have User:Fullmetal Falcon who shares my pain in that he was once a quite active editor of the pages that LBHSC has been targeting. I am trusted with rollback for a reason, Lord knows I have not abused it. For the record, User:Shell Kinney, who is becomeing part of the WP:ArbCom, has pointed out that you are in the wrong DC. Perhaps we should topic ban DC from AN/I? I personally think a topic ban on anyone would be counter productive here, and frankly, count me out as a contributer to the project if the suggestion even comes close to being seriously considered. There's a reason why administrative action should not be taken on either side of these kind of heated matters, and it's because such actions make matters worse. I am completely done with this; this is a waste of the admins' time. PCHS-NJROTC 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Thank you for making my point here for me Jayron. As I was saying... Right, I now agree that it is a longshot that LBHSC is Bobabobabo; the basis behind the speculation was the fact that she was going by the name "Jessica" (in multiple incidents), and begging everybody like Boba, but the modus operandi was completely different. However, I see that some people were basing decisions on this "possibility," so I decided that something had to be done to halt the mistaken specualtion being referenced to as fact. Trying to get out of this? No, I'm not in anything, and I really feel it is inappropriate that you made a subsection implying that arguements against you was not "serious discussion." Do you honestly think you could deal with the trolls better than I have? Note that not all "cheerleader vandals" are LBHS Cheerleader, a fact that I acknowledge. Bizzare accusations? For one, I cannot stand to see you attempt to "stick up" for a blatant troll, regardless of whether (s)he's a sock. Random harassment is not something that I'm used to seeing just "happen" out of no where. Off-wiki, people claiming to be cheerleaders from LBH have behaved in much the same way Mr. Cricket has, which is why I suggested the possiblity. Some of these LBHSC trolls have said off-wiki that they used to be admins/established users much the same way as Mr. Cricket. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Cricket is not a current cheerleader at LBH, however, because Cricket is not a carrier in Florida. To cut to the chase, what do you intend to accomplish with this thread? Revenge? Help for a troll? A name for yourself? Victory? Some kind of punative action towards me? What policies have I violated? What is your point? PCHS-NJROTC 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Jayron, I propose a speedy closure of this fiasco. I'm trying to keep my cool here and make peace; DC needs to do the same. PCHS-NJROTC 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat off topic, but I managed to find this "Jessica Selders" on Myspace.com, and the original text that the user added to her user page is a direct copy and paste from the "about me" section of her profile. If the vandal was not actually Jessica Selders, then it was a copyright violation. PCHS-NJROTC 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not important. Stop looking too far into this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion anyway; I just thought that would be interesting food for thought for anyone following this issue. I've called for closure of this discussion, and I hereby disassociate myself from this pointless debate. Have a Merry Christmas. PCHS-NJROTC 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ending discussion

My major incivility issues that DC have pointed out are ancient history and have disappeared in the last year. Any incivility I've demonstrated in more recent time have been no more than what is typically demonstrated by the average vandal fighter. Vandal fighters are human; they are not going to by "nicey nice" 100% of the time; you might see the occasional "grow up" or "why can't you just be constructive" comment from me aimed at a vandal, but I've come a long way from telling people "go to hell pollywog." Heck, I've even tried to stray away from telling people "grow up" for fear of controversy. The ancient issues were already addressed. I really find it ironic that DC can't be forgiving of an established users' past, yet he expects us to be perfect angels when it comes to dealing with people like User:LBHS Cheerleader and User:Jess Selders 2012, which general consensus is that they're linked. I've WP:AGFed with DC's posting of my name, but everyone must see the heat my questioning of the post has caused, and that an IP troll saw it as a perfect time to get all of this nonsense brewed. Anyone who fuels this debate fuels the hopes and dreams of an IP editor who calls User:McSly a "flaming homosexual," his own ISP's staff "outsourced sandniggers," and me a "retarded rotc dork" aka Hitler Youth who is power hungry and lives in a double-wide . Why are we discussing this? I cannot help but think that DC is simply mad, and I think the best solution is to just axe this whole discussion now. "Not looking good" as an edit summary? The IP editor, who hadn't edited anything related to me in a while, comes in out of no where and bad mouths me right when DC and I are in a discussion, and DC takes him seriously? DC references to my name (reportedly unintentionally, which I'll accept) about a month after the IP troll did the same? Now DC is on some kind of man hunt to basically get me in trouble after I PO'd him and his IP friend? Put two and two together here AN/I. I'm not saying DC is a sockmaster, but something awefully funny is going on here. PCHS-NJROTC 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think many people are feeling somewhat uncomfortable getting involved with this. I certainly would prefer not to, but I will say that it seems to me that Delicious Carbuncle asked a fair and simple question. What has transpired after that seems solely due to the manner in which PCHS-NJROTC responded. Delicious Carbuncle has certainly not deserved to be served with rambling, accusatory screeds which seem to fail to address the substance of DC's queries while ascribe to DC accusations which I have not seen him make. And no, what is going on here is not funny by a longshot, awful, definitely. Unomi (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Without having read everything, This is my view. User PCHS-NJROTC has made some mistakes, the majority of them seems to be in the past, and he has learned from them. I suggest that this AN/I will serve as sufficient "punishment" for his old issues. I agree that it does seem suspicious that DC was pushed the issue, after P-ROTC has tried to resolve this issue, however there is no evidence that the user is in violation of policy. I suggest that this AN/I serve as a warning to both parties, and thats it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader on 19 December, so this has little to do with their history of abusive comments although it does show a pattern. You need to read the entire thread before offering opinions such as those above. What is it you think I need to be "warned" about? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for me to read an entire discussion. IAC, what I did see however, is a user admit that he made mistakes, and indicated an understanding of those problems. When the user became aware that their recent edit was disruptive, as in the discussion here, the user removed the template, without prompting, which shows good faith on his part. What I think you need to be warned about, is that when a user shows good faith in that his actions were not intended to harm anyone or damage the encyclopedia, you should lay off. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to read an entire discussion? That is enlightening. In that case, having not acquainted myself with the facts, it is quite clearly obvious that you are wrong on several points, for reasons which I do not think it is worth going into here. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

May I point out, since it appears that one of my comments was misread, that I did not litterally mean any of this is "funny," but rather, I meant "suspicious." Issues at AN/I are always affected by the response from the involved party(s); had I responded with "f*** you losers" as some users have in past discussions I'd have been blocked without question for showing bad faith, so blaming anything on my response is not a valid arguement. I believe that Sephiroth storm's point is that DC needs to assume good faith as I had removed all references to the apparent "ban" as soon as they were questioned here as an offered settlement. I also pledged to disassociate myself with the trolling issue, which I will hold true to aside from reverting blatant vandalism where I naturally see it and issuing standard warnings levels one through four. Is any of this official business really needed? If LBHS Cheerleader apparently shouldn't be officially banned for "simple vandalism," why should a legitimate user be officially topic banned after he has already agreed to disassociate himself? PCHS-NJROTC 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Allow me to express myself one last time... I will not have my name here (PCHS-NJROTC) tarnished over some IP troll giving an established user ideas to go looking for "power hunger" in my history of edits. Period. Done. Already decided. Please, speedy closure, please. I will not be topic banned or otherwise sanctioned; anyone seriously thinking of imposing sanctions is going to have to permaban User:Vandal Fighter Killed in Action from Misplaced Pages entirely if they think this is worth a ban. I do have a right to vanish, and as to go through any kind of "punishment" (which isn't something I believe in on-wiki as actions are supposed to be preventative), I would just assume vanish forever. That's what the talks of retirement were about. Sanctions could be troublesome for me in real life, and it's not worth the risk to go through all of this for a troll. May I add that a ban from this would probably be a quite unpopular movement. Anyway, I don't care; if it's that serious, change my name, and then ban me, but disassociate all of my actions from the name "PCHS-NJROTC" if that's your course of action. I do, however, doubt that this will happen since there's no consensus to do it. This is not "pouting;" this is my true opinion. Have I not made myself clear I want nothing further to do with this or LBHS Cheerleader? PCHS-NJROTC 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

I've dragged this back out of the archives to get some resolution. PCHS-NJROTC seems to have put a metaphorical gun to their own head and threatened to shoot themselves if anyone tried to get too close, but that doesn't do anything to address the issue. I am not sure why admins seem so reluctant to get involved with what seems fairly cut-and-dried to me. Is it ok for users to unilaterally claim other users are banned? If it is, I've got some people I think I will add to the banned list. If it isn't, what do you want to do about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer, as I'm sure you well know, is that only ArbCom or the community can ban a user, not a single individual (well, except for Jimbo Wales). PCHS-NJROTC screwed up, but he's no doubt learned the difference between a ban and a block by now – and he let the issue drop. I suggest you do the same. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a recent case where an admin assumed community support and unilaterally banned a user, but that is not terribly relevant here. Why do you assume PCHS-NJROTC has learned anything from this? I haven't seen any clear admission that they did anything wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I offer settlement in the case, offer to disassociate myself with the LBHSC case, and learn not to be too WP:BOLD in any situation; basically, I've learned that pretty much everything needs to be thoroughly discussed before any action is taken beyond normal procedure. My error was assuming a ban because others had cited a ban when dealing with the user. Although I merely was trying to be bold and put an end in the groundless assumption that LBHSC was Bobabobabo just because I speculated that they might be linked, I was wrong. Admission to wrong doing is always a bad idea (except when praying to God); investigation comes to a halt with confession, and usually the person who offers confession is hammered. Despite, I have now given you what you want; I have spelled it out in bold letters for you. Now, can you move on now please? PCHS-NJROTC 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but your explanation doesn't add up. If you thought that LBHS Cheerleader was a sockpuppet of banned user User:Bobabobabo, why did you remove the {{sockpuppet|Bobabobabo}} tag when you added the {{Banned user}} tag? And your very next edit was to dispute the connection between the two accounts and label them as a "meatpuppet ring" (the dreaded "cheerleader vandals", I assume). When I asked you about LBHS Cheerleader's "ban", you told me "It's a sockmaster who is banned by consensus" and "...I've decided to just pull the Bobabobabo tag and throw in an independant ban on LBHS Cheerleader". I don't think you are doing much for your credibility here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I once saw a possible connection, but I felt that since there was no actual technical evidence that it was inappropriate for people to base any action on the possible link. The modus operandi in the article space was different, as was the geographical location, my basis was that they both went by the name Jessica and they both had a habit of begging. The idea was to stop people from assuming despite the lack of technical evidence. I thought just shifting the assumed ban to LBHSC directly would be the ideal course of action, but you're right that I should have discussed it first. I'm sure you will agree that it was inappropriate for people to be automatically assuming a ban under Boba when that was just an untested hypothesis rather than a conclusion. This being said without any knowledge of who DC is in real life or what he does for a living, DC, you should be an attorney if your not one, although I'm not sure if you'd be a better defense attorney (because it seems you're doing a good job defending LBHSC here) or a prosecutor (because of your skill at getting people to confess "I was wrong." If you're wondering, that's a compliment for your skills demonstrated here. PCHS-NJROTC 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus I referenced to was where people seemed to be saying "oh, there's no reason to ban this one individually; lets instead use the Boba ban against her." I personally disagree with that as there's no technical evidence. Don't you? PCHS-NJROTC 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear on this, I am not defending User:LBHS Cheerleader, I am merely questioning the unilateral imposition of a ban on this user by another, deeply involved, user. LBHS Cheerleader is indef blocked and will remain indef blocked after this thread is wrapped up. I have questioned the basis of the block for User:Jess Selders 2012, but I see little point in unblocking now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• there is something more serious that seems not to have been noticed: the earlier statement of PCHS-NJROTC: "I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible " and a later statement of theirs that they did precisely that: track down the person on Myspace, and extensive speculation about whether a particular named girl at a particular high school is responsible. To me, this is OUTing, or attempted OUTing, for either of which we normally block. As far as I know, the community does not give its approval" to things like this. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to state that I believe it was wrong for DC to drag this back out, this is my OPINION, it indicates a possible Conflict of interest. As far as the above goes, it is troubling, I would suggest talking to the user, I think he is aware his actions were not in line with our policies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that PCHS-NJROTC is interested in further discussion on the matter. Unomi (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What possible "conflict of interest" could I have here? PCHS-NJROTC has made it very clear that they would like the issue to be dropped, but the fact remains that there has been no clear statement about this from any admins. Nor have I seen a clear statement from PCHS-NJROTC that they believe that what they did was wrong. I'm sorry to belabour this, but rather than avoiding the issue, let's settle this and move on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins have been all over this DC. Furthermore, WP:OUTING? I didn't give out anybody's information, and as far as actually carrying out the proposed action of simply asking if it was her, and if she wanted everything oversighted, that was a proposed course of action; I did not actually contact anybody or ask any questions, and would not have without significant community support for the proposal. DC was responsible for just as much OUTing as I was in the matter by going on Google and finding her to be a real person through search results. I asked first, DC did not, and now we have linked to personal information about a "Jessica Selders" all thanks to User:Delicious carbuncle and his despirate desire to get sanctions imposed on me. Who's really OUTing people here? Also of note is that DC has been blocked for OUTing. The block was later lifted, but I believe he could be showing a rather nasty pattern of it. He posted my name, which was apparently unintentional, and then he posted a link to JS's personal, real life information. DC, you keep reviving this discussion, and you obviously seek punishment in the matter. As to why I want closure of the discussion, it's because as soon as my actions were challenged, I went in and removed references to the de facto "ban" and indicated my further disassociation with the issue, and you're still not satisfied DC. Quite frankly, I feel threatened here. I AGFed when DC wrote my name in a discussion, which was apparently unintentional. DC has failed to AGF when I stated my further disassociation with the LBHSC case, which in case wasn't clear, see . If admins apparently couldn't agree on a ban on LBHSC, what makes you think they'll agree on any sort of ban on me? PCHS-NJROTC 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DGG, if you are looking for an indication of an WP:OUTING, it wasn't PCHS-NJROTC that first brought up that user and her supposed real name. It was User:Delicious carbuncle here. This whole thing here seems like a misunderstanding, or mistake, about using the words 'banned' and 'blocked'. To have it turn into this kind of drama seems a bit much. DD2K (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider it acceptable to try to get a Misplaced Pages contributor to disclose their real life identity. As for "only proposed," you then reported you had gone and looked for the myspace page, and found it. that's more than "proposed"; though you and DC may have finished the discussion between you, this aspect concerns one of our basic rules. We can block sockpuppets without needing to know who they are in RL. I'm concerned now about what you did in this respect--I am frankly not concerned about the rest. As a result of getting overinvolved, people sometimes are led to do inappropriate things. I do not think you realize that a hunt for the RL person was wrong. I await the view of others. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As far as I can see, all that people are asking from you is that you discuss calmly and rationally without too much hyperbole involved. The reason, as I far as I can tell, that DC suggested you should be banned from vandalism work is that you seem to be taking an entirely too militant approach to it. I would suggest that you at least limit yourself to revert, warn, report to WP:AIV, WP:LTA, WP:ABUSE and refrain from contacting access providers yourself. I am two minds regarding this as I can see that you are very active with WP:ABUSE, but I fear that your approach to it can be counter productive and I am concerned regarding your apparent ability of perceiving and claiming support where there is none. I do not believe that DC is out to get you, nor am I. I am however somewhat taken aback by your reactions and I hope that we can reach a point where you can come to see why your actions were challenged. I would also note that you have stated your full name on wikipedia and as such claims of outing against your are null and void. Please do consider that I am writing in good faith and please do not feel that you have to respond immediately. Unomi (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, has everyone forgotten how to use diffs? NJROTC, you need to used diffs to support statements such as: "that was a proposed course of action; I did not actually contact anybody or ask any questions" DGG should use a diff in support of "you then reported you had gone and looked for the myspace page, and found it."

Now, in response to DC, While NJROTC has not admitted "guilt", he has taken action to remove controversial edits, and has stated that he will distance himself from the situation. I say you may have a COI, because you have not, to my knowledge suggested any compromise, or anything less than sanctions against this user. I can assure you, that this is not the first ANI that has gone without an "official" closeure. IMO, what you should have done, was left the discussion in archive, and watched to see if JNROTC abided by his agreement to separate himself from the noted vandals, "I believe that Sephiroth storm's point is that DC needs to assume good faith as I had removed all references to the apparent "ban" as soon as they were questioned here as an offered settlement." I would like to state that I do not, as of now have a viewpoint on the OUTING issue, as I haven't seen any diffs of the issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well, DC added a link to an off-wiki site about Jessica Selders at CHS here. Although I did look up JS on Myspace, I did not provide any links to her there on-wiki, what I did do is explain that the user may have violated copyright which I found appropriate because it may be a reason to oversight. I fail to find how explaining that text added by a user is a direct copy and paste is WP:OUTING, but okay, if you desire to see it as such, lets go ahead and remove the comment from this thread. I did not contact her or any of the sort, I just curiously looked her up to see who she was, which is an off-wiki activity that pretty much anyone could do if they so desire. Didn't so much as attempt to get past any private settings, contact the person, or reveal my findings to the rest of Misplaced Pages (except that there's a possible copyvio), just merely viewed what is posted for public access. DGG, in my opinion, is jumping to conclusions. May I also add that DC was once blocked for outing, but the block was reversed because the user apparently "wrote two articles about himself," see I don't know, but it seems this is a similar case here as the user claims to be Jessica Selders, an athlete at CHS. I don't know, may the admins decide on this one as everything about this case seems to be within a debatable gray area. PCHS-NJROTC 18:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS, if you look at a somewhat similar recent situation, a lot of it depends on the purpose. For example, if I type "I am going to look you up on MySpace", then it's often an attempt to "win an argument", or to dissuade the other editing from further posting. That is a serious threat. In the case I linked you to, they were not only blocked for having made the call, but for having done the off-wiki research in order to find the information about a specific Misplaced Pages user to use against them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

However, I'm not looking for information to use against her. She's already blocked, so how could I possibly use anything on Myspace against her. The mention of the copyvio was me AGFing (assuming good faith in that it may not have actually been JS responsible) and was for own protection. IMHO, we should rename the account and oversight references to the name (where feasible) as it does potentially get an uninvolved party involved here. We also need to stop referencing to her here; we should AGF as it is not uncommon for vandals to use someone else's name rather than their own. I know I wouldn't want to be impersonated by a vandal. PCHS-NJROTC 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

May I add that, in my opinion, we should be extremely careful when taking actions on wiki for issues off wiki. LBHSC vandals found and harassed me off wiki back when they were more active vandals, but I did not seek on wiki sanctions over it; I instead notified Myspace abuse (since the off wiki harassment took place on Myspace). In my opinion, what happens off wiki should stay off wiki. PCHS-NJROTC 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

seems a little silly to use diffs referring to earlier edits in the very same discussion, but here they are: for the threat and then for the statement of having carried out the threat. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I am seeing, JNROTC did not violate WP:OUTING. To my knowledge, supported by the above diffs, he did not post any personal information including "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organization, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". While he states he looked up the information, he did not post her personal information. Therefore there is no violation of the policy. I think NJORTC can agree that is was a mistake to do so? If that is the case, I believe we can close this ANI and deal with DC's concern over the unilateral banning issue, which since NJROTC has separated himself from the issue, should be the subject of a separate ANI, or even better, a discussion at WT:BP. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in this, I'd be greatly concerned if I knew another editor on Misplaced Pages was seeking me out on other websites. It may not be outing, but it's a dangerous tactic. And while NJROTC states he did not make contact with the owner of the MySpace page, NJROTC did state that he/she would do so with community consent, and then quickly followed-up saying he/she had already sought out the individual (and apparently confirmed a cut/paste job). No, this is not a case of WP:OUTING, however it could be perceived as harassment, stalking, violation of privacy, and in general just a horrible idea. The fact that an editor sought another (blocked) editor off-wiki to discuss an on-wiki issue also seems borderline obsessive.

That aside, wasn't the original issue whether or not one editor was allowed to unilaterally ban another? Not that I have any stake in the decision, I believe this thread will merely get resurrected until that is properly answered. (If it was, and I missed it in all of the hullabaloo, I apologize.) HAZardousMATT 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was closer to Harrassment than outing. I have yet to see the ed involved recognize that it was wrong to do it. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did we ever actually decide on an end action?

Has there actually been any kind of "official" action on the ban template adding? This is been essentially forgotten. How about actual admittance of it not being the smartest thing or an apology? ...Mostly, I'm entirely disheartened by the user's hunting down high school social rivals and trying to their face in their collective block. Honesty, I'm starting to think the cheer group was all different persons with accounts (though it doesn't excuse the disruption and vandalism). Really now, not hard to see, some cheerleader-type persons vandalize the Misplaced Pages entry of your school, you confirm they're blocked for it, then try to remove any mention of their existence? WP:HSDRAMA for "No high school drama, please"? Combine together some classic high school drama and somehow it turns into a Misplaced Pages ANI with concerns about a personal vendetta and it somehow being DeliciousCarbuncle's fault. I didn't need to do any research to get that... all on user pages or what was posted in this discussion. I might encourage a bit stricter of final stances given the strong evidence of social revenge as motivation and it not just being a random lapse in judgment. Oh, and get over the bit with DC. S/He's not the subject of this ANI. Has nothing to do with outing, or anything else. It's about the ban templates, and research finding a likely motive. Right. Can we actually get on with a resolution now and cut out further rubbish about non-involved editors and take it to ... wherever you want to argue? Please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC has agreed that User:LBHS Cheerleader is not officially banned (see slightly up-thread), which, at this point, is good enough for me. It seems unlikely that any admin action will be forthcoming, but having just looked at this page I think a topic ban discussion should be started (as a separate thread). This can be closed, as far as I am concerned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with you first statement, but I think a topic ban is unnecessary, as the user has stated that they would remove themselves from controversial editing. Why not give him the chance to make a positive change? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

user:JamesBWatson won't leave my user subpage alone

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

If there is anything else to say take it to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade

JamesBWatson seems to have some sort of personally vendetta against me. He's going back through all my edits and attempting to make editing quite annoying for me. Specifically, one thing that he has been doing is removing templates from my user page that he doesn't like. I've warned him about this in the edit comments, but he won't stop. I just want him (as well as everyone else) to leave my user subpage alone. The page is User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade Here is an example edit, but you can just check the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3ABryan.Wade%2FBryan.Wade&action=historysubmit&diff=333054441&oldid=332634652 Bryan.Wade (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've advised JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) on his talk page that it is uncourteous (and potentially blockable) to edit-war on other users' user pages, and that there is no policy prohibiting users from awarding themselves silly medals. While I'm at it, I might also advise Bryan.Wade that there are perhaps better uses for his time than awarding himself silly medals. I don't think that there's much else for an admin to do here.  Sandstein  08:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the following things to say about this

1. I will, since people want me to, let Bryan Wade continue in his silly pretense that he has extensive editing history that he doesn't have.
2. I have not been "going back through all edits and attempting to make editing quite annoying for . I have removed his false claims to have extensive editing history: that is all. Making exaggerated claims is not helpful.
3. Might this have been mentioned on my user talk page first? I would have thought that ANI was for use when direct approach to the editor in question had failed.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we are going to tolerate these bloody silly self awards then we should at least ensure that they they are accurate. Stating that one is "entitled to display (bullshit award)" that implies 7 years editing when that is a barefaced lie helps the project how exactly? I propose that we delete the subpage. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No -- you have the right to lie on your userpage. If I put a userbox for "native speaker of Mongolian" or "born in Zimbabwe" on my page, that's simply what I can do. If I want to embarrass myself when it turns out that I won't even be able to answer "hello" in Mongolian, then so be it. Same with awards. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but why do we allow people that? It's not just a question of people making themselves look like prats if they want to, it's also a case of other people being deceived. Let's make life easier for newbies and harder for liars by removing said lies when we come across them. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a non-admin put {{user wikipedia/Administrator}} on their userpage, I'm fairly sure it would be removed as misleading... Tim Song (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• See Essjay controversy for a case of an editor who (1) lied about his qualifications; (2) used those lies as leverage in editing disputes; (3) used them in a magazine interview about Misplaced Pages; (4) got hired by Wikia; (5) had the whole house of cards collapse, to the considerable embarrassment of Misplaced Pages, the WMF, and Jimbo Wales. Asserting "the right to lie on your userpage" looks like the seed of that whole tragedy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Umm. Yes. But that has nothing to do with pretty badges and bangles on userpages. I don't think you understand. We don't have any interest in (nor should we) policing userpage declarations save the rare case when an editor pretends to be an admin. Where someone is leveraging credentials, faked or otherwise, in a dispute, that is an independent problem. Protonk (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I happened to come across this discussion (do not ask me why ;)), and I think that the entire issue could be avoided. Every editor has the right to write that which he/she desires on his/her userpage, and thus it can be controversial to prevent this when specifically asked otherwise on multiple occassions. Taking a different point of view, this is Misplaced Pages and our long-term goal is to improve articles; not to write our userpages (although it is, of course, nice to do so!). Therefore, although I feel that neither user had malacious intent in his actions (and knowing JamesBWatson, I am sure that he did not (I would be against blocking him)), no action committed really furthured the goals of the encyclopedia. Succintly, I feel that we might as well let people (or other species (who knows what edits Misplaced Pages!)) do that which they wish unless their actions influence others in a counterproductive or harmful manner. (Disclaimer: I am not an administrator). --PST 09:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think that lying about editing experience is harmful.Theresa Knott | token threats 09:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, you might be right since it's easy to check, but I would not want to have to send in a certified copy of my BFA, birth-certificate, and passport to the wikimedia foundation or whatnot. That's potential deception, too - and we allow it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What percentage of the Earth's population have read his userpage? Not that I do not agree with you, but his userpage comprises a small portion of a vast encyclopedia... --PST 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. You don't have any "right" to your userpage. Indeed we don't have any "rights" in Misplaced Pages whatsoever. You volunteer, and are permitted, to participate in an exercise to build an encyclopedia. To help you do that, you are given a userpage. The userpage is to help you build the encyclopedia - and must be used with that aim. Now, since what helps build the encyclopedia is capable of being understood differently by different parts of the community, you are given a wide latitude to decide how you will use the userpage to help the encyclopedia. Valid interpretations of this aim are - to tell us about yourself - to record your interests and wiki experience or "to build community". We don't generally dictate what's allowed or disallowed, because Wikipedians hold different ideas of what uses help the encyclopedia. However, if a particular use is obviously not helping the encyclopedia by any interpretation held by the community, then that use is disallowed. Rights don't come into it at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Right" was not meant to be a legal term here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In this context it is not a useful term at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Theresa, lying on userpages "because one has the right to" is disruptive and unhelpful. Any objections to my listing the subpage for deletion? ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In real-life, we usually ignore pomposity; why should Misplaced Pages be any different? --PST 10:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) While I do not wish to escalate the matter, I notice that Bryan.Wade's award was removed once again... As I said, if he contributes productively to the encyclopedia, it does not really matter what he places in his user page (in my view). I think that the motivation of a potentially valuable editor (I do not know his contributions to Misplaced Pages articles, but I assume that they are productive) is more important than the prevention of harmless (my opinion, here ;)) self-praise. --PST 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP is a broad church of serious editors, practical jokers, sockpuppets and puppetmasters, compulsive liars and people with or without a sense of humour. There are a number of WP editors who, using their userspace, have created fictitious personae for themselves for the amusement of themselves and for others. OTOH, if someone puts misleading or false claims in their Userspace for a purpose which is not as mentioned, it is not to be condoned - they are merely discrediting themselves, as any simple tool will reveal the self-delusional façade they have created is but a sham. I would draw the line at when/if such an editor falsely claims I gave him/her such and such an award, in which case I would feel justified in removing same for it would/could reflect badly on me. Ohconfucius 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page in question listed at WP:MFD. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 10:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick Comment: Perhaps reading the lead of Misplaced Pages:Service awards may shed light on the matter. PST 10:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also ANI/User:Zaferk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Are we really discussing this? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ANI does make one question reality sometimes. Fences&Windows 13:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the complete waste of time, Treasury Tag. We just went through this discussion a few weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to discuss it then don't. No one is forcing you to. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the MfD, but If you don't like what I have to say, no one compelled you to comment either. It goes both ways. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
      • But I'm not complaining about anything being a waste of time.Theresa Knott | token threats 23:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
        • You were complaining about my complaining. Tarc (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not clear from that discussion what conclusion, if any, was reached. However, unless something on a user page is a blatant, gross violation of policy, users should not be messing around with other users' pages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate the user:JamesBWatson for having the balls to do what admins should do, delete the moronic self-awards. Small wonder wikipedia is considered more and more a joke.  Dr. Loosmark  22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, blatantly posting lies is wrong. Starting edit wars on others' userspace is also wrong. If the page is to be kept, it should have a {{humor}} tag added. As far as not permitting content on userpages that don't contribute to the project, one could also argue that barnstars for finding secret pages is a similar problem, however, writing false information about one's self on his/her userpage is somewhat comparable to deliberately writing inaccurate information on a WP:BLP about themself in my opinion; it's deception. PCHS-NJROTC 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the humor template. Why not! Bryan.Wade (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Blatantly posting lies is wrong". When did the morality police get consensus to act on Misplaced Pages? Do you lot have nothing better to do than harass another user over an unimportant "award"? Go and do something useful. Fences&Windows 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For some admins, it seems to be job security. Wiki-userpages are like purple hearts y'know. Seerius Bizness. Tarc (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could close this darn thread here. I invite everyone who commented here to comment at the MfD -- let's create a precedent, enshrine it, and forget about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Problematic editor - User:Drake600

Drake600 (talk · contribs) has been a registered editor for almost a year. In that time he has created a number of promotional company stubs, all of which have been inevitably speedied - his talk page is just a string of speedy deletion notices. Out of almost 300 contributions, only around ten are actually legit. Even worse, he is prone to hoaxes - inserting false information, usually "Anton Vassilenko" (his own name?) as a key person in company articles, several of which I found while writing this report , , , (some as IP's, 195.250.188.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.25.246.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Quick googling shows that "Anton Vassilenko" is a guy in his twenties from Narva, not a worldwide famous CEO/composer. Some of the hoaxes have successfully been in articles since the start of 2009.

His latest creation - One-M-Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - had a look of legit company; if I hadn't been familiar with the user (and his fixation on word "Montek") I might have passed it as a legit article. Even the company home page looks nice and professional - and you have to dig deeper to realize it is just a standard Joomla installation on a free webhost.

As Drake600 is obviously just a throwaway account, there is little point to block him. IP's are dynamic and require just a cable modem reboot to change. Adding filters for "Anton Vassilenko" would be good, but Montek is a common Indian name. So I am at loss of what we can do.

--Sander Säde 09:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is that one issue of sockpuppetry, which might be worthy of an sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise he needs to be warned or blocked for disruptive editing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite block for this account, they were warned and blocked for creating such articles in July, but have persisted. Fences&Windows 15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed,and so blocked. Not marking this resolved, though based on the other issues raised. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

BjörnBergman (talk · contribs) is blocked on swedish wikipedia, and now he is spamming mine and other swedish administrators english talk page with complete nonsens and requests for unblocking on the swedish wikipedia. Ghostrider (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some clear harassment there with intent to continue in this. "Men ni kommer inte få nån God jul om jag inte får nån avblockering. Jag kommer att tjata och tjata tills du avblockerara mig....Gå och avblockera mig eller sänk min blockering om ni vill ha en god jul." Roughly translated: "But you will not get a Merry Christmas if I am not unblocked. I will nag and nag until you unblock me .... go and unblock me or lower my block if you want a happy Christmas." --Moonriddengirl 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his history here, I have blocked him for harassment. This block is for 24 hours, but should likely be lengthened if he resumes. --Moonriddengirl 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is now showing the same beaviour on english wikipeda as he did on swedish. With long monoluges demanding unblocking. Ghostrider (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he will get the message this time, although notes like this aren't promising (still with the threats to nag and nag). --Moonriddengirl 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Easily sorted, just revoke his talk page privilege if he continues to nag. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the time for that just came? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostrider (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've indefblocked him and protected his talk page. Enough is enough. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plagarism: Emily West Morgan

I found a plagarism concern and am not sure how to proceed.

Comparing the article Emily West Morgan to this Texas A&M article. I found some identical text and other pieces of text that are almost the same with only some superficial changes. The A&M article appears to be original work (it even cites various references which the WP article does not) so I have no reason to think that that author copied from WP. I have left comments about this on the talk page.

What should be done?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first question is whether it represents plagiarism (a non-emergency) or copyright infringement, which must be handled immediately. When the article was created, , it was substantially more similar to that external source. The article was created in June, 2005, but the oldest archive is February 2007 for the external site. That doesn't mean we didn't copy it from them. Evidence strongly suggests we did, as they would have had to have taken the text from us in the first month of its creation, before it was substantially changed: . There is nothing at that external site to indicate it is not copyrighted; copyright is presumptive. Though the article has been changed, it seems likely to be an unauthorized derivative work. When copying is blatant, we tag with {{db-g12}}. When it isn't, we use {{subst:copyvio}} and list it for closure at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. This permits time for verification of compatible license or for interested contributors to salvage the article with new content in temporary space. I'll tag this one pending clarification. --Moonriddengirl 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy

For nearly a year now, User:BQZip01 has been attempting to force marking as free the athletics logo of the West Virginia University, claiming it as PD-Text. I'm not here to debate the validity of those arguments. I am here to request an administrator offer a caution to this editor to see appropriate dispute resolution pathways rather than continue the nearly year long edit war.

There are two images in question:

• File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png - This image was deleted after being replaced by the second of these two images. There is some discussion regarding the status of this image on its (please do not delete) talk page.
• File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg - A replicate of the above image, except the colors are reversed.

An administrator, should they restore the first image, will see in its edit history multiple cases of BQZip01 marking the image as free and being reverted by more people than me. Similar pattern has erupted on the second image after it replaced the first. BQZip01 has attempted to make a claim that this is an entirely different image, and therefore the earlier non-consensus discussion does not apply.

Substantial discussion occurred regarding the free or non-free status of this image occurred in October of 2009 at Misplaced Pages:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2009/October#West_Virginia_logo. No consensus was arrived at that the image was in fact free of copyright.

I have repeatedly asked User:BQZip01 to start a Request for Comment. To date, he has not started one and based on his talk page edits refuses to do so. I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in and please ask BQZip01 to cease and desist and direct his energies into the form of an RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm.. What is BQZip01 thinking? The files are obviously non-free media. That image is clearly not simple enough to be considered PD. -FASTILY 16:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason why the colors were reversed was due to the WVU guidelines I used for the logo images. User:Zscout370 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I will start with each assertion by each person

1. Hammersoft
   1. Can you twist the situation and statements any more to twist the truth?
   2. Because you refuse to discuss anything regarding this image ("I'm not here to debate the validity of those arguments.", you are trying to force your opinion of this image as "not free of copyright." WP:KETTLE?
   3. You are not trying to build consensus. You are trying to dictate how Misplaced Pages is run.
   4. Just because you feel no consensus was made, doesn't mean we go with your opinion of how things are made. I could just as easily conclude that, after discussion, only one person disagreed; you. In reality, the discussion yielded no consensus either way.
   5. An accusation of edit warring? Really? You've reverted me at each step.
   6. There is no requirement for an RfC. In fact, WP:TALK dictates you should at least try use the talk page before going to an RfC, a step you seem hellbent on skipping or bypassing as often as possible rather than discussing any of the points I've brought up.
   7. "The standing conclusion of the prior discussion is there is no consensus this is free." I am a Texan and we routinely use this phrase: that's Bullshit! There is NO Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that states the default for any image is non-free until proven otherwise. This is something you want as policy. Guess what? It isn't! Acting on your own personal beliefs as if they are policy and demanding that everyone else acquiesce is in appropriate. For a veteran user to dictate such is hostile. As such, your logic is faulty and your "reasons" for reversion are moot.
   8. The RfC did not consider all the points I have brought up on the talk page, ergo, there is reason to discuss them.
   9. An RfC is not immutable and (even if one agrees with your assertions) consensus can change. However, WP:TALK dictates we should try the talk page FIRST!!!
   10. I am tired of trying to assume good faith on your part. It is obvious that you have no intention of discussing the issues I have presented (whether on the image talk page, your talk page, etc.). Instead you are only trying to push an agenda in spite of any facts presented to you. You are demonizing anyone who disagrees with you. You are being rude, routinely hold grudges (see your user page for scores of examples), and twist anything said to your advantage. Until you decide to discuss the issue
2. Fastily
   1. An additional opinion is certainly welcome, however,
   2. No one is saying that this image is free of all restrictions
   3. "It is clearly not simple enough to be considered PD." "Simple enough" is not the criteria that is used. Just declaring anything to be so doesn't provide any logic or any discussion. The image is ineligible for copyright, not exactly PD in the sense most people think of (i.e. created in <1922 or sourced from a US federal entity), but under US law, Misplaced Pages policy, and Misplaced Pages guidelines, it meets all the criteria:

      There seems to be this mistaken thought by some people that a design must be "simple enough" or "plain text" to be PD. In fact, the criteria are that any typeface or simple shape is ineligible for copyright (Eltra Corp. v. Ringer: " typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)") A "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text." Things like standard ornamentation do not affect this law: "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... ." This logo consists of a "W" and "V" with serifs at the top. Ergo, this logo consists of letters that are intended to be used as letters and it is ineligible for copyright. Specifically in Misplaced Pages, we clarify this to be "This logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.". Comparable images include File:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png, File:LA_Dodgers.svg, and File:ALC-DET-Insignia.png (among MANY, MANY others).

      Contrast this with ASCII art or the Washington State University logo in which letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium by which an artistic image is formed.

      Furthermore, there are trademark restrictions on this image and those are explicitly addressed by the Misplaced Pages under Misplaced Pages:Disclaimers#Trademarks.

Accordingly, I request that an admin direct Hammersoft to actually engage in a discussion rather than issuing proclamations, stop acting as if his own preferences/desires are policy, and engage in a discussion rather than being so hostile. — BQZip01 —  15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Support: (Note: This is an ongoing issue.) I must certainly agree with BQ as his reasoning, especially in section 2.3 (above) is based on solid facts from the latest version of the Wikilawyer Reference Manual. Textpro (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC) — Textpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no horse in this race, but it surprises me that no one has noticed the mountains. The W and V are arranged so as to form a mountainscape, similar (in a stylistic way) to what one might see in West Virginia. And the team is the Mountaineers. Although there are other arrangements of W and V that would equally suggest mountains, an arbitrary arrangement might well not. Just my two cents.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please can I have some advice

I don't know if I'm in the wrong - I might well be - but I don't like how I've been treated by another editor, so would appreciate some clarification. If I'm in the wrong then I at least know not to do it again. There has been a debate on Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#American-British_film.3F between myself and another editor. It's become a heated debate, but that isn't the problem. The other editor invited input at WT:FILM.

This is what he wrote: .

I have no problem with this. But in my eyes, it was non-neutral and continued the discussion rather than just notifed. That is the editor made a point and expressed an opinion, so I responded to the point raised even though the main discussion was taking place on the Avatar talk page:

The other editor moved my comments to the Avatar page, but left his own up. I reverted this edit even though I agreed with the principle behind it. The reason I restored my comments is because he left his own comments, which I felt were not just notifying other editors of the discussion but that he was furthering the discussion. You can see there were a couple of reverts between us:

I felt it was out of order that he made further comment on the subject but was deleting my comments while leaving his up. I also agree that the discussion should take place at the one location. This was eventually resolved when the other editor removed the 'bias' from his comments thus leaving it as a simple notification:

This is where things turned ugly with another editor, when User:Wildhartlivie left a comment at my talk page: . They accused me of edit warring because I had restored my comments to the talk page. I explained why I had done this, that i felt the other editor had done more than just notify the other Project members of the discussion, but had furthered the discussion: . The other editor did not agree: . He reiterated the accusation taht I was edit-warring which I felt was insulting. I was attempting to resolve the dispute through discussion for a start, and disagreed with the nature in which the discussion was raised. I didn't really see why the other editor's comments expressing an opinion on the dispute should remain, while mine were deleted. I felt it was appropriate for my comments to be there while his were. I felt the other editor finally acknowledged this by altering his comments to reflect my concerns. It may have been wrong of me to restore my comments, but I genuinely felt a injustice at the time. What I take exception to is this accusation of edit-warring by this other editor while I was taking part in a discussion so a dispute wouldn't become an edit-war. I thought it was rude, so informed him that I thought it was insulting to accuse me of edit-warring and re-explained my position: . He responded with this:

So there are some things I would like to clarify. Was the discussion raised in an acceptable manner? Was it legitimate for me to post a response? Was it legitimate for my comments to be removed? was it legitimate for me to restore my comments? And was it legitimate for this other editor to leave such comments on my talk page? Maybe my actions were incorrect, in which case I am sorry, but I do feel slightly aggrieved by the whole thing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik insisted on a biased notice to the talk page discussion in clear violation of WP:CANVASS. In his defense, after all of the drama he did eventually change it into a neutral notice but it shouldn't have taken an edit war to convince him to follow Misplaced Pages's policies. The warnings left on your talk page were inappropriate, you had a completely legitimate concern and his own bias was getting the better of him. Wildhartlivie had no call to drop edit war notices on your talk page, especially since Erik was closer to violating 3RR than you were.

Just an aside, did you notify Wildhartlivie and Erik of this ANI posting, as required by the board rules? -- Atama頭 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not notified of this posting until an uninvolved editor posted a notification to me. I do not believe my initial postings to the editor's talk page were in the least bit insulting. I posted after I noticed that User:Betty Logan had reverted the move of the posting from WT:TALK and I responded with the observation that moving it was appropriate considering there was a ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I did not at any time "drop an "edit war notice" at the editor's talk page, I only referred to "edit warring" in my posts. The editor's reverts included edit summary talk, such as "If you can make comments here, so can I" and "You didn't just bring the discussion to the attention of others, you expressed a biased opinion." For the record, I'd like someone to point out to me in the following edits where Erik also posted his own commentary when moving the talk page posting: 1. There is no additional commentary, 2. I see no additional commentary added here, and 3. Where the notice was "simplified" and it also removed Betty Logan's ascribed "biased commentary" posted almost 3 hours earlier. By the way, the only other commentary I see on that page was posted by Erik almost three hours earlier, it was in no way "additional commentary" in the way it has been characterized here, nor was any of this in violation of WP:CANVASS. By this time, I was somewhat exasperated with the editor and I did tell her not to come to my talk page and bandy about veiled threats about coming here and using words such as "insulting". User:Betty Logan removed my posting, calling it "vandalism". Righty or wrongly, I took exception to that characterization, commenting "Please do not misrepresent my comments as vandalism, as I stated assume good faith - it's a valuable lesson". That was removed as "edit warring". Outside of restoring my comments to her, in the context of her knee-jerk reaction to a posting made some over 2 hours earlier and mischaracterizing it as "posting a biased opinion and removing her posting", I did not do anything wrong and I object to her bringing this here and failing to notify me of her actions. This is precisely what her veiled commentary leaned toward when she posted to my talk page and precisely why I suggested she learn a bit about WP:AGF. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely cool with Erik, he's a good editor. We had a dispute and were trying to hack it out. He did alter his comments in response to my objections so the situation with Erik was resolved. I find it disheartening that Wildhartlivie accuses me of violating AGF when in his first message to me he accused me of edit-warring. The only reason there was a time gap was because I only discovered the comment several hours later. One of my concerns was that the debate on the original talk page was quite long, and I felt the notification on WT:FILM summarized only half of the argument, so I tried to balance that. I'm sorry that I didn't notify Wildhartive about this ANI, but this is actually the first time I've ever posted on this board. It is unfortunate that Wildhartlivie still doesn't accept he behaved incorrectly though. Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not accept that I behaved inappropriately. You made a huge stink about Erik having posted a comment and made it sound as if it were posted at the same time that he moved your posting, which essentially instigated all of this. It is not unacceptable to raise the problem of edit warring when it appears that is occurring, although I did not drop a WP:3RR warning on her talk page. When I responded to your edit summary comments and suggested it wasn't worth edit warring over it, you removed my posting as vandalism. Why would I "accept that behaved incorrectly"? I maintain that I did not. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here, but you dropped a thinly veiled WP:AN/I threat on my talk page and then brought me here and lament that I "accept" my incorrect behavior, when I was not the one reverting a move to a talk page message. It is thoroughly relevant that his comment was over two hours earlier, since you are asserting he added the comment with the moving of the talk page commentary, making it appear the two were directly related. If it is "all cool" with Erik, why did you bring this here? To drag me into what you perceive as "trouble"? Sorry, you're simply wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz's use of minor edit flag

Hello.

I was directed here from Wikiquette Alerts.

Kikodawgzzz continues to add tags to the White privilege entry (history), including tags for speedy deletion, while using the minor edits flag. He's been warned twice about this on his user talk page, but he has done it twice since then. (Click here for the most recent example.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) I don't think they should have been marked minor, but I don't see why it warrants an ANI post. He hasn't been warned the standard 4 times yet. However, he does seem to be editing disruptively. Ks0stm 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should review my own talk page, as well as those of Marie Paradox and Malik Shabazz, and in addition, the revert wars AND the discussion board on the article in question. It's my firm conviction that by doing so, Misplaced Pages administrators will conclude that the article is POV to the point of being un-salvageable, and must either be removed entirely, or deleted and then re-created with an eye to encyclopedic objectivity. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed your talk page and, quite frankly, I'm impressed with everyone's patience with you. Jauerback/_dude. 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any connection between your belief that an article is POV and your refusal (or inability) to fix your preferences to stop marking all your edits as minor. Or your repeated attempts to have the article speedily deleted, when you have been told, by three different editors, that your belief that the article is POV is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I posted here without four warnings' having been given. If I should ever need to post here again, I'll adhere to the standard. Thank you, Ks0stm and Jauerback for looking into this matter. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that both the constant reverts and the constant criticism of my actions have come 99.9% exclusively from either Marie Paradox or Malik Shabazz? It is clearly as if they think they alone 'own' the article and can simply revert anything they see fit. It's not just the box for speedy deletion one or both has removed; it's also been the box for gradual deletion as well, as well as the custom warning box I designed that cautions new viewers of the page to beware that the article is vastly unbalanced and really needs to be fundamentally rewritten and/or purged. Oh, and they also consistently remove the 'total rewrite' box without bothering to say anything. Jauerback, you're surprised at "everyone's" patience with me? If you look at the tendencies of the records since I returned to this article, you will see that these two are very far from "everyone." (I was one of the original editors of the article back a few years ago, and had stopped coming around to it, and then I come back and find all this ethnic nationalist-sympathetic language "supported" by "scholarly sources" and a pathetic two-paragraph, mid-page 'Criticism' section that doesn't even mention (though it used to, back when I used to edit it) real criticism of WSP as it exists in the world of anti-racist, non-right-winger criticisms. Perhaps most important, however, is this apparent perception that it is "me" or "mainly me" that is protesting against this article, because I am "bellyaching." But actually, if you look at the history of the discussion section, there are just as many angry users out there who are equally angry, or at least almost as angry, at the 'evolution' of this page into a totally one-sided view of the phenomenon, and a refusal by its two "chief editors" to work on it to establish encyclopedic/journalistic objectivity, which actually, if Shabazz and Paradox are indeed going to insist upon ensuring that they alone are today's two main editors of the thing, THEY should be taking it upon THEMSELVES to personally ensure. But they won't; they probably put most of the supporting documentation towards pro-WSP in there themselves, actually, and then threw up their hands and said "well, it's not our responsibility to do the rest." Stuff like THAT is clearly not acceptable on a valid wikipedia page. Has everyone forgotten about the fundamental requirement of a Misplaced Pages article that it be verifiably and obviously neutral in its viewpoint??

If people involved in this case want to continue arguing this way, that's fine, and I'll gladly reciprocate, as I am a very fierce left-wing opponent of White Skin Privilege as an "anti-racist" theory and I believe it should absolutely be purged from leftist circles as it exists-- and warnings against its spread should be posted for the benefit of innocent minds who don't know any better and wind up taking the article as all-but-fact. But my personal views aside, even if these two editors are going to continue to insist that the article must stand until someone else can fix it, should it not be agreed administratively that a warning box and/or a box for the process of gradual deletion over the course of more extended discussion be allowed to stand? I absolutely intend to continue fighting this out and I will do so until Shabazz and Paradox are significantly lessened in their influence of this article. It's time for these two to be shown that they can't be in charge, and that wikipedia is a collective effort. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, personalized disclaimers, and speedy deletion

Kikodawgzzz repeatedly has added a personalized disclaimer to White privilege that has been reverted by at least three different editors. I warned Kikodawgzzz that we don't put disclaimers in articles, but it seems to have made no impact. In fact, Kikodawgzzz has added the disclaimer several times since that warning.

Also, Kikodawgzzz repeatedly has nominated the article for speedy deletion under non-existent criteria. Three different editors removed the speedy deletion tags with edit summaries that explained Kikodawgzzz had not specified a valid reason. I advised Kikodawgzzz that the article couldn't be deleted unless a valid speedy deletion reason was specified. That discussion, too, didn't sink in, because Kikodawgzzz nominated the article for speedy deletion twice after my note.

Clearly I'm not getting through to Kikodawgzzz. Could an uninvolved administrator please try? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked him for a week to prevent continued disruption of the article.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A veritable sock drawer at Articles for deletion/Tim Ireland

The Tim Ireland article has been controversial for some time, with several accounts nominating it for speedy deletion on multiple occasions, and/or repeatedly PRODding it (the repeat PRODs are, of course invalid). The article was originally PRODded by Magpie1892 in July, with the PROD removed by CJPargeter. Magpie1892 PRODded the article a second time in early December, I removed the PROD as invalid, and the sockfest began. The PROD was added back several times by IPs, then twice by User:Chithecynic, who has also acknowledged being one of the IPs. It was also speedy-nominated by IPs and by Seven-nil, who has virtually no edit history and only one edit not related to this article. On December 17, Chithecynic nominated the article for deletion. All but one of the "delete" !votes in the AFD (that by Fenix down, who is clearly editing in good faith and not involved in the shenanigans) appear to come from the accounts/addresses which had previously placed invalid PRODs or speedies (quickly declined/removed) on the article. These account share other features -- for the named accounts, very limited edit histories; problems signing posts correctly, and posting personal attacks on editors disputing their edits(mostly me, see such charming examples as (Chithecynic); , (Magpie1892); (Seven-nil); (217.28.34.132, open-to-public IP address with many other users); (92.41.202.43, presumably same access as !voter 92.41.217.22). I'm not sure this article over a minimally notable UK blogger has stirred up such a hullaballoo fracas, but it's getting way out of hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll just love this, so :p - the following accounts are  Confirmed as being the one editor:

• Magpie1892 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Seven-nil (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wolfowitz=twat (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The underlying IP has been blocked, too, as it's been abusive in itself. The other accounts are  Unrelated - Alison 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a resolved tag then? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should likely deal with the accounts. As checkuser, I'm not going to block them, too - Alison 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast; thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So my understanding is that the IP editors have been blocked, is that correct? If so, should we start an SPI on the registered accounts? What's the proper course of action here? Or have the registered accounts already been taken care of? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user on a rampage - Urgent action needed

The contribs log and edit summaries says it all . This is a sock of banned User:Shuppiluliuma. Not a day goes by without him socking through some new IP. See also Can someone range block this clown? --Athenean (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Give him a 'range block'. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked some accounts / IPs. Bit early for a rangeblock yet, but it's possible - Alison 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Every day it's the same thing. He just hops to another 151.57 IP and starts again. Yesterday it was this one , tomorrow it will be another one. I don't think anything other than a rangeblock will do. --Athenean (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There, he's at it again . --Athenean (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that he's seen this report, it'll likely increase. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not produce some sort of edit filter that prevents any edit from being made with a certain string of words that he likes to place in the edit summary?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Like "Gayreece" - that's actually really lame :( - Alison 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say it, but I don't think anyone needs to write "Gayree*" ever on the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Apparently Gayree is a woman's first name. Maybe one of them will become notable... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Softblocking 151.57.128.0/17 for a few weeks. See how it goes - Alison 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not unusual behavior for this sort of creature. Frankly, all they're doing by proxy-hopping is giving us more proxies to block. HalfShadow 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So when I went to block, I discovered that it just came from a 6-month softblock, hence the mayhem. 6 months re-instated, so - Alison 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM

There is a month-long backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves; apologies if this has been mentioned before but I thought someone better be informed :) GiantSnowman 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio by User:Distortiondude at Trigintaduonion

On Trigintaduonion, which he started and is under deletion discussion, User:Distortiondude has repeatedly posted copyright material from here . The first time I reverted it and posted a message on the talk page . He has since twice, and restored the copyright material, after I and another editor clearly identified it as copyright material.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours with a block note explaining and asking him to review WP:C. --Moonriddengirl 00:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Day-O (The Banana Boat Song)‎

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

You never know where an edit war will break out. This skirmish is an IP address insisting that the song's lyric about the banana spider is a veiled reference to black people plotting to kill white people. What should I do? Wait until he breaks 3RR? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, this is sad. I love that song. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has discussed this with the editor, on his/her talk page, until now. Also, editor has not been given the courtesy of an ANI notification. This complaint is premature and should be shelved until proper process has been followed. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are suggesting that IP editors actually are aware of what gets posted on their user talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

They get the big orange notice, assuming anyone posts to an otherwise empty Talk page; however, I see there has been some engagement on the article Talk page, which is where the discussion belongs. I assume the editor, not having been welcomed, should benefit from education first, criticism second, and sanctions third, if they don't get it. However, the education process seems to be continuing. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also posted a comment on that article talk page point the IP to here if he wants to say something. That particular IP's last edits were 3 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, all. It appears that the IP has backed off, for now at least. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

come mister tally man, tally me banana --Jayron32 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs (personal attack redacted by Jeremy ) has a problem with a NPOV interpretation who goes running to the administrators after a few minutes of a disagreement. I think we are working the disagreements out on the article page. But go ahead and block me. There is no point in being able to edit if the edits always get undone anyways. Why contribute anything useful to Misplaced Pages then? It would just be a waste of my time.

On a different topic, why can't I just respond to one topic on this page? I had to edit the whole page. Is there a way?

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm just putting the userlinks here so it's easy to block Baseball Bugs if an admin wants to.

24.125.41.207 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I advise against that, especially since calling him a "fascist" is very much blockable as a personal attack. -Jeremy 08:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What if he really was a fascist? What if he was a member of a fascist political party, or admitted to a fascist philosophy? He may want to be known as a fascist. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not know any of that, however, and as such it is a personal attack. Let's not argue semantics here. -Jeremy 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, if I called him a democrat, would it be a personal attack? I don't know that he is or isn't a democrat. I don't think it's a personal attack. I intend to argue semantics because it's Misplaced Pages. You are getting off topic. We are trying to decide the level of citations that is needed for interpretations of music. There are articles with uncited interpretations of music all over Misplaced Pages. And then Baseball Bugs, the self-appointed dictator of Misplaced Pages, doesn't like an interpretation he sees and says it's original research, doesn't have any citations, and all of the usual libel that self-appointed Misplaced Pages dictators dredge up. I am trying to work on that question on the article page. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, you're going to have to rein in the personal attacks. Nobody is going to listen to any substantive points you may make when you're using overly emotive (and inaccurate) terms like "fascist" and "self-appointed dictator of Misplaced Pages". Indeed, we're likely to skip listening to you entirely and just hit the block button. Want to try again? ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK REDVERS, I can be less emotive with how I talk about people. However, it seems like Baseball Bugs simply assumes that he's right. Look at the tone in his posts about this article. Without saying that I am talking about Baseball Bugs, just talking about Misplaced Pages users in general, can you please give me Misplaced Pages advice about how to deal with people who constantly patrol articles to enforce their non-NPOV perspective on those articles? Is there a way to complain about users who are too protectionist, activist, or authoritarian? 24.125.41.207 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You got caught inserting potentially racist, but nevertheless uncited commentary in an article about a still-popular song. They were thankfully removed. Why do you suddenly feel the urge to bite the person who caught you? That will never detract from the reality of what was done, and that it was fixed. Misplaced Pages is not a game, and getting mad at the people who protect it is never going to get you far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Games are great. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Cremepuff now blocked (see a section below). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To the IP, who asked - and ignoring Cremepuff222's attempt to be unhelpful - the basics of sorting disputes are first to self-edit any and all emotive language (so that's a checked-box straight away - thanks). Now, does the problem seem to you to be one editor or multiple editors? If multiple editors, start a thread on the talk page of the article, and list concisely and factually the issues, then how you would see them resolved. If it's one editor, start a thread on their talk page and do exactly the same. This part is negotiation.

Lets assume that the start-talking step above didn't work, for whatever reason. That's when it's time for one of the avenues in our dispute resolution processes to be followed. There are lots of options here and you'll likely spot one that suits you best. This is the point to stop editing the article - it gives you the higher ground if you've not edit warred or done anything silly in the meantime. Staying calm and factual is the best way to get somewhere with dispute resolution, so collect your sources now. You'll need any problematic diffs to hand, and also some reliable sources (as links is best) to back your point of view. Dispute resolution is never quick, but we're not on a deadline here and we're all volunteers, so you're not going to get speed out of us!

The only time that administrators can intervene is if someone breaks one of our bright-line rules. The community doesn't empower admins to make judgements in content disputes; we can only act where a rule has been clearly and unambiguously broken, or where a consensus can be shown to exist and continue to exist for or against something and needs enforcement - and even there we tread carefully as the community is rarely happy for admins to make too sweeping a judgement over anything.

So your next stage appears to be to try dispute resolution. You may also like to make a free account and edit with that: you don't have to, but since 70% of our vandalism comes from IP addresses, people tend to have a prejudice against them. The account can be throwaway - use it for the dispute resolution, then quietly forget about it once it's over. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP also characterized wikipedia editors with various extremist terms, on the article talk page. He also removed a section to make a point, although the point might be right. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Query - User creating hoaxes in another user's space

I recently discovered something very strange while recent change patrolling. One user, "Mr. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" has been creating possible hoax pages in another user's namespace. See here: . These are all within the TheWho71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) userspace. This was extremely perplexing to me. The articles revolve around a seemingly fictional band named "Smile", and the pages are written in past tense. Examples: "Smile (commonly typeset as SMiLE) are a rock group formally banded in 2010" "Then they had an above-average commercial success in their native province, with their debut Internet-only releases, their albums First Smile and Second Smile (2015), and their first concept album, Hit-Parade (2016). However, it is with the releases of their double album Two Times Rock 'n' Roll in 2017, a second concept album Performance in 2018"

This all seemed very strange (and rather fishy) to me. What do others think of this? Should steps be taken to prevent this material from hitting mainspace? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you notify Mr. Frank of this discussion. I suggest that we ask him; he has been most industrious in building that page. I can't imagine that that page has any legitimate encyclopedic purpose, but let us see what he says.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, a "hoax" which discusses what a band is doing in 2017 is so obvious it couldn't survive casual inspection, so I wonder if it is an actual hoax or done for some other reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of the discussion, and I hope he posts here soon. I agree with you - he has been extremely industrious in the building of those articles. I wish he'd devote that energy to real ones. :). Another interesting thing I noticed, adding to the "hoax", is that the Grateful Dead, including the deceased Jerry Garcia, play with the group on their 2014 live album. Very strange. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed so; if it was a common hoax, I'd delete first and ask questions later. But these obvious huge red flags make me want to hear from him, and at the very least give him a chance to copy them elsewhere before we delete them, as a sign of respect. We do no harm by waiting. Do we have an archive of the best hoaxes someplace?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We did, somewhat. Here. There are a couple other places in which users preserve "silly" articles, or hoaxes that had so much work put into them that they didn't deserve to be erased. Some people save them in their userspace (User:I.M.S./User:TheWho71/band/smile live 1‎, for example - the page does not exist) but this practice is frowned upon, I believe. I'm sure you know about all of that, however. Responding to "waiting for his opinion" - I completely agree with you. Waiting can't hurt. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if TheWho71 is a part of this, and if we should be talking to him as well. Would a page created in his userspace automatically be part of his watchlist? And the fact that his name derives from a band and this "hoax" is about a band is an interesting coincidence ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the notification, I see you did that. Nice work. Why would you go into another's userspace unless you had permission? I mean, it is not as if you are hiding anything, it is going to show up in your contributions and the article history.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. Responding to your second from last comment: Too much of one, perhaps. I'm not at all suggesting a SPI, but I do think it rather suspicious that Mr.Frank's ~30th edit was to establish this page, and he has devoted hundreds (perhaps over a thousand) edits within TheWho71's space. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you suggesting a cu? Given the fact that most users on their 30th edit couldn't intentionally make a page, it seems very possible and would explain a lot. Again, though: screamingly obvious.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we go about it? Should I open a formal case, or should we contact a CheckUser? What's the best way? I must admit that I've never opened or even been involved in an SPI before. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to the SPI page and create the subpage with the checkuser thing. I could start it if you want, as I have done so before, only to have one of the most stressful SPIs possible. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I created the investigation here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it, Kevin. As I'm rather busy right now, I feared getting caught up in an SPI, as I don't have that much time to devote at the moment (much like some of my FACs/GANs in the past). I'll submit my evidence to the case, If you'd like. Many thanks - I.M.S. (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

can someone help me with this?

there's a large chicken, begins with k or maybe c. A bit like a poussin is a small chicken. What is it I think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.128.159 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a browse of Category:Chicken - but ANI is not the place for these types of questions, sorry! Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk instead. GiantSnowman 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Do you mean a Cochin (see picture)? And may I recommend trying here next time you have a question like this? Welcome to the Misplaced Pages community - this is the page where administrators try to resolve issues with Misplaced Pages itself. Try the ref desk if you have a more general question about a subject, but remember that Misplaced Pages is not an off topic help desk. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Best. ANI. Thread. EVAR! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cochin? Doesn't look like it. This chicken is too white.... hmmm... -FASTILY 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.163.199 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a Texas-sized chicken: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they're trying to say there's a chicken on the loose in article space, and we need an administrator to catch it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

I know this was marked resolved but thought I should let you know have found the word I'm looking for - it's a capon.

Admins!

Yo admins? My mate Terry wants to edit this site as well, but we use the same computer? Are we allowed to edit/vote twice in threads like on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You can do that, but I would discourage against voting as there are things called Sockpuppets. If you want to get blocked off this site, go right ahead and vote, but I would seriously consider that you guys get a different computer to avoid any issues. That is a dilemma though, so I wouldn't go on my word alone. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could register accounts and then you could each edit with an account and not have to worry about things like sockpuppets! Frmatt (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It also probably wouldn't hurt to declare that you guys aren't sockpuppets of each other. A good way to back this up is to not go into discussions and vote the same way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Suppose we did want to vote on the same issue the same way. Couldn't we make it quicker by just signing once and putting vote x 2 or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages operates on consensus, not voting. There is no strong reason to sign a "vote x2". I echo the response, suggesting that you each create an account and declare that you are not affiliated with each other, but note that what you are referring to "votes" are discussions, not votes, and that what you say is far more important than whether you say "support", "oppose", or otherwise. --Shirik (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how it is that an IP's very first edit is to come to this page and raise this question. Although he's at least being honest about it instead of just doing it. Ironically, unless he gets into contentious editing, it's unlikely anyone would know. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

whats a sockpuppet? I don't like the sound of it whatever it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A Sockpuppet is a user who creates more than one account in order to sway opinion and consensus about something on wikipedia in their direction. If you click on the blue word "Sockpuppet", you can find out more info. Frmatt (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If two people are of the same mind, does their vote get discounted accordingly? What if someone's right and left hemispheres are not well connected? They get to vote twice? If I truly feel I am not the same person I was yesterday may I vote again? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, I can show you what happens to suspected socks here, since I just created an investigation. Sockpuppets can vote, but they can also be editing other articles below the radar. People are allowed to have one sock as long as they declare it and identify it to the community. And no, their vote doesn't get discounted, as they would likely be an unknown sockpuppet. If we knew that, we would block them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Sharing_an_IP_address Covers this question. Cheers.   bsmithme  04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, lots of this advice is going around in circles. If you and your friend edit from the same computer, but wish to use different accounts, that's fine. Actually, it would be helpful to do so, since it is harder to tell you two appart when you both edit from the same IP address. Each of you can create an account, just place a prominent notice on each of your userpages which makes it clear that the two of you share a computer, and that will head off any accusations of problems. You can safely vote in the same discussions, edit the same articles, whatever, as long as everyone knows up front what is going on, we can assume each of you is working in "good faith". Just make a prominent declaration of the connection, and all will be fine. --Jayron32 04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Also suggest that you two sometimes edit from other places. Do you two have jobs or go to school apart? If you sometimes edit from there, and the other guy never edits from there, that is evidence of non-sockpuppetry. Also helps if now and then you two are editing at the same time (once could be a set up but doing that often is pretty strong evidence that you're not the same person.)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

IP with a long history of disruptive edits

216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs) seems to attract complaints and conduct warnings from a great many users, as one can't help notice perusing the IP's talk page history and contribution history. There doesn't seem to be one specific problem, just the general pattern of being utterly uninterested in anyone pointing out his behavior runs afoul of various Misplaced Pages policies and community norms.

My encounter with the IP is on Talk:Mel Ignatow where they are continually adding their personal opinions on the trial the subject of the article was involved in, and reverting myself and another editor who mention that this really isn't what talk pages are for, per WP:NOTAFORUM. The IP claims their opinion on prosecutor actions will somehow improve the article, but it's a very thin and self-serving claim, they showed up to discuss their opinion on the trial, not the article, and have continued doing just that.

This should not be a big deal... but the IP continues in the face of objections to the point of being belligerent. As this is not even close to being the first time this has happened, I am submitting it here. Perhaps a block is in order, or perhaps someone with more tact can step in and resolve things through discussion. Ultimately I do think it looks bad for the talk page of a relatively controversial person to be filled with newspaper-forum style opinions.

I will notify the IP of this thread but their talk page indicates they will just remove the notice. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like pretty much forum talk, I collapsed the discussion. It's not appropriate for any editor, much less an IP to have an entire section on their personal opinion of the trial, complete with saying the participants dressed like tramps and were hicks. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs userpage was tagged as a sock of an indefinitely blocked serial sockmaster until the IP came along and blanked it . Perhaps this merits an SPI investigation (without Checkuser obviously, as the main account is too old). The IP is clearly a sockpuppet per this -- <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Millergirl.jpg virus?

This could be a problem: File:Millergirl.jpg. I've tagged it as a WP:CSD#F10 but...the mediawiki software reports it as possibly containing malicious code. Could it be a virus? -FASTILY_sock 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful, but we should probably delete all of Schoolboy098 (talk · contribs)'s uploads (no copyright tags, and various other reasons).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not at home now, I honestly do not want avast! saying "caution caution a freaking virus is being downloaded your computer might just blow up" like it did in this case in this AfD:

Comment – Link removed - indication the link was infected with HTML/Iframe.B.Gen virus ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Comment: avast! caught that bugger in the process of downloading it as well. I would've posted it if it weren't for the edit conflicts. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

— ttonyb and me commenting on that freaking virus in the link that was removed

Does anyone want:

caution caution a freaking virus has been freaking detected that might blow your computer up

— avast! complaining about the virus, emphasis added, quote is not exact

this or something similar? If it blocks your connection, just freaking disable your AV software for a second, delete it, re-enable, you're good to go. And Fastily, what AV do you use? ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I'd rather not delete it until a user with an IT background or anyone who knows how to deal with this kind of stuff takes a look at it; frankly, I'd rather not see my computer not blow up either. I use Norton. -FASTILY_sock 05:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. Thanks for getting it fixed. -FASTILY_sock 05:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Deleted, as unused, unknown (MS Word ?) non-image file. Haven't checked the users other uploads. Abecedare (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And I wasn't the one fixing it Fastily, it was another admin... whatever. ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There was another similar incident recently, see this archive. Honestly, there's no legitimate reason for uploaded images to contain iframe markup, so we ought to be sanitizing it automatically, or else blocking uploads that seem to contain such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

GRES Império da Praça Seca

See the history user:biantez, a notorious vandal in pt.wiki , because, impositin POV in many articles of carnival. Example, remove valid information., include information with reliable sources. Quintinense (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the large content removals, but it's been 2 days since last attempt so any action now might be considered punitive and the user does have a lot of good contributions. At the very least an edit summary needs to be left or it naturally looks suspicious. Haven't been any previous official warnings... admin check and further opinions welcomed. Without past warnings and no clear incivility on our Misplaced Pages, my unofficial opinion would be a warning... level 3-ish on removal of content? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a user banned from editing Eastern European pages be editing Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes?

A user that I see is banned from editing Eastern European pages for one year is involved in the discussion on the Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes talk page.

There is a lot of Eastern European content on that page.

I am simply seeking clarification.

AGF, so I don't want to say any more for now.

Thanks.

DHooke1973 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd think it'd be obvious, given that the Soviet Union—mostly the SSRs near the Iron Curtain, but the RSFSR too—does fall under the blanket term of "Eastern European". Sceptre 08:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference for the admin resolving this, could you maybe give a few diffs, user and link to sanctions? I know a number recently have been banned from certain aspects and articles per ArbCom, but not sure of all details for all persons. This being why a link would be good. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

According to an arbitrator, topics about global ideology are not covered by the topic ban. Also, initiator of the thread seems to be in an content dispute with one of the topic-banned editors. --Sander Säde 08:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that this could fall either way. Is the article designed or talk posted geared toward how Communist regimes engage in mass killings and why? ...or is it examples, definitions and history of and in the Soviet Union in particular? First would be ideology, later would be a specific matter. I'm entirely indifferent, but there's at least a little gray area here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I simply want to ensure that all editors at that page are editing in good faith. Anyone with a strong ideological bias that will not be shifted by the evidence is going to make it very difficult to reach consensus.

It's because I'm in a content discussion that I want the clarification. No point talking to someone who has already decided not to listen. I want to make sure it isn't the case.

It's both, Datheisen. How, why, definitions, and lots of examples and history of various Communist regimes.

Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics

DHooke1973 (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Civility is upheld and some good faith is kept, I can see it as okay... but point of the topic bans were to avoid endless WP:NOTFORUM talk like this, yes? If the subject matter is in question, I'd say duck test it versus the three things mentions above and if it cannot at all be viewed as disruption, canvassing, etc. ... okay, that's a lot of "ifs". It would be preferable if the user would just walk away from the talk page before any official resolutions are offered. Then again, I assume they know this given how recent the final decision was put down. Wouldn't be a good start to good faith offered by ArbCom if this continues, certainly. Duck test screams at my gut that this is not a very good thing, btw. As such, half-objectively (the gray area) and entirely subjectively, this doesn't seem all that appropriate to do. 'Tis my recommendation at least. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes covers regimes other than those in Eastern Europe, for example China, Cambodia and North Korea. It also includes a discussion of the link between Communist ideology and mass killings. I asked the ArbCom about what is included within the EE topic ban and explicitly mentioned Mass killings under Communist regimes. FayssalF states "editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones" I've been mindful of my EE topic ban and have currently confined myself to general concepts, like the difference between mass murder and mass killings on the article talk page, while totally avoiding anything specific to Eastern Europe, although I will be contributing to the sections concerning China, Cambodia and North Korea in the future. DHooke1973 could have asked for clarification on my talk, but instead comes here without letting me know. AGF is needed here. --Martin (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'm not up to speed with protocol. I've been overwhelmed with bureaucracy and intrigue since I signed up. You don't keep your Talk page public so what's the point of me posting on it? I was actually trying not to name you, just seek clarification on the rule.

No, I wouldn't just ask you, and I'll tell you why:

AGF is something asked of the community. Frankly, I haven't had a chance to feel like part of the community. It's been dodgy since I joined up. If you feel I'm treating you unfairly, Martin, then it would be because I was blocked as a sockpuppet on decidedly ropey grounds and someone recommends that all my contributions on the Talk page be deleted! A significant number of editors I come across have project Estonia or an Estonian image on their user pages, which is kind of weird, only because none of the pages I am editing are about Estonia. I say to myself I'm just being paranoid. Then I find out about this cabal EEML. And you are involved.

I'm sorry, it stinks. NO-ONE ASSUMED GOOD FAITH WITH ME. Bang - blocked. If you're a victim of my circumspection, then you have my sympathy. Hopefully we can open this right up and clear the air.

I have AGF with all editors on the Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes page, but I am reserving it outside that. Quite frankly I would be insane to do anything else.

Now, we are specifically talking about two famines on that page atm, one of which was in the Soviet Union. Looking at the comment you part-quoted, I honestly don't know why you are within one hundred miles of that page.

"What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones. In fact, the restrictions cover —among other topics— everything to do with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communism and their relationship with Eastern Europe's cultures and politics. Eurocommunism, Chinese communism or Communism in Angola can be edited freely without violating the spirit of the restrictions. The spirit of the restriction is to end or at least limit the heated atmosphere and the battleground mentality around the topics that involve Russia and its neighbors -both historically and politically."

DHooke1973 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a "they disagree, so I will find any process to disqualify them"-type situation. I suggest that any editor with any desire to see how the process is working in the article make a fair reading of the article talk page. The article deals with a great deal more than just Eastern Europe, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

With the wider scope of the article, okay, it's likely out of the bounds of ArbCom's ruling. I'd still make a case that this isn't at all in the spirit of ArbCom's good faith in taking extra care in separating out users for different sanctions, and it's almost gaming the system on a technicality at ArbCom's expense. Martintg seems to have been spared a 3 month total ban on AGF on abiding by the topic ban; see here for final vote on the topic ban. I'd really suggest not pushing your luck on this and avoiding any article that mentions an event that took place in the Soviet Union. Period. Focus or no, I don't know why it would be worth the risk. I'll put this another way-- Arbs did not side to opposs that ban per AGF on the topic ban so that said users could run off in heated discussions on matters that, thought not directly related to, are still tied to the articles restricted. Bad karma, and not a road to go down. Any incivility reports, edit warring, etc. whatsoever on article talk or user talk pages relating to, might require a motion to amend. Pleeeease don't squander the good faith handed back to you by the community. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User making accusations regarding legal threats

See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1: a user claims that I am making legal threats. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're in the clear, I'm pretty sure. From the nutshell of WP:NLT: "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." You're not threatening anyone to sue (as you state there, you wouldn't have standing anyway), you're just pointing out that their actions could be considered libelous. —Scott5114↗ 08:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye. That's not a legal threat by *any* stretch of the imagination. -Jeremy 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

repeatedly removing AfD message and socking to do so "not vandalism"?

not vandalism?. So people can just do that repeatedly? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding AFD tags, I believe if you warned the user not to do so (instead of general anti-vandalism tags) they would have stopped, as they did now. Materialscientist (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'socking to do so' part is, as yet, unconfirmed, and new users remove AfD templates all the time, thinking it will have the same affect as removing a PROD or CSD tag, especially when the article was prodded and they removed that template. It seems perfectly possible to me at this stage that they are separate users.

Additionally, it would have been much more helpful to try to communicate with the user(s) more effectively than templating them accusing them of vandalism when removal of AfD templates does not immediately seem to be vandalism to most inexperienced users; a message saying 'Please don't remove AfD templates as this will not stop the discussion, and may be considered vandalism'.

Thirdly, it's also a shame that you chose to come straight here rather than engage me on my talk page first. GedUK  09:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the message itself clearly states "do not remove". Secondly, if it is not vandalism, then you're saying *I* have violated 3RR - no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, user did so again, after your friendly message. I'll leave it to you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by Cremepuff222

Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have decided to continue their campaign of leaving stupid messages on my talkpage (see here for earlier discussion). I don't know what the solution is, but their behaviour has to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose this discussion take place elsewhere. I see no reason for administrative intervention. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this suggestion on Cremepuff's talkpage. I see the need for administrative intervention because nothing I can do seems to stop these soppy notes being left on my talkpage. Cremepuff's admin rights were removed, and it still carries on. This clearly needs the community to step in and help resolve the "dispute" – such as it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I ask if you like apples. Cremepuff222 gets banhammered? Just answer the question. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Honest question Cremepuff: Why would you do this? It seems as if you are just asking to get banned. We just finished a prior proceeding where your behaviour was deemed inappropriate. Why stir the hornet's nest again? Are you still tying to prove your "everyone should relax" point? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, checking back the records, there have been a couple of other similar/worrying from Cremepuff today and yesterday: This really needs to be sorted out. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to read the discussion that went on here earlier, and some comments were not very nice! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that double support on the RfA was quite a mistake. The first diff, however, was quite intentional. Edit summary just wasn't that nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously man, just address the question: Are you trying to make a point here (again)? This is getting tiresome. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't trying to make a point here (again), sir. His comments were not very kind, and posting silly questions clearly disturbs him greatly. So an act of revenge I believe! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I very much like your userpage, Throwaway85! It's lovely. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Back to the issue at hand? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs attention ASAP, this is the same matter that looked like a compromised account a week ago and it shouldn't happen again. Both of you, I'd suggesting backing off for a few hours and taking a powernap while matters are sorted. Continued bickering isn't going to accomplish anything and just result in unneeded incivility or disruption.

Given the severity of the last matter, it needs to be discussed and investigated. Given the holiday and ArbCom appointments coming, it may or may not be better to discuss here first, I've no right to opinion on that. One condition of the indef block overturned 5 days ago was for no further disruptions or other nonsense. It may or may not be deliberate that this is starting exactly 1 week after the first block (of 1 week) was initiated, perhaps thinking that it results in a clean slate for some reason... however, the block was changed to indef, so even that claim is moot. This is out of place for me to suggest, but a short-term block could be used to pause this, as it was last time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Because further "harassment" will cause much harm to our beloved editors. Hmm, the one week business is quite a coincidence too. I think we should discuss on my talk page though, if possible! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CP, could you please just agree to stop provoking editors in this manner? If you would do so, I think everyone involved would be willing to move on and forget anything ever happened. Continuing on this course, however, will only engender more drama. Please stop. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I think it best to cease any interactions of any kind with TreasuryTag, given the delicate nature of the situation. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note—this is precisely what Cremepuff promised to do a week ago: "Whatever the case, I will not engage in anymore of these nonconstructive editing sprees. And again, apologies to those whose time I've wasted." That promise held for about six days. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, but let's just leave it be for now. If it happens again, it's flagrant trolling. For now, let's AGF that he's being honest here. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, Tags. I'll stop for sure this time. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up on your talk pages, too, please. TreasuryTag-- WP:DENY on any and all further postings since you know responding won't do anything. Just track any future troubles tonight until this gets looked over, and after you know the deal with WP:WQA and WP:AIV for use in the future. An admin can review the terms of the unblock, but I will echo Throwaway85 in that AGF stands for the timebeing. The promise of "never again" came up last time as well, if I recall... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I forgot about that little detail. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you honestly suggest it was "revenge"? That's either WP:POINT, WP:BEAR, WP:DICK or WP:STICK ... pick one, it's awfully uncivil activity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest, I quite clearly stated that it was indeed revenge. :) And... I like all four of those. They're nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Really??? Are you here to write an encyclopedia or screw around? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, not gonna lie. Both! --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense on the part of Cremepuff needs to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's "Cremepuff222" to you, sir. And why do you speak of me as though I am not listening? Speak to me, more effective. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking a look at his talk page has convinced me that this problem is not going away. Can we focus on a permanent solution? Or, correct me if I'm wrong, has he already been blocked? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored his indef block. Edits like this prove he is here to screw around. The rest of us are not and simply don't have time for this childishness. Edits like this prove he doesn't care much either way. Without meaning to be rude, we're well shot of him; alas, because he was a productive and useful editor once. But no longer. Wikisuicide. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pity. Hope we will see him again in a mature guise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Let's close the case and move on. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to block when Redvers beat me to it. Because he may come back, and because of this disruption, I have removed his rollback rights. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's indeffed right now, to my understanding. If he wants to come back, he needs to appeal the block, and I don't see that happening (successfully) any time soon. Still, good preventative measure. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Good block, thanks, Redvers. A real pity it had to come to this... ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just to say that I support this block. It's very sad seeing a former administrator and a long term contributor indefed, but come on, Cremepuff, enough is enough. Way too much time has been wasted on his childish game playing already with the last ANI, the RFC etc and he either needs to get with the program and stop using Misplaced Pages as a toy or go away and come back when he's grown up a tad. What I find most alarming in all this is that someone this immature could get through RfA and it's really yet more evidence that we need to find a better way of selecting our admins. Sarah 11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • In talking to Ryan Postelwaite, his nominator, it seems that this childish behaviour is recent, and that he behaved in a much more mature fashion during his RfA and the period following it. This recent behaviour seems out of place. Inexcusable, nonetheless. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The childish trolling continued on his talk page, so Anonymous Dissident blanked and I've protected it indef to save him from himself. I'll unprotect after a month or so, to give him growing-up space. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have been so blunt in my questioning this morning. I'd seen enough, and realized that appealing to his ego was actually going to get the true answers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The former administrator-in-question, had become irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. The indef-blocking is the correct course of action. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what Cremepuff was trying to achieve here - I emailed him last week when he started messing around and he seemed quite genuine with his apology to me. After he gave up his admin rights, he seemed to behave more collaboratively for a few days then we get hit with this. The only thing that I can think of is alcohol (or some other drug) getting in the way of his clarity (especially given the time of the recent troublesome edits (around 4am his time)) but that doesn't really matter anyway - Well deserved indefinite block in my opinion. I want to make it clear though that when Cremepuff became an administrator, he was a role model for other young Wikipedians - he worked extremely hard and was well respected, it's unfortunate what's now happened. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff 222—clearing up the mess

Cremepuff has helpfully posted a list of his misdemeanours on his talkpage, some of which may need looking into, particularly this – a case where Cremepuff seems to have reversed, without explanation, a decision made at MfD. He has also admitted another vandal-sockpuppet about which even last week's Checkuser drew no evidence; perhaps this merits further investigation. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the disruption on his talk page, that may need to be protected as well. It's a shame that a previously productive editor has ended his time here like this. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's now spamming my email. I just received the following message: Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun! While his email address reveals his real-life name, I'd very much rather this stopped. Could he be re-blocked without email? I'm happy to forward it to an admin if necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 12:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Now received multiple emails from him... *groan*) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not much anyone could do about off-wiki emailing. Just mark his email addy as spam and be done with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is, he can have his use of Special:Emailuser disabled (see Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Setting_block_options). ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 12:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't reply to anything he sent? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Thanks, Ged. And no, I certainly didn't reply to anything he sent, I have hopes of living the rest of my life in peace! :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck with that, and may your holidays end in a much less stressfull manner than they started. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As sad as this is to say, this went far more smoothly than last week, and being why this time everyone being so flat and blunt was useful. User has no one to blame but his/herself for this all and we still don't know where this came from or why it started. Remember the concerns about the compromised account and the appeal to Meta for an emergency desysop? Given this happened again, and seemingly very deliberately at the end of what the user thought was still their 1 week block/sanctions, it should be reported somewhere "higher" (I wouldn't know where) and a check on login info being from different IPs than the usual? ...Do we do CUs of a single account in these cases? All the question marks that appeared then that were chalked up to a one-off bit of adolescent whatever are now back. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Warm Period

To Whom it May Concern,

The article Medieval Warm Period was mentioned on this website, and since that day, there have been a flood of edits, out of character with the amount of editing of the article prior to the publication of the website's article 19 December). I checked the talk page and there is no mention of this. But I thought I'd let you guys know, because I've seen on other pages that there is a banner on the talk page that says if an article was mentioned on another website. Anyways, that might be the cause of the recent edits to the article (it's currently locked).--72.178.133.37 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That website is also on Digg's front page titled "How WIkipedia's Green Doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles".--72.178.133.37 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed in several places including here and here.Falcon8765 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to the talk page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple new accounts adding mysterious external link

A situation was raised in this thread at the External Links Noticeboard that deserves administrator attention. Someone is creating multiple new accounts with the apparent sole purpose of adding links to the site at sites.google.com/site/datemix/. The accounts are created, given user pages dressed up to look like the pages of experienced users (e.g., putting a supposed user profile claiming to have begun editing in 2006, when the account was created that day), and from there the only activity is to add this link. I'm particularly disturbed by the user-page dress-ups, which suggests a relatively sophisticated attempt to prevent the accounts from being immediately blocked. The link itself goes to what is basically a blank page, so I suspect either malware distribution or an experiment to see whether this type of approach will work for spreading spam in the future. Accounts involved include:

• Edunsi (talk · contribs · block user)
• Denenc (talk · contribs · block user)
• Menxuo (talk · contribs · block user)
• Benzuo (talk · contribs · block user)
• Carlode (talk · contribs · block user)

I'm working on removing the remaining instances of this link, and I'm going to report it to the spam blacklist, but something needs to be done about these accounts. --RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the user and talk pages, they are full of fake claims - Denenc has copied User:Magicartpro's user page, for instance, and is claiming to have created Magicartpro's articles. I'd say block them all, and I might just do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Socks. Look at User:Menxuo's user page... Banner up top suggests persons look at their alternate account which they're on break. Okay. That sends us to User:Merlion44, which itself is a puppet of User:Merlion444. Sock of a sock was approved? Highly unlikely. Same MO on userpages and edits for all 5 of those. imo it might only have been copied because it is the same user. Worth an SPI for Magicartpro and Merlion444 probably. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks, will file an SPI to root out sleepers. -Jeremy 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Got one more - Xinoov (talk · contribs · block user). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, will add to SPI now. -Jeremy 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• • And another, Dexora (talk · contribs · block user). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• And have added that one as well, as well as requested any CU doing it to also hit the underlying IP. -Jeremy 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• By the by, SPI up. -Jeremy 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a bunch more, I'll add them to the investigation. The pattern suggests to me that it's User:Tile join, but that's just a hunch. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior from User:Franklin.vp

Franklin.vp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of extreme incivility. My most recent encounter with this user was this post, which was directed at me and which I found extremely upsetting to the point that I was considering retiring (again) from the project. I had a previous encounter with this user at Talk:Asymptote, where perhaps both of us behaved in a mutually antagonistic fashion, but ultimately I found his posts there inappropriately personal (including some ridiculous but aggravating speculation on what I do or do not understand, which I found totally uncalled for). Since our interaction on Talk:Asymptote, I have found on several occasions that Franklin seems to have appeared on talk pages of articles that I edit. As this seemed to fall short of WP:HARASSment at the time, I was not going to make too much of this, but then I noticed that apparently the user has quite a history of extremely inappropriate posts:

• Calling another user (me) ignorant and petulant.
• Calling another user "an ignorant brute" and a "troll".
• Other very rude remarks that appear to have been part of a campaign of harassment against User:Nezzadar. In particular, , .

There was an earlier ANI thread on this sort of behavior here in the archives (actually, with this edit following the "stern warning", he probably should have been blocked outright). I don't know what the appropriate course of action is to deal with this. I leave it as a matter for the folks here to decide. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If these kinds of vicious personal comments are actually condoned by Misplaced Pages's policies (as evidenced by over two hours without any other comment), I think I really shall retire for good. I do think this at least warrants some reply, if not some kind of administrator action. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas time. Be patient. Not too many people are here now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see where you warned him at 21:22, 22 December 2009 which was AFTER the incivility you note above. I also see that User:Franklin.vp has not made any incivil comments since you warned him at that time. Are there any that I am missing, because what I see here is a) your warning 2 days ago b) some edits by him, none of which contain any incivility and c) this thread. What we are missing is evidence that your warning did not cause him to change his behavior; that he ignored your warning. Near as I can tell, he took your warning to heart and is playing by the rules right now. Can you show us recent (i.e. since your warning) evidence of problems? --Jayron32 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Renewed disruption/hounding by User:Jack Merridew

Although I have tried to avoid/ignore him for months now per WP:DENY, he is still at and despite multiple warnings; see for example the proposals at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Move to close and Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Let's keep it simple..., which follow up on Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Warnings regarding A Nobody. I have been working on Manon Batiste for some time only to have him show up with this comment after me, revert me, revert me elsewhere, and attack me in a discussion. As User:Newyorkbrad wrote, "I would also emphasize that Jack Merridew should make a concerted effort to avoid unnecessary interaction with other editors with whom he has been in repeated conflict, not only White Cat, and should avoid any actions that could give a reasonable appearance of wikihounding such editors, whether or not that is his intent." He is meanwhile also back to signing with "Jeers" despite warnings as well. Despite multiple warnings, proposals, and cautions, it just won't stop, whether it be to avoid me, to not mock others in signatures, etc. Enough already! Please, please help! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pickbothmanlol loves Jack Merridew, please no block. Faded-Myth-Of-Fate (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone block the damn sock, above. AN, please cease being disruptive re pop-culture articles and AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See for example the following comment from an admin: "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• A sublimely timed complaint, A Nobody, when just moments ago you engaged in the exact kind of mimicry of another editor's comments that you've repeatedly been told is infuriating. Haven't you also been told running to ANI at the drop of a hat is also kind of annoying? --EEMIV (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Haven't you been told to stop swearing and mocking editors in your incivil edit summaries: , , etc.? Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, not that I recall, no. --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• For example, I said as much concerning your reversions of people's edits as "lasy" here. And after putting up with these attacks for a year and despite multiple warnings by multiple admins and other editors is hardly a "drop of the hat". I avoided jumping in on such threads as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Jack Merridew's disruptive signature and yet the fixation on me has continued. Trying to change the subject is unhelpful. I know you don't like me; I know no matter what I do, I can't change that perception, but I should hope that even someone who does not like me would see a problem when even admins who are not my biggest fans have warned someone to avoid me, he stays after me, or when even his staunchest supporters have warned him not to use "jeers" in signatures, he keeps at it. When even people who don't like me see a problem, when even his supporters warn him, and he still ignores both, then it is time an admin do something more decisive to stop this already. Despite all the mean things you have said to me, I can assure you that if some user was warned by multiple admins to leave you alone and kept going around calling you disruptive, etc., I absolutely would support your rightful indignation if the shoe was on your foot. There is a serious problem on our site if someone with such a bad history sees fit to fixate on another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Nobody (talk • contribs)

• I wasn't trying to "change the subject" by bringing up your echolalia; rather, suggest that you're not going to get anything out of your latest JM complaint about him behaving in a way contrary to previous admonitions against him when you, also, behave in a way contrary to previous admonitions against you. You keep asking for support in enforcing a change in someone's problematic behavior yet seem unwilling to make a shift yourself. (Maybe I've missed something in your behavior the last few weeks we haven't overlapped -- but, judging by the AfD- and article-related behavior where we've overlapped the last days or so, I see the same ol' same ol'.) --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anyway, good luck. I'm sure this thread will end with the same mutual frustration and bemusement the others have. Perhaps you can demonstrate being "the better person" and pick a venue for contributions in an area that doesn't significantly overlap with JM's. Not exactly fair to you, but it gives you a "high road." Or something. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• That is what gets me here. You know perhaps my main interest on Misplaced Pages is fiction and yet, I intentionally avoid commenting in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allieds, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jagernaut, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ruby Dynasty specifically to avoid him (I somewhat similarly am avoiding such discussion as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries), despite my obvious interest, that you commented in so as not to needlessly escalate things between us). If I can avoid discussions after him, there is no legitimate reason why he must show up in discussions after me, and he doesn't just show up after me. As I indicate above, he does so with a "rationale" that attacks me more so than actually focusing on the article. As Fram hints at in her cited warning above, it is one thing if editors with impeccable records criticize me, but to be ridiculed by someone who thinks the sexist "Delete...her tits didn't make teh list" is a worthwhile contribution? Neither I nor anyone can take seriously criticism from such an account. Moreover, whether anyone finds my sources convincing enough, we are indeed here to build an encyclopedia and so to characterize a good faith effort to spend several minutes not only looking for sources by also working them into the article is just too over the top. Again, someone can reasonably not convinced that my sources meet their criteria. Okay. But to call trying to find and add sources "disruptive"?! And to be called that by someone who has done nothing to demonstrate looking for sources or attempting to add them in just about every fiction AfD he comments in is beyond the pale. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/A Nobody and you're back at it all. Jack Merridew 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not about me following AN; I saw the articles pop-up on my watchlist. He's disruptively undoing redirects on merged content; repeatedly. AN needs to cease all of the disruptive behaviors he garnered so much commentary on. His demonizing of me is merely a tactic to change the subject.

Note how he starts right off with "WP:DENY". I've tried all sorts of DR with him, but he simply shows me the hand and seeks sanctions. AN, you want this properly sorted? Pick one of our talk pages and we'll have a nice cup of tea. If you will not, I'll stick to my view that you need a pop-culture/XfD/RfA topic ban; broadly construed. You would, of course, need to significantly adjust your approach to this project. Jack Merridew 18:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew, do you think it is more appropriate for you, than someone else, to be responding to edits made by A Nobody (both of you have a history of animosity)? Why didn't you give someone else a chance to respond to the issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See the histories of Manon Batiste and Jimmy Patterson; the edit warring over the redirect has been going on all month without me. I opined on both AfDs some months back and this has repeatedly popped-up for me, so I dipped an oar in and commented. I care little about A Nobody as a person; I do care about his disruption of the project in areas I've long had an interest in. If he would like less involvement from me, he could try and reform his approach to the project. Jack Merridew 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Restore original section title. Whether the claim was correct or not, the title, accurately reflecting the poster's accusation, was consistent with practice here, and Jack's retitling was abusively uncivil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a neutral title or a neutral editor doing the restore. Jack Merridew 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

After being mockingly referred to by my old name on Misplaced Pages Review after admin User:DGG wrote "I can confirm that I've seen the evidence of ongoing harassment off-wiki. I think baiting someone in these circumstances is despicable." by someone who also claims in his blog to "have gained enough trust and influence now and most admins are so naïve that I can make claims against anybody I suspect is a secondary account and get them blocked for sockpuppetry" and who admittedly "loves conflict", it's just enough already. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Those blogs are not me; some fucking troll. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues and User talk:MJfan9

This user has repeatedly inserted copyrighted images on his user talkpage ] and user page ]. He is wiping his user page of the last warnings he has been recving but something has to give. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to remove any messages from his user talk that he wants to. As far as I can see, he has not, as yet, restored the non-free images since removing the warning. So far, he is actually heeding that warning. He read the final warning at 16:20, and someone (rightfully) removed the problematic images at 13:54-13:56. So far, he is doing exactly what a warning is supposed to do. He has not repeated the problematic behavior, so there doesn't look like anything for admins to do here. If the behavior returns, let us know, but right now, it looks fine. --Jayron32 19:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the last few days of warnings he recieved. I understand he is good to clear his talk page at will but this is the third or fourth final warning I've seen because of this issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards