Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:16, 24 January 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:JCRB

User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see , this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an odd form of "disruption". He is replacing the unsourced statement that Gibraltar is self-governing with a statement that it is non-self-governing sourced to the unquestionably reliable United Nations: . I'm bound to say that we could probably do with a bit more of that particular kind of disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, this is exactly why every conspiracy theory nut or ardent nationalist swarms round wikipedia like flies round shit. People have taken the time and effort to explain why its disruption, its down below. People have independently looked at it and agreed, the information is down below. People have actually explained why its wrong in detail on the talk page of the article. Did you read any of it? No. Do you know anything about it? Obviously not, but you're quite prepared to wade in with a pair of size 10s and back the disruptive editor over the product editors who desperately do need admin help on an article that is literally besieged by people trying to advance their agenda using wikipedia as a platform. Marvelous, absolutely fucking marvelous. Justin talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, what you can read down below is merely your own particular opinion on why the references provided aren't acceptable. However, reliable sources such as United Nations' resolutions usually have more bearing here than your peculiar POV. Finally, we could use a little bit more of politeness and a bit less of original research. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A peculiar POV of UN resolutions? I presume you're referring to the suggestion that the UN says that Gibraltar is Spanish is that the WP:OR you refer to? No that isn't a view I'm advocating. Funnily enough the view of the UN C24 is in the article, because I was one of the people that added it. But they we aren't actually speaking of UN resolutions are we, there is no UN resolution that specifies Gibraltar is a none self-governing territory. We're looking here at UN documents being abused for something completely different. Justin talk 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever. I removed the contentious phrase from the lede since it had no cited source, was contradicted by a very credible source and the default for contentious and disputed material is to remove it pending formation of some consensus. And do you know something? After I removed it the article read so close to the same that I bet anyone who's not already engaged in the WP:PANTO will never know the difference. But you'll never guess what happened. Apparently I have to "discuss" in in a way that is not satisfied by a new section on the Talk page. My how Misplaced Pages changes: discussion now happens somewhere other than talk pages, maybe. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here , ending here ) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... _Will (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.

I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).

I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately. I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism. Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.

Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.

Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities. Raising that was a legitimate concern.

As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise. Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda. I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me. Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Misplaced Pages as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Misplaced Pages edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Misplaced Pages. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article , it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:

• Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.

• One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) . There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted? Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."

• A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum . It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:

"Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."

I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One hundred words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand. Then its straight back to the same point again. And again. And again. Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy. Can we please get some help here. Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Misplaced Pages and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".

On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).

I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar? Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again? You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions. You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).

I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."

Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

If that is a way of saying that I have not "vilified Gibraltar or Gibraltarians" nor "pushed a nationalistic POV" in WP, then I am very glad.

Regarding the removal of the source, I quote my comment of 7 August 2009: "BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm); but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc." In fact, my next edit had the following tag: "Was reference to private law firm site (the next sentence in that page is "Gibraltar is tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed.", maybe we should add it to the introduction too?)" In fact, the quote was so out of place in WP that nobody (not even Justin) defended that source as reputable. Honestly, I think this is not a very good diff to prove that I have made a nationalistic comment... It is also a bit embarrassing that you have not yet realised how out of place that cite was... ;-)

Also, you are quoting some off-wiki sentences by myself which 1) are out of context (and you know it because I explained them at length six months ago) and 2) about which I have apologised in WP several times in case I had offended anyone (the first one in the beginning of August and the beginning of my edits in WP -not 6 months later- just when we began to discuss about this and Justin brought those off-wiki comments to the discussion). I think that is very much out of place if what we are talking about is whether I have pushed a nationalistic POV in WP. I am a bit disappointed and offended by that.

I repeat that I have only insisted in including the UN's, the Government of UK and some Government of Gibraltar POVs. Obviously, that is not pushing a "Spanish nationalist POV"...

I insist, is there a way to stop people accusing me of pushing a nationalistic POV if no (serious) diff is provided? IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I neither defended nor opposed that reference. And I will highlight you are not seeking to present the UN view, rather a somewhat perverse interpretation of UN resolutions to "prove" Gibraltar is Spanish. And that isn't a nationalist view point? Please also don't attempt to portray your comments as anything but sarcasm, you insult people's intelligence.

Again I ask the question, do I have to post the comments you made off-wiki and acknowledge as yours? Justin talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Gibraltar is Spanish. It is British. So I have no intention to "prove" that Gibraltar is Spanish. I only say that, if the lead says that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" (a very respectable Gibraltarian POV), it should also include the fact that the equally respectable UN's General Assembly has listed Gibraltar as a "non self-governing territory" as per NPOV. Also, in that case, it should show the POV of the UK: the very respectable UK Government does not say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory PERIOD" but that it has an important level of "internal self-government" (that is, that Gib is self-governing except in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, internal security and the public service -which are not insignificant exceptions). This, I am sure, is not a nationalistic approach. But I have already explained this to you more than 20 times (this is not an exaggeration)

I have asked you already in the article 9 times to accept an alternative to just keep discussing with the same arguments over and over. Are you finally going to answer me and accept mediation, RfC or any other dispute resolution option? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the UN General Assembly has NEVER listed Gibraltar as a "colony", Gibraltar is on the list because the UK nominated it back in 1947. You have constantly and consistently misrepresented sources to advance an agenda. Secondly, the comments about the UN C24, who maintain it on the list due to lobbying by the Spanish Government, are included in the article. The article as written is NPOV. The UK Government actually says that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - the limits are in the article. So what you're asking is nothing to do with NPOV.

Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of yours:

Even for a Spanish nationalist thats a pretty extreme expression of opinion. Your first edits were to remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing , , you then proceeded to try edit warring to keep it. You then proceeded to tie the talk page up in tendentious argument its nearly 156 kB long . None the less people engaged in good faith and tried to explain it to you, you've never once listened and still push the same line. It hasn't changed all the below were just this week.

The UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. Similarly:

Again, the UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. What is clear though is the POV agenda behind it. Now having a POV is not a problem on Misplaced Pages but what is a problem is disrupting the article with reams of tendentious argument to try and skew the article to favour a particular POV. Whats also a problem is lobbying for sanctions against other editors, claiming they're being "insulting" and that you're "offended" when all that has been done is to point out you're misrepresenting what you're setting out to achieve. The article is currently paralysed, nothing can move forward, so please can we have some admin intervention. Justin talk 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!

This is very frustrating. I have been for six months asking for outside help in the discussion. Now Justin -even though he does not answer directly to me, after 10 times asking for his opinion on outside help in dispute resolution- seems to agree that some admin intervention is needed. Now is the moment...

(even though I have explained the previous comments to Justin many times, he keeps bringing them out of context -maybe to paint me as an extremist to outsiders of the discussion; so I will -boringly- explain them once again:

• The off-wiki comments were not a serious discussion trying to improve an encyclopedic article, but to -playfully, as you can see in the style- make fun of a (very coky) commentator in The Economist who pretended to be a translator from a very prestigious university, but kept making mistakes in Spanish while putting other commentators down laughing at their English. I am not proud of those coments and have apologise many times in WP for several months. I sincerely apologise here once more if they offended someone. Anyway I think they are not relevant in WP.
• You have just seen one clear example of what has been happening during the past 6 months: Justin says that the General Assembly does not list Gibraltar as a non self-governing territory. On the other hand, I have posted the following link like four or five times to Justin but he -maybe because the discussion is very heated- seems to ignore it. Please take a look a it:

I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.

• Justin brings some of my comments on UN's resolutions (those were the texts where the "keywords" came from), and says that the UN "does not say so", but he fails to bring the UN texts just one line up from my comments where it is clear that the UN says that the referendum among Gibraltarians was a contravention of its resolutions (because it does not consider Gibraltarians as the people with the right to determine the status of Gibraltar, otherwise that referendum would be very happily accepted by the UN). I do not say that Gibraltarians are not the people of the territory (again, my opinion is not relevant). I only say that the UN says so.

Please, I am getting very tired of this discussion. I know that Justin and Gibnews and other editors from both sides are too. I am afraid that this will get too heated at some point. It has already been six months. I agree with Justin that we need some admin intervention to help us out.

Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No the list is compiled by the UN C24 and adopted by the General Assembly, there is a big difference. And the fact remains that Gibraltar only ever got on that list because the UK nominated it and for no other reason. Misrepresenting it, is intended to give the list more credibility than it actually posesses. The article already includes this information, you're not seeking to improve the NPOV you're looking to skew it. You are abusing UN references claiming they say one thing, when they do not. Justin talk 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

It feels like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day": I have just cited the UN list, then you say that it's not the UN official position as it's there only because it was listed by UK, then I'll say...

...that the fact that the UN website has a page that says (in capital letters in the source) "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" is as clear as sources can be, and that so is the sentence by Chairman General Mr Ban Ki Moon in the UN website:

Whereby (if you look at the General Assembly list) the 16 territories are: Western Sahara, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia 4, Pitcairn, and Tokelau (other 80 territories have made to the status of "self-governing" according to the UN, but -and you can explain it as you wish, and call it fair or unfair- the verifiable and notable fact is that Gibraltar obviously has not).

Then you'll say that this list is already in the article, then I'll say that indeed it is in the article but not in the lead (where it is said as an undisputed fact that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory", when it is actually under dispute by the UN and some more), then you'll say that I only say that because I pursue a Spanish nationalist agenda, then I'll be offended, then you'll cite the off-wiki comments... (and that's where the radio alarm goes off and Sonny & Cher sing "I've got you babe" like in "Ground Hog Day" when the day starts all over again for poor Bill Murray).

Please, we need some admin assistance to make this dispute move on without anyone being blocked: after 6 months we've had enough of a try. PLEASE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN GA did not, as you infer, set up a working party with an atlas and a pencil to draw up a list of "none self-governing territories", they were nominated and listed by the colonial power way back in 1947 - verifiable fact. The list is now maintained by the UN C24 and adopted annually by the General Assembly. Big difference. The status of the list is not as you infer "suppressed", it is in the article with due prominence. The position is explained; the lead does not mislead.

The UN C24 definition of "self-governing" bears no relation to what the average person would consider "self-governing".

I only mention your original comments, because the comments this week are exactly in the same vein. Like how Gibraltar is "Spanish" based upon a perverse intepretation of UN resolutions. If you're "labelled" as a "Spanish nationalist", that may well because of the comments in the vein of a "Spanish nationalist" as to why Gibraltar is Spanish. Groundhig Day? Like when something is explained to you and you go but the UN says....when it doesn't. This one goes to 11. Justin talk 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please stop playing with words. The personal interpretations of verifiable information are secondary to the information itself. We don't care how or who set up the "working party" that put together the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The question is Gibraltar in on that list. Yes, the current lead misleads when it says that Gibraltar is "Self-Governing". This is quite arguable at best (specially as the UN says it is not). And please refrain from making accusations of "Spanish Nationalism", they are hardly justified. JCRB (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then don't misrepresent UN Sources, Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Justin talk 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles

An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.

To stop the disruption I propose:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.

What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.

I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.

The people who I'd propose would be:

User:Ecemaml
User:Imalbornoz
User:Cremallera
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I'm moving it for you. -- Atama頭 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Misplaced Pages. Its wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).

In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, does your proposal include a ban on removing other people's messages in your talk page and stop using reversion as an editorial tool? It would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, your proposal seems extremely faulty? --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Right. How about standard discretionary sanctions, and start the process of topic-banning the edit warriors? It's apparent to me that people have completely lost sense of perspective, and have also forgotten some fairly fundamental Misplaced Pages principles. Such as: the solution to text that supports a POV you don't like is not to edit war back to text that supports a POV you do like but to say neither until you can reach a consensus about how the external dispute should be described here (WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). "Revert to consensus / stable version" is offten a red flag in cases like this, and telling people to "discuss" changes when they have already done precisely that, and have no prior involvement in the dispute, and have no evident ties to the POV you don't like, is not exactly indicative of a productive attitude. Incidentally, it also doesn't help when you say something is sourced from Britannica but Britannica does not use the term you claim, and actually says something that rather supports the opposite POV. The Spanish editors will no doubt claim that I am biased against them based on my nationality, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's time to start dealing with this battleground mentality. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the cite you say doesn't support the text and it says "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." Do you have java enabled? I don't have a POV I like, I would prefer it if the article would not suffer while there is an attempt to skew the POV. Thats whats at hand here. Oh yes people have forgotten wikipedia principles, the relevant one being NPOV, and some have gotten frustrated after trying to explain this and gotten more bad tempered than they should. What is helpful is a considered approach, not blundering in without understanding first. My apologies if I vented at you but thats precisely what you did. The problem with it, is you're encouraging further disruption. Justin talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you are being obstructive and disingenuous. The BBC News says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy." - that is equivocal and the BBC is British anyway. The Chief Minister's speech was prompted by the UN's report stating that it was not self-governing, so unquestionably cannot be taken in isolation. The Telegraph (British) says "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government" - that's equivocal too. To state in the lead sentence that Gibraltar is self-governing based on two equivocal and one partisan sources, while ignoring the fact that the CIA World Factbook and the United Nations both say its not, is POV-warring of the worst kind. I have removed the statement again, I note you have reverted at least once more. Please do not do this. Your edit history shows a lengthy involvement with articles with contentious issues of sovereignty, and always on the British side. You are clearly not a neutral party here and should step away from the firing line and discuss matters on talk.

For now, I have left the opening sentence saying that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. This is not sufficiently ambiguous to demand that we make a statement supporting either of the competing POVs regarding self-government.

I want to be clear here: a bald statement that Gibraltar is not self-governing is POV, and a problem. Equally, a bald statement that it is self-governing is also POV and also a problem - especially since the sources you provide are actually rather less good than those supporting the opposing POV. The logical thing to do is to simply remove the self-government status from the lede until a proper form of words can be decided, not to enforce one POV that is liked by the article WP:OWNers. To state that Gibraltar is self-governing based on these sources and ignoring - indeed without reference to - those which dispute it, is tendentious and disruptive.

I have done what you should have done in the first place, which is to start an RfC: Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government.

I would ask that uninvolved admins should watch the article and swiftly enact blocks and topic bans against editors who display single-purpose and advocacy behaviour. I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands. This needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, to be polite, you intervention has been unhelpful and your comments naive and ill-informed. Not only that but you've edit warred to impose your will on the article. As I have already indicated on your talk page I have no intention of edit warring. But I'd nontheless support those editors who return it to a NPOV.

Seeing as you mention the Falklands, where I am active, I have worked constructively with a number of Argentine editors to improve those articles. The improvements share information to ensure NPOV is maintained. I actually feel quite priveliged to address Darius as old friend. I have also gone to great lengths to explain the matter to a number of editors who have sought to skew the POV of the article, great lengths, yet they return to the same point again and again. Now that could well be based on the fact that they've only been taught 1 POV but there comes a point, when you see someone claiming that UN resolutions asssert that Gibraltar is Spanish, then you realise they're not interested in NPOV.

Again trying to remain polite, you've blundered into an area you don't know anything about, have ignored the point that editors have been misrepresenting those UN sources, funnily enough the one UN source you missed confirms that. But don't worry as I took the trouble to add it to the article. I'm not ignoring sources as you assert, seeing as the UN C24 list was introduced into the article as part of my edits, but rather ensuring they're treated with respect to NPOV. You're excision of those terms actually favours the editors who have tendentiously edited the article to skew the POV.

Not only that but ignoring the presumption of good faith, you've labelled the editors who work constructively in this area as "POV Warriors" to favour those editors who would pervert sources to advance an agenda and use Misplaced Pages as a platform to support their POV rather than maintaining a NPOV.

From my perception, all I see is an admin who hasn't looked at the problem, has jumped to conclusions and is failing to recognise their initial mistake. Ironically the only editor to breach 3RR is yourself. Do we take from that, that you're calling for uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban and a block upon yourself? Justin talk 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just two points, Guy. First of all: "I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands." As Justin kindly mentioned, we have been working in several Falkland-related articles. Even when my position regarding the topic is, obviously, pro-Argentine, we managed to keep the NPoV on the pages we have edited by checking both British and Argentine sources and discussing their reliability. Thus I think it's very unfair to include Justin in your 'list' of edit warriors.

Second point: the issue of self-government. My personal opinion is that the words speak for themselves; self-government, by definition, supposes a form of administration "not completely sovereign or independent". Therefore, I see no need of further clarification in the narrative, since self-government is at midway between "direct rule" (by a foreign power) and "total independence". The British sources questioned as 'partisan' are quite reliable as they only describe the naked fact of a political decision, not a posture.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

This very long discussion, has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark //

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

{{resolved|···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}} I've scratched that resolved tag per the user's edits, which I shall post my opinion on below;— Dædαlus 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

There appears to be an ongoing edit-war on this talk page involving multiple parties. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Incident concluded. The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom. Proofreader77 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I blocked Proofreader for a week for reverting several times, he has had a recent 72 hour block for edit warring as well that I took into account when determining this block length. MBisanz 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nod, but there were multiple other parties involved in the disruption of the page... Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could protect it, but it's a talk page and everyone else only reverted once. MBisanz 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. No worries, Cirt (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Now at User_talk:Proofreader77, he's requesting review for an unblock... Cirt (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And that has now been declined by Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).— Dædαlus 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And they have requested another one, which I have commented on. I suggest any reviewing admins read this comment.— Dædαlus 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock. If he makes another unblock request, best to lock the page for the duration of the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

indef?

This user continues to post copyright violations to their page.. they have stalked my edits, and, from the recent post regarding those edits, it appears as if they aren't taking this seriously at all, more like it is some game or debate. I don't see any evidence at all that they are going to stop their problematic edits after this all is over, therefore, I request that an indef block be considered, or, a longer block. For the version I refer to, please see this link. Please discuss.— Dædαlus 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scanning the user's contributions, I see little benefit to the project. I do see a sarcastic, idiotic tone in almost any discussion, a touch of MYSPACE, and currently a misuse of talk page by a blocked user. Grsz 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest locking Proofreader77's talk page for the duration of the current block and would advise Daedalus969 in particualr to, quite frankly, move on. HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor is now attacking the difficulties I had of using {{tl}}, {{tlp}} and {{tlx}}.

• Support - An indef block, per the above. We don't need someone like this here. Before I was asking that it be considered. Now I'm requesting it be put in place.— Dædαlus 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note, evidence of stalking.— Dædαlus 01:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HJMitchell's advice. (No opinion on the suggestion, tho.) —DoRD (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More stalking. They wouldn't really know of my edits unless they were watching my contributions.— Dædαlus 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. —DoRD (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no irony. I'm watching their page after they insulted me earlier.— Dædαlus 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And you would not have known that if you had not been monitoring Proof's page. Although a relatively new user, I noticed when I came in that there are no doors on the toilets. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading it right that Proofreader feels he shouldn't be blocked because he allegedly donated $1,000 to WMF? According to him, it would benefit MBizanz to know that fact. Is that some kind of attack, legal threat, I don't know what, but it sure is stupid. Grsz 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not made any impression whatsoever. I'm sad if Proofreader77 thinks that a donations (and a quite large donation at that!) can sway opinion. I'm considering blocking indefinitely and protecting the talk page. I don't think we want someone who is willing to do this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You should check the edit summary here where they completely misrepresent what you say. You are clearly considering indefing him for his attitude, not any amount he has donated anywhere.— Dædαlus 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I like Proofreader, and think he's useful for all his minor faults, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but I think it's something I'd say about someone I don't like too, so it might be of some use here. He's not adding more {{unblock}} notices; he's not insulting anyone; he hasn't readded the Youtube links; the only thing he's doing is not showing contrition. If you don't like what he's saying, unwatchlist the page. Let's not manufacture imagined legal threats, or start blocking for "attitude". We block for disruption; that isn't happening here. If it happens after unblocking, deal with it then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader has gotten a rough deal here. His comments at the Request for Comment were deleted because two or three editors thought they had an inappropriately whimsical form. Who's to say ...? It kind of defeats the purpose of an RfC to delete comments one doesn't like.

Proofreader complained about it later on, on the RfC talk page, and suggested that the RfC should be "nullified" because of "procedural fouls". His complaint was repeatedly hatted, and yes, he went up to 3RR (but not beyond) to remove the hat template. A 1-week block for that, without warning or any attempt to get him to desist, is harsh.

I am not saying Proofreader77 was "right" to ask for the RfC to be declared invalid, or to edit-war about the hat. But the whole sequence of events is a bit unfriendly and excessively authoritarian. As it is, feelings have been hurt, for no good reason, and a whole cycle of negativity started. We should learn to handle these situations better, with a bit more diplomacy, and give people more leeway to express themselves the way they want to at RfCs. --JN466 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A unique editor, and I mean that politely. From the diffs given I can understand a block. However, from contributions I've seen and what I've had in my few talkpage posts from the user, I'm damn near 100% sure they're not trying to act with any ill will or malice. It seems common for them to follow contributions of users they've recently interacted with, be it a "good" or "bad" case. I do that plenty as a check-ups on users I've given advice to in discussions (um. everyone does that, right? I honestly don't know.) ... In this case it's never to harass or disrupt, but something of a desire to stay on top of a situation and be able to respond. Paranoid maybe, and kind of creepy at times? Maybe. But I've still got to say it's in good faith.

Issues? High socializing I could see. This editor has been under unofficial sanctions before on lengths of posts in the Misplaced Pages namespace and overuse of talk pages, and in both cases shaped up from what I can see, so there's a history of working with community wishes. It's very possible I'll regret saying this, but I think this is a one-off streak sparked by... ok, I don't know. Some specific social flare-up involving the RfC? Make it a month(?)' block for that to blow away (note: entirely unofficial opinion), but indef would seem cruel as this is a user with a lot of Misplaced Pages knowhow that does come in handy in discussions. Give conditions asking for more community work maybe? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had dealings with Proof in the past. Both negative and positive, frankly the 1000 dollars shouting is a little old. However he does have a point, he is here for the project. Not all contributers are article writers. I think a Indef block is ABSURD at this point. He could have been warned for edit warring, this didn't require a week block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The donation could refer to a case from a few months ago when I'd first seen this user. Someone had posted legal threats on Jimbo's talk page, received an indefinite block and used unblock reasons of being a $40,000 donor. The user was unblocked not for this claim, but it did look incredibly strange. I even posted at ANI because the user was canvassing XfD !votes using the same claim to editor talkpages. It was collectively asinine, ending in this, which despite violations no blocks ever come and it's an example, for better or worse, of people that have heavily pushed the line without consequence versus snap blocks and actions on others. In other words, it's all attempted irony. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on. From what I've seen, Proofreader77 seems to have got a bit of a raw deal and the block was perhaps a little harsh, but not unfair or grossly disproportionate considering he has recent blocks. I will reiterate my view above that the way to resolve this with the least drama possible is simply to allow Proofreader77 to serve out the original block with the talk page locked and everybody should move on and let it go. Indef'ing him will achieve nothing. Continuing to debate this on aNI will achieve nothing but more drama. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just let it go. No reason to protect his page. nothing is innapropriate and he's limited there. Let him express his frustrations, he isn't attacking anyone or disrupting the pedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

IP's racist comments on talk:Atheism

Pretty self-explanatory: In this dif, 86.123.168.47 (talk) included the gem "Muslims go to mosques ,pray ,beat up their wives ,blow up ,etc" I'm not sure what policy is concerning IP editors making satements such as this, and whether it should be treated as mere vandalism or something more serious. Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Muslim" a race? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

also why would policy for IP addresses be different than for the rest of us? Beach drifter (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Vandalism front, we are much more lenient with IP vandals than we are with registered users who vandalize. I wasn't sure if this would be seen as vandalism, hate speech, or what have you, so I wasn't aware what policies would apply. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are more lenient, then why was this user blocked with no warning for simply poor judgement? I can find no other edits to support a block. Beach drifter (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Their "poor" judgement is likely to seriously piss off a billion or so people. Hopefully they don't make the same mistake again. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is the real concern, then why not just remove the offending material and warn the IP? I think that is what a vast majority of editors would do. Beach drifter (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block, doesn't matter if it's directed at a race, religious group, sexual orientation or gender, using Misplaced Pages to promote hate is unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP was making an example, with a very poor choice of wording. I'd think a strong warning would be more appropriate. Beach drifter (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed some of her other edits; it doesn't look like she's an anti-Muslim edit-warrior, just someone who expressed herself poorly when trying to communicate that idea. In context, it reads more as an unsuccessful attempt at humor than as hate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. His comments called into question his editing (see last contrib). It's only a 31h block. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the diffs for the harassment? Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's up above. "Harassment" isn't the issue here, though. It's more the personal attack, or at least the very real potential thereof. Furthermore, it calls into question the edits in those areas. I believe I made a note of this in the block log, but I may not have. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just have a few concerns. Mainly that this really appears to be poor taste on behalf of the IP. It was an example on a talk page, it was not directed towards anyone in the least. There was one edit afterwards in that area, which I understand is the cause for concern, but I can't understand how that warrants a block, especially with absolutely no communication taking place with the IP. The editor has made some actual contributions. I also don't think that the perceived 'potential for a personal attack' is good reason for a block, again especially without any communication. At the very least tell the editor what is going on. Your block log did not say anything that they would understand. Beach drifter (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, point noted... made a comment to the user's talk. Hopefully we'll get a reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Beach drifter (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fisher: I'm tempted to agree, but that's still in spectacularly poor taste. Also, your point on the label "racist" is well-taken. What would be more appropriate? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Self evident inadaquate mental functions propogated through stereotypical depictions of xenophobic sentiment". It kinda rolls of the tongue, donchathink? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is "bigotry". -- Atama頭 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the word we use for it around here. Chillum 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ko interwiki links removed by Jyusin

A large number of ko interwiki links seem to have been removed by Jyusin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A check of a few showed that the interwikis were legit ? Wizzy…☎ 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• User notified as required. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a little early to bring this to AN/I - the links were removed about 8 hours ago, so I'm guessing that the user isn't online now. Let's give them a chance to respond on their talkpage first. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a little hasty - I figured they should be restored, it would be painful for me to do it, and the Big Buttons belong to you guys (I presume there is a Big Button for mass rollback of one editor). Wizzy…☎ 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. {{sofixit}}, I guess... Guy (Help!) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK#Mass rollbacks... But I've never done it before and I'd hesitate to experiment. -- Atama頭 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the potential for damage with that script has always kept me from wanting to use it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would note that while he doesn't have an active talk page, all of the users who have come to talk to him have done so about doing damage to Korean articles. Could be an issue for this editor., and he only lists as very minor english ability while not listing what his native language is.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my guess. Some IP added the links to the top of the lists and not in correct "alphabetical" order. - maybe he's just reverting that and waits for a bot to do the job correctly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should probably write to this editor (in Korean) and ask him what he was doing. Would probably be more useful than sitting here and speculating, but unfortunately I don't have a whit of ability in that language. Lankiveil 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

I've invited him here in Korean. I can't carry on an extensive conversation with him, but I can do that much.--Crossmr (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. But now I feel they are unnecessary edits.--Jyusin (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see bots are re-adding the inter-wiki links, so case closed. Wizzy…☎ 13:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It does look like it's time to close this, but to Jyusin: Please use edit summaries in the future, especially when making unusual edits such as these. No harm done, but it would have been much easier to determine your intent with a descriptive edit summary. Thanks. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with IP address 94.193.135.142

As referred from WP:Wikiquette_alerts#WP:AOBF_issue_with_IP_address_94.193.135.142. Rapido (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the one being accussed, I would like to remind you he deleted my editing on the user EdJohstons talk page, which demonstrates his problem causing behaviour, and stress first hand look at the situation as Rapido displays alot POV, even when reporting and accusing people. He often uses the word "attack" to describe what are editorial criticisms and criticisms made against his editing and rapid reverting style. He often, despite me stating I am an static IP user, and am 1 person, refers to me as "they" and accusess a mob editing. Discussion on the matter can be found at these places:

The Original 3RR report made by Rapido:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29

EdJohnstons user page who kindly protected the BBC Television page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#I_have_commented_on_Rapido.27s_false_claims_under_his_report

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#Rapido_has_removed_my_links_on_your_talk_page

The article:

History and proof of Rapido's uncoperative editing style:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BBC_Persian_Television&action=history

Discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute

I would also liked to remind you, Cunando, replied in the discussion that he agree's Rapido's sourcing is weak.

Rapid's discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rapido

Regards --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts, Rapido was advised "Just ignore him (me, the IP user). He has no standing to raise any stink over a content (non-)issue. IP editors sling ridiculous threats like this all the time. --King Öomie 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" showing the attitude of some editors and suggestion made by some --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

Admins, please make your mind up about who is causing the disruption. Since they like posting links, here is the one that shows the IP editor was blocked for breaking the 3RR Rapido (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And Rapido, what is your problem, why to refer to me as they? I don't get you. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The above editor is seriously asking what my problem is? Rapido (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments that breach either of the two policies, either for assuming bad faith, including claiming that I did something that I didn't, or vice versa, or pure personal attacks: inaccurate editing and sourcing; accuses User:Ash of ly, accuses me of trying to systematically ban , arrogance, show a non-compliance attitude, showing systematic bullying, claims there are talk pages, logs and discussion show background collaboration between Rapido, Ash and others for collective POV editing and banning of an IP user, and accusing both Ash and myself of false accusations and mob based systematic attempts; same accusations; false claims; trying to make me look bad, and thinks I am a mob, he is lying; deceptive editing; seems to have a long history of edit wars; problem causing behaviour, displays alot POV, accusess a mob editing, uncoperative editing; same accusations; same accusations; an arrogant user, what is wrong with his cognition, same accusations; same accusations; what is your problem; I'm tired of your lying, and exagerrations; you written this lie; attempting to make this a personal war, plus same accusations; arrogance, haven't participated on the discussion page (I have); a report troll, disruptive and problematic - that's from their editing until 2000 GMT to-day, anyway. There may be more to add later. Rapido (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To Admin: Why my reply below includes bold typeface will be justified in the end. Please read and thank you for your time. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are being a troll and diverting attention away from the real issue. I bet you will call me calling you a troll an attack again? Right? Misplaced Pages article definition of a troll: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or OFF-TOPIC messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response"... you sure did provoke my emotional response. Carry on calling my criticisms attacks. And quoting out of context is not going to help you neither. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And you certainly didn't help considering im a fairly new editor, by sparking an edit war, remaining silent when I ask for your view or input, and forcing me into a 3RR systematically. Call this an attack too if you want, you do it everywhere on everypage. And they are not "policies", they are guides, to help people here get along, something I would like to do with you, but you make it hard because you never assumed "good faith" where I did. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An example of tabloid style mis-quotation by Rapido. Rapido quotes: "What is wrong with his cognition" from this sentence: "I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page". Alot of POV, even in quotations, I learned long time ago it is wrong to misquote in English lessons, so not im going to start the same game your playing and not engage in your trolling.--94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry Rapido, lets leave it here, and let the Admins have a look themselves. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since you wrote "there may be more to add later" should I help you? Ive put them in bold, "quote" them too. I like your quoting style, I might use it one day too when I have a personal grudge on someone. Want to quote that too? (To Admin: I'm trying to show you how he is manipulating the story (Rapido: quote that) --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments from between 2000 and 2100 to-day: being a troll, diverting attention away from the real issue; same accusations; quoting out of context; tabloid style mis-quotation, Alot of POV, your trolling, im going to start the same game your playing; sparking an edit war, forcing me into a 3RR systematically, you do it everywhere on everypage, you never assumed "good faith"; he is manipulating the story. Rapido (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote I'm not going to start the game your playing, why do you keep mis quoting? Original "so not im going to start the same game your playing and not engage in..." --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR, but using random bolding of your statements rarely results in anyone taking any more notice of your claims than they would anyway. 86.143.125.78 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How else do you suggest for me to explain the misquotations? Im open for suggestion. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(Explanation for non-psychic) It seems the bolding is there to explain how the editor is being misquoted. (by example) - seems vaguegly WP:POINT but I imagine the head is getting too hot to notice.

• Comment - it would have been easier to simply explain how you were being misquoted.
• Comment - the numerous edit diffs supplied by the other editor show little.
• Comment - perhaps you both could stop, press reset button, and not get into edit war again - specifically request clarification other other users edits you do not understand.
• Comment - it's difficult to see anything other than two editors arguing/fighting/failing to get along in all the above edits. I doubt anyone has the time to sort out a problem both of you have created.
• Comment - if either editor is truly in the wrong I imagine it will rapidly become visible if one of the editors stops fighting back.

It would be better if both of you stopped and hopefully don't return to this thread. best wishes.Shortfatlad (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - From the top of this page: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion." Appears you've both finally stepped back and stopped screaming at each other in this thread, but this really isn't how to handle an ANI. For one thing, it's basically impossible to figure out what the actual issue is here, now that it's been so muddied. Seems more or less like a personal dispute, which isn't an ANI issue. But, really, I can't possibly be certain given the nature of this "discussion." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I read repeated references to "uncontroversial" statements that are not sourced not needing to be deleted; and I can't help but wonder how, exactly, one can possibly know whether a statement is uncontroversial without a source to back it up? For all you know, even a bare birthday can be both controversial and land someone in a mess, think longevity records, for instance, or current age where it has a legal impact? Birthplace? Obama anyone? "Afred J. Binks is the prime minister of Strangia". Uncontroversial? Or maybe it's "Alfred G. Binks", and J. is a serial murderer.

A very serious but mostly ignored matter is the sourcing "standard" being used by some proposing and performing mass deletions. For instance, we are informed that labelling an otherwise acceptable reference, supporting most of the article, under "Further reading" instead of "References" is a deletion-worthy flaw., that not fixing all categories and templates is equally cause for deletion/userification, and that the deleting admin is apparently the sole judge of what constitutes a reliable source, even though the source has a long history of debate at WP:RS/N with mixed results, sometimes yes, sometimes no..John Z (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've warned him that any further breach of the topic ban will be met with an indef block. He's now making accusations of sockpuppetry on his talk page. Warned that bad faith accusations at WP:SPI will be seen as WP:DE. Mjroots (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Not an admin issue, referred to WP:BUGS. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

mysql> desc interwiki ;
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field     | Type          | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| iw_prefix | varbinary(32) | NO   | PRI | NULL    |       |
| iw_url    | blob          | NO   |     | NULL    |       |
| iw_local  | tinyint(1)    | NO   |     | NULL    |       |
| iw_url    | tinyint(1)    | NO   |     | NULL    |       |
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+

Resolved – Report the user to WP:AIV if the disruptive editing continues. -FASTILY 21:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement – NativeForeigner /_Contribs 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) was able to cite the addition that was previously uncited and reverted by Enemyghost (talk · contribs) NativeForeigner /_Contribs 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – disruptive user indef'd

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards