Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:15, 7 June 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:Mathsci

Subpaged to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Race and intelligence @115K. Moonriddengirl

Ghostofnemo and SYNTH

Ghostofnemo has been disruptive at Peter James Bethune. We have previously been on noticeboards for other issues. Although his previous methods are questionable, his clear violation of WP:SYNTH is too much.

Bethune's trial is currently wrapping up in Japan. He recently made statements that distanced himself from the founder of Sea Shepherd. Ghostofnemo is now attempting to insert information on potential mistreatment as the reasoning behind this. I don't know why the subject made the statement and none of the sources have said why. Please see this edit. Is adding a line and source discussing Amnesty International being critical of interrogation methods in Japan without mentioning Bethune appropriate after a line discussing his Bethune quote?

Instead of edit warring, can an administrator explain to GoN if his reverting to insert such material is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The line in question is a fair paraphrase of one source being quoted, so it is not SYNTH. The line in question is relevant to the article, which is about the trial of a suspect who has been held for a long period prior to his trial in Japan. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted him so it appears that this is no longer an edit warring/against guideline incident needing admin attention issue. Should I move this to the OR noticeboard?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to have an administrator look at the pattern of deletions of referenced material going on at this article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nemo, that line is synth. Yes, it's a correct paraphrase from the BBC story, BUT the BBC story doesn't say one word about Peter James Bethune. It's addition into Peter Bethune's article is implying that it's happening to Mr. Bethune.

It's synth , Cptnono is right to remove it. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365765488&oldid=365765129 Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's synth. Forget about Amnesty International. You can't pick and mix things from RS and construct a Frankenstein monster to tell the story you want to tell. The sources need to talking about the subject of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AI says this is an issue in Japan. The BBC says it's an issue in Japan. I have WP:RS that say he was blocked from meeting with an attorney until after he confessed. The editors here, with no sources whatsoever, are denying this is an issue and deleted WP:RS referenced material that is NPOV, because they personally feel it's not appropriate! This skews the story so that it appears Bethune is receiving a fair trial, even though his attorney has been denied access to the trial! It's very POV to delete this material, and it's also POV to censor material about Japan's legal system and criticism of it. Here are my sources:

Not allowed to meet lawyer: http://www.3news.co.nz/Sea-Shepherd-group-ready-to-defend-Bethune/tabid/1160/articleID/147145/Default.aspx

and, more explicitly: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921

Met with consular staff four times, but no mention of meeting with lawyer: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/nz-govt-attacked-for-bethunes-detention-20100406-roub.html

Lawyer barred from court: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html

NZ govt says Bethune "was to meet with attorney last night" instead of "met with attorney last night":http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+embassy+officials+meet+peter+bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, here's the quote from the AI article: "Amnesty International has now called on Japan's new government to immediately implement reforms of the police interrogation system to avoid such miscarriages of justice. Suspects can be held for up to 23 days before they are charged in what the campaign group says is a brutal system that has no place in modern Japan. The conviction rate is more than 99%, often based on confessions. Amnesty International says some are extracted from suspects under duress." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And it says: ""The detainee has absolutely no access to his defence lawyers, has no idea how long the interrogation session would go," said Rajiv Narayan of Amnesty International." Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As explained to you on the talk page: If you want the article to say "he was mistreated" or "he had an unfair trial" then you need to find an RS that says so. Not an RS that alludes to something you don't like + something else. A clear "he was mistreated". So far, every source I have seen contradicts it but if you find one we can go from there. Until then you need to stop being disruptive. You have had multiple editors explain SYNTH and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT .Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, yes, it is an issue in Japan and in many other countries. There are many very interesting and complicated issues with Japanese society that anyone can discover in reliable sources or better still by going there to have a look for themselves. None of the issues are relevant unless the source itself specifically relates the issue to Peter James Bethune. The source has to do it, not you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is right here: "Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson says the Japanese are not letting Bethune see his legal team. He says Japanese authorities are entitled to interrogate a prisoner without representation, for up to three weeks. Bethune has however met with New Zealand Embassy staff in Tokyo since his arrival in Japan." from http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's from the reference that was cited with the removed lines. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And just a reminder, the stories discussing Bethune and his lawyer not being there for one of the hearings say things like "A lawyer representing New Zealander Peter Bethune thinks the anti-whaling activist could get a fair trial in Tokyo." and "He said he knew what had happened in the court 'because the hearing was pretty much all scripted, scripted in the sense that both the prosecution and the defence gave their opening statement but that opening statement was based word for word on a written statement that was provided to the judge days ago' ." So he might have had an unfair trial but nothing says it while other sources could be read the exact opposite. There isn't a scandal here but GoN has been creating one for over a month now. Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the fair trial, here is what his lawyer actually said: "Despite earlier suggestions the trial was just a show, Harris said he thought Bethune could get a fair trial. "All indications and reports are that the lead judge and other two judges are fair-minded judges," he said." http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I question the competence of his attorney, 1 for not making his interrogation without legal counsel an issue, and 2 for his attitude towards being excluded from the trial (yeah, no big deal). A man on trial, and his lawyer is not there in court with him!!!!! It boggles the mind what his strategy is, unless they are intentionally trying to get Bethune the longest sentence possible to create a martyr for their cause.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The linked WAtoday article is misleading. Harris is not the only one lawyer for Bethune. He is one of the lawyers for Bethune. There must have been the other lawyer/lawyers in the court. But the number of the seats for the lawyers were restricted. So Harris tried to see the trial from one of the seats for the public. But the number of those seats were also restricted, and he couldn't draw a winning number. That's what the articles says. Oda Mari (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Which article says Bethune's other lawyers were seated in court? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See how annoying it is when sources are not presented? And just a heads up if this is still being looked at. GoN made the edit against overwhelming consensus. Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is from my talk page. Where is the OR here? http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#June_2010 Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet another deletion of relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365981031&oldid=365974855 Help! This is ridiculous! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This starting to turn into two content disputes on ANI unfortunately. What it comes down to is multiple editors seeing SYNTH and misleading the reader while GoN sees it as POV based deletions. In the face of so many editors explaining to him why there are concerns GoN is bombarding the talk page and editing against more than one guideline. I know he is frustrated and feels passionately about this but he just needs to stop. I have asked him to wait and see what the expected flood of sources say next week with the conclusion of the court proceedings. Any controversial allusions to mistreatment or an unfair trial should wait until then.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've asked you and the other editors not to deleted relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV material from the article. Why is it that my "by the book" edits can be deleted based on the unsourced hearsay of other editors? Shouldn't they be required to find evidence that my sources are in error before deleting my edits? Why do I get a warning that I'll be banned on my talk page for making apparently good edits, but none of those making questionable deletions is being warned about it? It looks like WP:BULLY to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And another thing... why is it that my relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV edits can be immediately deleted without discussion? And why is the information completely deleted (down the "memory hole") instead of being improved? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My sources are the news media, so that should be a sign these points are relevant to the article. I am not writing this stuff or presenting OR, contrary to the accusations being made. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we're not getting any official guidance here about how to handle this, I guess my next step is to treat these deletions as vandalism, put notices on the offenders talk pages, and revert their deletions. If I have to risk getting banned to get a verdict on this, so be it. I think the edits will hold up. The alternative seems to be tolerating being effectively banned already since my edits are immediately deleted, so I don't have much to lose. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it may not be "official" this has received the attention of additional editors. All have explained why your edits are not being accepted. I assume any further attempts to buck consensus will lead to some requests for a block. It would be best if you simply dropped it and tried imrpoving other aspects of the article.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately GhostOfNemo has updated his user page in a way that attacks other editors and is violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." and "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki)" see: User:Ghostofnemo#Misplaced Pages Hall of Shame. A "Hall of Shame", providing "reasons for exclusion for your amusement", and misrepresenting a debate are far different than "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages". I am seeking its removal. The user is more than welcome to keep the sources in a sandbox or right there for future reference.Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Also in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly uncivil and is not conducive to harmonious editing, with quotes taken completely out of context. If GoN wants to link to diffs or sections, fine, but don't take parts of arguements out of context.--Terrillja _talk 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I reread my userpage to see if I'm being uncivil. I don't see anything there that is uncivil or which distorts our discussions. Dissent and peaceful protest are my responses to your uncivil behavior. You should stop the witchhunt and just deal with the fact that your behavior is questionable and some of us will dare to question it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator had ruled on this, and told you to cut it out, I wouldn't have been driven to do this. This seems like a better response than edit-warring with you. It's the last act of desperation of a powerless person who is having his edits summarily deleted for apparently dubious, and at the risk of being uncivil, suspicious, reasons. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cut it out. I don't know whether you really believe yourself to be powerless and confronted with a seemingly monolythic group of enemies or are just enjoying the pose, but the fact is that there have been good reasons for your fellow editors to confront your way of editing. You have been repeatedly pointed to the guidelines relevant for a constructive discussion of inclusion. Instead of taking them into account and working with them or at one point gathering that maybe what you want to do is more akin to journalism, and less to encyclopedic writing, you insist on inserting your POV unchanged. That's not the way WP rolls. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• This has been going on for several months at least, and the content over which Ghostofnemo is warring has consistently skirted or violated exactly the same policies. His response to other editors is basically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have no idea why this editor feels such a strong connection with this subject, but his actions give the impression of righteous anger not a collegial attempt at writing an article. I propose that if this continues, a topic ban is the best solution. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's not me vs. them. It's reliable sources vs. them. I keep hearing POV and OR, but if you'll look at my edits, you'll see they are reliably sourced and that my edits do not misrepresent the sources. But the edits are immediately deleted, and if a reason is given, it's usually an accusation of POV or OR! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you'll look at the talk pages, you'll see that there has been LOTS of discussion. I do hear them. But they keep accusing me of POV and OR. I don't see any. Do you? Where exactly do you see it? Please show me an edit I've made, compare it to the source, and show me the POV or OR. How can I respond to their accusations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about one of the most recent ones: ]? Another topic, but as I have pointed out on the talk page, this is OR. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and maybe get someone explain it to you with exemplary edits. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories are different, because there are not many reliable sources that present conspiracy theories. We're presenting the theories that exist. We're not trying to prove that they are factually correct. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See this on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Addition_of_Operation_Northwoods_.2F_OR

And I have made some changes based on their input. But they insist on total deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a strong connection with the subject, I have not deleted anyone else's reliably sourced edits, regardless of how unflattering they are to the subject. It's not like I'm trying to keep things critical of Bethune out of the article. But it does seem that the editors involved are trying to keep things critical of the whalers and the Japanese authorities out of this article and the Ady Gil article, even if they are reliably sourced. Why? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@GhostNemo - As an uninvolved party, I haven't read all the contested edits, but I did check out the links to the BBC article, used twice, and in both cases the insertion was quite incorrect. Actually, calling it Synthesis is too kind, it's improper inference without foundation.--SPhilbrickT 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The AI story is the source for the line that in Japan suspects can be held without access to legal counsel for up to 23 days, during which they can be interrogated by the police. The deleted line does not allege Bethune was mistreated or that a confession was coerced. It merely states that the police in Japan have the right to deny access to an attorney until after the suspect has confessed, or 23 days, whichever comes first. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the edit: "Immediately after Bethune's arrest, Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society complained that Bethune was denied access to his legal team by the Japanese authorities. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 According to Amnesty International, suspects in Japan can be interrogated for up to 23 days by the police without access to legal counsel." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can continue debating the content all you want (so far no one agrees). User:Ghostofnemo#Misplaced Pages Hall of Shame needs to be taken care of though.Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding snooty, I think I'm right, whether or not people agree with me. To exclude this information slants the article against Bethune. It will be assumed his human rights were respected, he got a fair trial, and had adequate legal representation, when reliable sources seem to put that in doubt. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Hall of Shame" comes down when it looks like the excluded material will be allowed to stand in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are so certain you are right, it just makes ME look unreasonable, so it shouldn't bother you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan and User:Mister Flash

Disruptive behaviour and editing. Both these users exhibit remarkably similar behavior and a consistent pattern of assisting each other to revert edits involving "British Isles". Their behaviour is extremely disruptive and both these editors have a long history of inappropriate edit summaries where everything is an anti-British-Isles conspiracy or general ad hominen comments. Recently, their behaviour is simply getting worse. Some recent examples:

• List of most common surnames in Europe 3 reverts for MBM June 3rd
  • 1st 19:55 3 June 2010
  • 2nd 20:40, 3 June 2010
  • 3rd 20:44, 3 June 2010
• Enceladus (moon) 5 reverts in 24 hour period June 3rd
  • 1st 11:33, June 3rd
  • 2nd 12:10, June 3rd
  • 3rd, 16:06 June 3rd
  • 4th, 16:15 June 3rd
  • 5th, 16:19 June 3rd
• Silphidae Tag teaming and reverting (Article history)
• Britain's Strongest Man (Article history) 3 reverts by MF, then MBM reverted before another editor changed article.
• Cowboy (Article History) A lot of edit warring)

--HighKing (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs to go to WP:AN3. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a longer term problem here that so far, has failed to be addressed by AN3. Inappropriate edit summaries, blind reverting without engaging or discussing, ad hominen attacks, and tag-teaming meat-puppetry. I believe it's best to discuss centrally (at least initially, and decide a course of action). --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

HK is correct, there is a longer term problem, and that problem should be explained here so that users can view this issue in the correct context. For over two years User:HighKing has attempted to remove the phrase "British Isles" from as many articles as possible. Recently he has been joined by another editor User:Bjmullan with apparently the same mission. The tactic is to identify articles, almost at random, from the What Links Here facility at British Isles. Instances of British Isles are then either removed directly or flagged with a cite tag for later removal. Every argument under the sun including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV is used to justify removal, but the most common is to require inappropriate references for what is normally an issue incidental to the subject of the article. In a recent case at Britain's Strongest Man the article was even PROD'd in an attempt to remove "British Isles". HighKing's actions have been the subject of RfC and various other remedies, but all to no avail. He has steadfastly refused to enter into agreements not to either add or remove British Isles from articles. The current complaint is the result of the latest rash of attempted removals, and yes, I have been reverting removals, but only in response to a determined attempt to eliminate yet more instances of British Isles. I reject the accusations of meat puppetry and tag teaming; neither of these activities is taking place. I am happy to enter into an agreement with HighKing not to add or delete British Isles from articles but he always rejects the idea. We are surely moving towards a topic ban for all those involved in this dispute, a dispute which has spread across Misplaced Pages to hundreds of articles and which has caused concern and annoyance to very many editors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit record speaks for it's self. I, unlikely MBM which seems like a SPA, conduct edits in a wide range of subject and I have only ever removed or replaced BI when there are valid reason for these changes. MBM on the other hand just revert and reverts, seldom if ever investigation the reason for the change. I find his behaviour at Enceladus (moon) where he broke the 3RR to be unacceptable (the NASA reference used does not use the term BI). At the article Silphidae‎ is reverted my edit FIVE times before actual checking the reference. He final comment was "Yikes, the BI junker is right, accidentally". What MBM doesn't seem to realise is it wasn't accidental it was me trying to improve the article. Bjmullan (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit record also speaks for itself, and MBM's illogical tirade above is an example of his ad hominen approach to the problem. You will never see MBM or MF actually discuss an article and references, only attack editors. This project relies on policies to produce well-sourced and well-researched articles. We even have a page set up for discussing this topic, but MBM and MF steadfastly refuse to entertain any sort of logic or references or reasonable discource. MBM's policy of reverting and name-calling is the problem, not the term "British Isles". Anybody that gets involved, from admins to countless other editors, get the same treatment of being accused of being anti-BI editors. This ANI report is not about whether BI usage - many editors disagree, but all editors are bound by the same code of behaviour and the same policies. There are only two editors that consistently breach policies, whether 3RR or CIVIL, and despite numerous past warnings, show no signs of adjusting their highly disruptive behaviour, hence this latest ANI. --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the 'page protection' route has been exhausted. Time for administrators to shut-down the removal/addition of British Isles from any articles, by handing out subject bans to whomever they see fit. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to request a RS citation for the use of a controversial term. And British Isles is a controversial term. I see no procedural problem in deleting the term British Isles if it remains uncited after having been tagged “citation needed” for a reasonable time. I also see no procedural problem in adding the term British Isles if a RS citation is provided. Shutting-down the removal/addition of British Isles from articles is not the answer. RS citation references is. Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That is true and every editor bar these two have agreed with this, but these two editors simply don't or won't agree, and refuse to countenance any discussion over usage of the term, directly leading to blindly reverting and the other ongoing problems and disruptive behaviour. It has gone on for far too long and must be addressed. This is about behaviour and not a content dispute. I sincerely ask admins here to please not ignore this issue as has happened in the past. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need to go to ArbCom and get a ruling similar to The Troubles. Then there wouldn't be any issue about blocks and other sanctions. Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway - as I have already if you read the block logs of some of the major combatants here. Your choice. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a cop out of dealing this incident. Your last block was appalling and positively encourages MBM and MF to continue their disruption. And why is it that I read Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway as confusingly illogical as I don't see any blocks handed out this time (maybe because you've no excuse to block me this time), and as a threat directed to me personally? Wouldn't it be great if you were as quick to direct threats at MBM and MF? I have not edit warred (including your last ill-conceived block), I follow consensus forming procedures, I explain reverts, put in good edit summaries, and try very hard to reach agreement - all of the advice I've been given by various admins over my years of editing. But MBM and MF literally do the opposite, and this complaint is still open, no blocks handed out, and you're talking as if I'm the problem and you want to haul it off to ArbCom? Seriously, I don't get it. It seems strangely one-sided to me.....

And isn't ArbCom usually for issues where the *usual* processes have broken down? Can we point to *usual* processes and failed remedies? Have we reached that stage here? Or, like I suggest, it's really just a case of a pair of *remarkably* similar editors that need to be strongly encouraged to follow normal consensus-forming processes? --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"As if I'm the problem" you say. That's exactly it, you're the problem. If you didn't try and get rid of British Isles like you do there wouldn't be a problem. Show me someone who's trying to put in British Isles all the time; exactly! No one is, but you and BJMullan are doing the opposite. Mister Flash (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This will you your only warning Mister Flash - if you cannot conduct yourself civily on this site and communicate without using personal invective you will be blocked. You've had site policy explained multiple times. If you are not already aware that comments like the above are inappropriate - consider yourself advised of that they are. Please consider refactoring as per WP:Civil and WP:NPA--Cailil 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No HK, BlackKite's suggestion and action against you is not a cop out it is the inevitable result of the wholesale failure of all editors involved to attempt any form of constructive dispute resolution. I have repeatedly asked you all to seek mediation. By not doing so you have all refused to engage with the dispute resolution process. You have all continued your disruptive patterns of behaviour and at this point I am in favour of wholesale topic banning (and in some cases site banning for single purpose accounts) of everyone involved in revert warring.
Each of you bare a responsibility for the problem and ArbCom will deal with the totality of the matter. You were warned a number of times by me and others that this would be the outcome.
I recommend disengaging from the reverting, adding or removing the dispute terms from articles and entering formal mediation. If this is not done forthwith the only options the rest of the community have are these: a) block all of you until you get the message; or b) send the matter to arbcom and let them dealt with it--Cailil 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll go for mediation. Tell me how. Mister Flash (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow the process at WP:RFM - all parties must agree to participate or the request will fail.--Cailil 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just read the first paragraph of WP:RFM and we've got "Complaints concerning the actions of another editor are not appropriate for content mediation, and should instead be directed to the Arbitration Committee.". Is this OK for the BI usage problem? Mister Flash (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is then a non-starter as I don't agree. This is NOT about the so called BI issue but the fact the neither MBM and MF adhere to the rules and guidelines of WP. Things like reverting with comment, reverting because they don't like the edit, reinserting un-referenced material, using OR to add BI to article, remembering the 3RR and using the article talk page for a starters. Bjmullan (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong here as I don't know the full history of this. Was`there not agreement among editors to create Misplaced Pages talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples as an attempt to discuss rationally any disputes over the term 'British Isles' being used or not used in articles? Jack forbes (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't general agreement. Also, it's used only to discuss British Isles not being used in articles. No one ever puts a case to put it in. So it's all about getting rid and not about proper usage. Mister Flash (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically that's wrong, but in reality a quick look at the page shows exactly why we do need something similar to WP:ARBTRB. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I would have thought mediation would attempt to iron out any disagreements between the parties. I would suggest to the participants that this should be the first step before thinking of going to WP:ARBTRB. WP:ARBTRB will still be there if mediation doesn't work. Jack forbes (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you (Black Kite and Jack) this should be fixable through mediation if each editor entered into it willing to bury the hatchet and accept that their current behaviour is not constructive. But since Bjmullan just rejected mediation ArbCom is the only option.
In this situation rather than going for a troubles style resolution the committee could simply be asked to look at the behaviour of the editors involved in the revert wars - those using the BI special examples page properly can be left alone--Cailil 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, since no admins have the appetite to tackle the problem (of behaviour) of two *remarkably* similar editors, and shy away from addressing the issue as set out here, and are actively pushing towards ArbCom, let's do it. But I'm really really disappointed at all the admins that have actively chosen to ignore the underlying behaviour issues and I see this as a *massive* buck-passing exercise. --HighKing (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those mind sapping disputes on wikipedia. I don't see it as a mediation issue as we have two SPA editors (Flash and Midnight) who have prevented any attempt to take a more structured approach by blind reverting (often with abuse) and unthinking refusal to accept any change. HighKing to be fair has been prepared to engage in that process. Either a small group of admins have to engage with the examples page and resolve them issue by issue until the SPAs realise things have changed. While I would accept mediation I don't hold out much hope of it working given that this is a behavioral issue. I agree with Cailil that it is probably Arbcom, however I think the full range of behaviour on the examples page (with the links to articles) should be subject to review. --Snowded 05:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of admins watching this page, so perhaps there will be a small group willing to engage with the examples page and help resolve the issues. Black Kite and Cailil, would you both volunteer your time to do this? Jack forbes (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While I see merit in the BI Special examples page - I, as an Irish man am the wrong person for the job. You'll notice I haven't blocked anyone for BI insertions / deletions. The reason for this is the appearance of bias. While I am not biased or involved and can see the totality of the matter it would be better for an action taken not to have even the appearance of bias. I will still look in on this from time to time and may follow through with civility or 3RR blocks - but right now what's needed are topic bans. Someone else will have to implement that. Also I'm not wikipedia enough or regularly enough to keep up with that page. For all of these reasons I'm not teh man for this job. I will however make submissions to an RfAr if one is opened--Cailil 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't need Admins to resolve the issues, what we need is for MBM and MF to stick to the rules and action to be taken against them when they don't. But it looks like no one seems to be willing to do that ... Bjmullan (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have tried that before, but the problem is that it needs everyone to take part in the process. Also, the reason I gave up with the SE page was that nearly every time I "closed" a discussion, the "losing" side kicked up a fuss. I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused of bias by both sides. Now, that probably means that I was doing the job correctly, but it becomes such a time sink because of the Wikilawyering by both sides that I eventually said "OK, find someone else to do it". I'm quite happy to give it another go, but the disruptiveness on both sides must stop for it to work properly. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, only one "side" kicked up a fuss when you closed a discussion. I also can't recall you ever been accused of bias by anybody but "one side" either. And no, you weren't doing the job properly. And no, you stepped away from the job in Dec, after a particularly disruptive day by our favorite pair of *remarkably* similar editors, when you said Fuck That" and deleted a call for help on your Talk page, and told us you didn't have the stomach for that crap any more.

Last time when you were involved, I decided I would voluntarily go along with the SE page despite my misgivings that it would end up simply as a form of censorship. I got involved primarily because of your encouragement and that of Snowded. You got involved at the start and to my mind quickly identified problematic behaviour and problematic editors. You issued direwarnings on Talk pages, laying down the law. The law was simple, and what was needed. But that failed. Not once did you take action.

But you're not alone. In Feb, User:2over0 filed an AN/I against MF, but it got nowhere. It seems admins can't separate disruptive behaviour from the issue of consensus forming. Let me help. As Black Kite pointed out in his rules, if an editor refuses to engage in constructive consensus forming discussions, reverts without providing explanations, reverts with inappropriate edit summaries, or breaches 3RR - then that editor is being disruptive. Doesn't matter if they're discussing "British Isles" or "Gaza Strip" or "Northern Ireland".

Black Kite, I used to have the greatest of respect for you as an editor and as a no-nonsense admin that wasn't afraid to step up and get a job done. The stickier, the better. But today, I don't believe you are the best candidate to get involved. Even though you were primarily involved in setting up the SE page, you abjectly failed to police the process or take any action when there were clear breaches of *your* rules, and it gives me no confidence that you'll do it right this time. But the final nail in the coffin was in April. I filed an AN/I report against MBM here (same issues as we're discussing here) which you marked as resolved (Taken elsewhere), but what you actually did was block *me* for edit warring! Except I had a total of 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 separate articles! That was bullshit. That was unacceptable. I'm not paranoid, but it does show more than a little perverseness and inconsistency that you steadfastly refused to hand out blocks to huuuuugeeee breaches of *your* rules last year, and then take on a perverse interpretation of edit warring to hand out a block to me.

But kudos to you and Cailil for responding here. It's a deafening silence from the other admins. --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did actually also block MBM for a week in that last rumpus, I think you'll find. But yeah, you're probably better off finding another admin to work on this - for one thing, I'm not as active as I used to be. But I still think RFAR may be the better route. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively, just slap a pseudo-topicban on the relevant editors which means they are not allowed to add or delete BI from any article at all without it being discussed at SE. That would probably stop a lot of the issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Wouldn't make any difference. That's what we had before Mullan came on the scene with his instant deletions. All you end up with is the likes of HighKing promoting significant numbers of cases for deletion. Others are then sent scurrying round for references or spend tons of time arguing about individual cases. Ultimately HK etc. maybe gets a 60-70% win rate and continues then with the never-ending supply of articles containing the dreaded words. It ends up as a continuing battle. Your suggestion is precisely what the removal men are after. It results in BI being slowly but surely taken down according to the long-term objective. No-one puts forward cases for inclusion, why should they? This is what you get when one camp is determined to force a point of view (BI deletion) when there's no opposing camp. I'm just part of what maybe called a damage limitation squad. No, the only solution is agreed or enforced topic bans. I'll move off British Isles right now, won't add it, won't delete it, if HK will do the same, but he won't. Mister Flash (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash, this is not a forum for you to speculate on other people's motives - that is unacceptable use of the talkspace. Secondly you can't demand an editor whom you have had numerous and protracted content disputes with stop editing anything. If you wish to disengage then do so - if not then don't.
Be clear I would prefer to see you all disengage - but it has to be unconditional--Cailil 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As soon as anybody breaches 3RR, block baby block. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's also a cop out. Why make up special rules? What's wrong with existing policies? This isn't a special case. It's really simple. Editors that don't follow the process of consensus forming, revert without giving reasons, revert with ad hominen comments and edit summaries, and breach 3RR, should be blocked. All we actually need is an admin that will implement existing long-standing tried-and-tested rules and policy. --HighKing (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR violations are obvious and have a process for that purposes. Tag teaming and povpushing are more complex and both "sides" have been doing this--Cailil 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, sounds great in theory - except I pointed out a 5RR here, yet nobody has actually issued any blocks. And what about all the rest? The reverting without giving reasons, inappropriate edit summaries, ad hominen attacks? And what exactly are the "sides" anyway? Who's on each "side"?? *Every* participant on the SE page objects to the behaviour of MBM and MF, so how come they simple get away with this disruptive behaviour? Why do I get the impression that admins here would be much easier to satisfy if there were clearly delineated "sides", and where blocks could be issued to "both" sides? What is so difficult about examining the behaviour of MBM and MF? For example, as MF points out below, take a look at what has happened in the past 10 minutes on the Enceladus (moon) article.

And as a pointer to those admins still following here, if you look at the last 100 article edits for MF dating back to March 8th, 75 are reverts involving "British Isles". Of those 75 reverts, 40 had no edit summary. 85 of the last 100 article edits involve the British Isles. But everyone is OK with that, right? Even though Black Kite has in the past warned against my edits being mass reverted, MF and MBM know at this stage that it's a joke. Nobody will actually take any action against them. And even though there were warnings about following another editors edits and reverting, again, that was really only intended for "one side", right? The other side can just safely indulge, right? And you lot can go ahead and label *all* participants as "disruptive" even though, clearly, there are only two disruptive editors!. --HighKing (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Readers might like to pop over to Enceladus (moon) and see that despite the discussions going on here User:HighKing is still trying to get rid of British Isles, even as I write. He is being aided and abetted by User:Bjmullan who is currently vandalising the article in an attempt to loose British Isles. Make of it what yoou will. Mister Flash (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You just don't get it. What I am trying to do is reflect what NASA was doing with the image. Maybe it was Belgium, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Great Britain, Northern France....who knows? I'll tell you who knows, that guy from NASA. Bjmullan (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This time it's 6 reverts! And surprise, surprise, no blocks.....? And to think I can get blocked for 5 reverts on 3 articles over 3 days, and then have my block log dragged up at every opportunity.... --HighKing (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it's time for Arbitration Enforcement. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is, GoodDay. I think it's time for looking at the dispute a little more closely before we go there. I recently gave an opinion on one of the threads at the examples page . I was immediately told that I was one of a trio who were determined to rid wikipedia of the term British Isles . A strange thing to say considering I've hardly taken an interest in the subject. This is the type of comment that could be monitored if admins were taking a closer look at the page. Jack forbes (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We've just had 6 reverts on an article and no action taken. This is the responsibility of admins to enforce the rules and policies they've been elected to enforce. The underlying behaviour of MBM and MF is the problem. GoodDay, how is it that everybody else seems to disagree/get along *without* being disruptive? --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

6RR, is reverting gone wild. It's time for administrators to commence blocking. We can't keep protecting pages forever. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article has now been protected. Mister Flash (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Now see this: The Manor House Bishop Bridge. HK is doing his utmost to cause more friction. This is just shear provocation. Mister Flash (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why won't any of you follow my advise at SE & work at 1 article-at-a-time? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is deliberately ignoring all known policies and procedures that this project has put in place for editing. And this behaviour has got to stop. As Daicaregos stated earlier, very clearly: It is perfectly reasonable to request a RS citation for the use of a controversial term. And British Isles is a controversial term. I see no procedural problem in deleting the term British Isles if it remains uncited after having been tagged “citation needed” for a reasonable time. I also see no procedural problem in adding the term British Isles if a RS citation is provided. Shutting-down the removal/addition of British Isles from articles is not the answer. RS citation references is. This RS tag has been in place since May. You do not have the right to censor my edits, or refuse to follow policy. --HighKing (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To the administrators out there. I plead with all of you, enforce 3RR on the articles which come within the British Isles usage scope. Enforce'em with ever increasing blocks. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I believe I shall begin making Edit-warring reports. As the edit spats are my major concern for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I protected Enceladus (moon) before I saw this thread. This is a much bigger behaviorial problem than I first thought, and I agree with GoodDay above. Dreadstar ☥ 22:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alls quiet today. But if the problem is well-known, and nobody seems to care enough to help, what's the answer? It seems that any AN/I or WQA filed is ignored. Anyone have any sensible suggestions? --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quiet? 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR, 5RR...Oh and claims of vandalism for inserting a claim that can be reliably sourced. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's stale now, but if it had been sent to WP:AN3 I would've blocked Don, but I'd have to say that 3RR isn't an entitlement, especially when you're engaging in a content dispute with an edit summary of "rv vandalism" (and I believe you were removing the consensus wording as well - wasn't it decided that the lede would be "The BI are a group of islands" whilst still mentioning the controversial usage in the opening paragraph? - if you were, I'd have probably blocked you as well). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link to this consensus wording? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the talkpage archives, though you'll probably need a spare hour or 100. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you and Mullan not removing British Isles from articles unless it is obviously wrong, which in 99.9% of cases it isn't. That'd sort it, straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that is exactly what we have been doing. Neither you or MBM have bothered to check the references and the context of the references to BI. Look at the your figures, 75% of your edits are about reverting subject relating to BI. Is that the definition of a SPA? MBM is no different. In future I will report you and MBM without any warning for your disruptive reverts. Bjmullan (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing wrong usage with unreferenced usage. Mister Flash (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not. Sometime it's one of them or the other and sometimes both. Either way they are wrong and will be removed. Bjmullan (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, when it's wrong (e.g. London is the capital city of the British Isles) by all means take it out. Problem though, as I said 99.9999% aren't wrong as such, so to remove them is just pushing POV - you don't like British Isles so you want to limit its use. Mister Flash (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

MF take your WP:SPA elsewhere. You will be reported if you resort un-cited material or revert my edits without reason. Today I have edited in 13 articles unrelated to BI, you have edited in TWO in the whole of June. Bjmullan (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! 13 eh. Bully for you! Mister Flash (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reported some of the issues of this thread to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan as the evidence for socking looks convincing. UnknownThing (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

user:MuZemike has just reverted your sockpuppet entries without any explanation? Bjmullan (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably because since both accounts were active at the time, if Mister Flash had been a sock of MBM it would've been picked up the Checkuser performed in the previous SPI. (Edit: and more to the point, because he's a sock of a blocked user). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but CU doesn't cast a net out and catch all socks - it only checks against nominated socks. And MBM and MF haven't been named in the same SPI, so what you're saying isn't 100% accurate? Have I got it right? --HighKing (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Right or wrong, the sockcase will have to go forward, so as to quell any suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No. If a Checkuser is performed against a certain user, it will pick up any verifiable socks as well. Of course, that doesn't mean it will pick up any CU-proof socks (WP:BEANS applies here), but looking at the editing patterns of MBM and Mister Flash, they are unlikely to be the same user if the CU didn't pick up on that at the time. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm - so then how come right when we're discussing the possibility of socks, I get a threatening email from MF just now. What is the process for dealing with that? --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well here's the contents of the email - and you'll immediately see why it was an email and not a post on HK's talk page Put a sock in it will you, as you might say! I'm fed up with your accusations, and your POV pushing on British Isles, so get this: Your twitter page xxxxxx puts you in New York on 8 March 2010, just when we had this little lot from a New York ip. Now AGF as much as you like but that was clearly you using a convenient ip when being out of Ireland. I've also noted several other cases of your using ip accounts. There was also an accusation of meat puppetry against you but I haven't been able to find it, but I'll keep looking. So leave off, or I'll raise an SPI against you and contact some admins with the evidence given here. I'm not asking for much, just stop your accusations and stop junking BI excpet where it's wrong. Thanks.

Make your own minds up. Mister Flash (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get this oversighted immediately please? --HighKing (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help? Anybody there? --HighKing (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, you may get a quicker response at oversight, unless you think an admin's RevDel would be OK?

Mister Flash, it looks to me like you're sailing very close to the wind, and I'd urge you to think twice before posting personal details about another editor again. TFOWR 13:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I've deleted that revision. If you post that kind of information on-wiki again, I'll block you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI case needs eyes

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen

A number of us believe that our old friend User:SkagitRiverQueen is back and socking in violation of her one-year ban, which as some might remember was enacted via a unanimous community vote. A checkuser has determined that a slough of IPs, plus two registered accounts, were all being used by the same user, but the behavioral evidence linking to SkagitRiverQueen has yet to be examined. Both registered accounts have been blocked, but determining whether this is SRQ would be important in deciding whether or not to extend her one-year ban (presumably to indefinite). If anyone can take a look and offer thoughts on a WP:DUCK determination it would help. Thanks. Equazcion 17:18, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Notified SRQ by email, asked if she had anything she wanted me to pass on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

More eyes, please... uninvolved or involved. Unbelievable lack of closure. Clearly a quacking DUCK... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All the editors who have taken notice of this users socking is due to her behaviors looking like WP:DUCK. Her following User:DocOfSoc to obscure articles and also the comments the socks made that were in some cases identical to SRQ. What needs to be discussed is how to stop her IP's from socking and whether her extention should be made indefinite or changed to the time the socking was confirmed. That is my opinion on this matter anyways. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 12:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As CU on this case, I can say that SRQ accessed Misplaced Pages through the same means as the two recent socks, although from an apparently different location. Because there is no overlapping editing, this could represent a move or unreliable geolocation. There's no technical reason to believe SQR is not the same user. Given the behavioral evidence posted on the SPI, I think it's more likely than not that SQR returned as these accounts. Take a look at the SPI. Cool Hand Luke 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that SkagitRiverQueen ban for a year be changed to an indefinite because of use of multiple sock accounts. Also, if there is a possiblity to do any range blocks for a short period, say a month to 3 months, is doable than that should be done too. Opinions? Thanks, --CrohnieGal 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, but at the very least, SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have his/her's one year ban reset, as per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Reset of ban following evasion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen ban discussion

I'm proposing that SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned and blocked indefinitely for socking.

• Support ban, as creator of this proposal. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I figured someone would close the SPI first, but since it's been around for two weeks with no word (except that all the suspected socks are indeed operated by the same user), I say that this is definitely SkagitRiverQueen socking disruptively in violation of her ban, based on the evidence presented in the SPI linked above; and her ban should be turned indefinite. Equazcion 23:05, 6 Jun 2010 (UTC)
• Support - She is well aware of what she has done and extending her block for a couple months doesn't remove the level of disruptiveness that followed in her wake. She's also very critical of the process, administrators and rules here. I think it should be extended to indefinite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment a) This is the wrong page for this. b) The current recommendation for such discussions is to give things a week to settle following a precipitating incident before starting a community ban discussion. Jack Merridew 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The week is over. Previous ban is still in effect, and should be extended to indefinite. And I want my glasses back, Jack... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - the sock case was opened on May 23, 2010, a full 14 days since the can of worms was opened. The precipitating incident was well before that. The evidence indicates a holistic disregard for the ban from nearly its onset and a willful thumbing her nose at it. To paraphrase MikeAllen below, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support – You break the rules, you pay the price. Mike Allen 03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as present -- only support reset of one-year ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe a little "blocker's remorse"? (welcome back to the fray, BTW ;P) Disruptive socking by a banned editor is very punishable, and appropriately so - that's why the community bans people here. You've "recused" yourself, I believe, in this matter already - thanks for "chiming in" again, though. Duly noted. Socking by a banned editor should result in an indefinite block... Doc9871 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really have a problem with Sarek changing his mind about his involvement in this, but I do disagree with simply resetting the ban. Considering the original reason for the ban, in combination with their continued nose-thumbing of the ban, I don't see why this is someone we want to have involved in the project. Are we really seeing any indication that things will be better once the ban expires? The issues were and are indicative of someone who isn't "getting it" and isn't interested in trying to "get it". To be honest I'm not even sure why the ban was originally proposed as temporary, but didn't want to make a big deal of it at the time. Generally people in these cases are banned indefinitely, until they express an interest in proving to the community that they can be trusted to contribute constructively. To have the ban simply "expire" with no effort on the part of the bannee (correct word?), and no evidence that the problem behavior has even been recognized by the user, is strange and inappropriate as far as I'm concerned. Equazcion 05:56, 7 Jun 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have the utmost respect for Sarek. I think that the disrespect and the lying she did saying she wasn't a sock when called on it on her sock accounts just shows she thinks she is better than the rules here. It took too long to get some attentions to this matter to begin with until Sarek came along. Sarek you did the right thing here. Unfortunately she couldn't wait it out and started to sock almost from the beginning. An indefinite is the right thing for this. She has no respects for the policies of the project and the project is better without the problems. --CrohnieGal 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-outing by new editor

Would an admin take a look here please? I'm not sure if the editor really meant to reveal his/her email address in the edit summary but it probably wouldn't hurt to go ahead and delete it. I left on note on the User Page about it (linking here). SQGibbon (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted the edit summary for that diff. I'm not sure what to do now, but since it has been mentioned in a public forum now it needed to go from public view ASAP. If anyone thinks full Oversight is needed, please go ahead and request it. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I have not mentioned it here? Would there have been a better way for me to have handled it? SQGibbon (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to immediately hit the revdel button, then go to User:Oversight and send it as an e-mail to that account, which is processed through OTRS to everyone with the Oversight permission- that way the diff is never drawn attention to in public. The oversight crew is usually pretty fast about such things. I've heard IRC can be used, but I can't say I have any experience with the medium. Courcelles (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Will remember that in case it happens again. SQGibbon (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no effective difference between revdel and oversight; revdel hides the information from everyone, and sysops can press a button to view it, while oversight hides the information from everyone, and oversighters can press a button to view it. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-disclosure is not oversightable (nor should it be rev deleted) unless it is an accident. Which this doesn't appear to be. Prodego 03:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

However, most new Misplaced Pages editors do not know that there a talk page exists, so they think that their only form of communication is e-mail. If they did know that they had a talk page, they probably would not have posted their e-mail. However, that's just my two cents. Consider it however you wish. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

More harassment from Arthur Rubin

This is another formal written complaint about User:Arthur Rubin. Arthur obviously wikistalks me on a regular basis. He is a long time editor and admin, and therefore is fully skilled at avoiding actual policy violations, while being as disparaging to my contributions whenever he sees an opportunity. Arthur and I began being in conflict over articles in the field of logic. He has now expanded his harrassment opportunities. For the record, this is an on-going issue with Arthur, and I have made formal complaints before.

On this occasion Arthur has given me a non-veiled threat to block me, even though I have violated no policy. He is so arrogant that he believes that I should be contemplating his mindset, and furthermore should be grateful that he had generously decide not to sanction me.

This is a formal written request for all the following actions

• An admin will give a written instruction to Arthur on his talk page not to wikistalk, or otherwise harrass me.
• My talk page is to be removed from Arthur's watchlist either by him or some administrative intervention.
• Arthur is to be banned from any future administrative action against me. If there is something so important as to require action, he is to approach some other admin with the issue.

I find all of my requests to be completely reasonable, and not any violation of Arthur's freedom to participate in contributing to the WP community. Be well, Greg Bard 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to show specific edits that establish a pattern of WP:wikihounding, if in fact that is what occurred. TFD (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Arthur Rubin of this discussion. Cardamon (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the result of this editor moving an article without discussion (the edit summary oddly called the move a 'proposal' and me asking him to restore it. As there was a discussion about the article name in April and the article 2012 phenomenon is a fairly actively edited one. He refused to move it back and Arthur Rubin did the move, asking him to fix the redirects. The comment about blocking was "I suggest you fix all the redirects. It should give you something to do while contemplating why I didn't also block you. " Gregbard has complained before about harassment, see asking that all members of a Wikiproject be given a 24 hour block if there was a problem. Unless he comes up with some proof quickly I don't see much to do here. Dougweller (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We need some diffs or evidence to show that this is happening; until then, we have no evidence that harassment is happening. (Note: the section Dougweller mentioned above is here.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The threat of blocking was improper, due to my long history with what I consider Greg's inappropriate edits of logic articles. As for this incident, I wasn't stalking Greg (although I have, at times gone through his edits to logic categories and templates, and proposing deletion of some as absurd, without possible definition, or inherently violating NPOV). 2012 phenomenon has been on my watch list for some time, and I noticed the move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur has taken responsibility for his offense to me. I have accepted. Just so that we are perfectly clear: 1) My complaint to Incidents was justified, 2) Arthur has admitted to the offense, 3) I will continue to engage with Arthur in a civil manner, however 4) I reserve my right to bring this incident up again in the future as evidence of a pattern. Be well, and thank you. Greg Bard 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

However, your complaint of stalking which should have been a complaint of being wikihounded, has not been shown to be valid as he has said that he has your article on his watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before and the day before, then it is reasonable to presume that it will come up tomorrow because each instance supports the conclusion that the sun will come up in the morning. So that is why I am stating for the record that this instance, any others I have reported in the past, and any I report in the future will all support a conclusion that yes Arthur is wikihounding or wikistalking or otherwise being wikidisparaging of my contributions ---whether he is or not. It needs to be this way because we all know that Arthur is perfectly able to abide by the letter of the policies, without any care for the spirit of them. So the idea is to encourage Arthur to be mindful not to inadvertently portray himself this way. Having incentive to reflect on ones own negative disposition is not a bad thing. At this point I would at least hope that he is asking himself if his dispositional beliefs are worth the fight he will inevitably incur if the pattern continues. Greg Bard 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of long-term patterns continuing, Gregbard is a long-term tendentious editor with a history of antipathy towards many of the editors in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics, of which Rubin is one. He needs to be reminded that when other editors undo his edits (especially those likely to watchlist the same articles he edits) it may very well have nothing to do with wikihounding or wikistalking or wikimisbehavior of any sort: the simpler explanation is that his edits are bad and that undoing them was the correct thing to do. The solution is not to shoot the messenger, it's to make better edits and grow a thicker skin. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:EunSoo and socks

EunSoo (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday by User:Syrthiss for edit warring on Ayumi Hamasaki (see). EunSoo soon came back editing under an IP address and his block was extended. Today, he came back with a bunch of socks and made the same edits as he did on the previously mentioned article. Some are listed here and these are the others 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs), 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 222.124.223.42 (talk · contribs). He also edited under 125.162.70.81 (talk · contribs) but this one was blocked earlier. IPs 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs) were just blocked by Zzuuzz. But can someone protect those pages because he will be back soon. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He came back 118.97.148.195 (talk · contribs). MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Being sorted as we speak. – B.hotep •talk• 22:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the articles affected by the IPs you have mentioned remain in the state that they left it in. Can you confirm that what they have done are good edits? – B.hotep •talk• 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really gotten around to reverting all of the edits the IPs made, But mostly all of the edits made are not good edits but to the EunSoo they are. MS (Talk|Contributions) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How is adding this "Also known as = MatsuJun, Matsumoto Jun (松本 潤)" a bad edit? And MS didn't explain why it was a bad edit 200.81.202.164 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done the ones I can safely do for now. If there are further problems in the next few hours, add here. In the next few days, add pages to WP:RFPP, or by Monday, if I am around, ping me on my talk page. Cheers. – B.hotep •talk• 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sock right above and he's back editing under 115.69.217.106 (talk · contribs), 61.7.142.159 (talk · contribs) and 201.18.12.26 (talk · contribs).

He is also using a different editor's edit summary (here to "justify" his edits. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As a pro-active move, someone may want to warn the Japanese WikiProject about this editor and anons in general. Originally, he was working on Korean-related articles. But because of my relationship with Japanese-oriented articles (and remembering that awhile back I pissed him off at a non-Misplaced Pages wiki site), he's given up on Korean articles and is now attacking many of the Japanese articles. People like this editor has all the free time in the world, and nothing will stop him. Groink (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• done. Syrthiss (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Colton Harris-Moore edit

I just stumbled upon this edit to the Colton Harris-Moore page; does anyone think this may be an issue to report to the police? -download ׀ sign! 22:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so--any user who believes it to be a worthwhile effort is welcome to. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If this article exists on Misplaced Pages, I suppose the cops probably already know about this issue. If what the IP says is true, it is probably not true anymore, as he has probably moved to another location. Feel free to report to the police if you wish. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdvarq

The User:Rdvarq is editing Alianza Lima and Universitario de Deportes, replacing verifiable content with original research and false content. --MicroX (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the last few edits are of concern, but the first few worry me. Tell the editor that his edits are removing information and references from the article, and ask him/her why he/she is doing so. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I know why he/she is doing it. The user is a fanboy of Alianza Lima. When you see someone start doing the things that this user is doing, it's pretty evident that they are just here to troll. Unfortunately, talking to this person won't fix anything. This user is an edit war waiting to happen. Additionally, this IP user 190.41.149.140 (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing; messing with the national titles. The IP has only done 4 edits but all 4 consist of actions similar to Rdvarq (talk · contribs) --MicroX (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have enough evidence that the IP is Rdvarq, you could take this to SPI. I'm not quite certain what the issue is with the IP, so I am unable to help you. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I could prove they are the same person. What the IP is doing is changing the titles won by Alianza. Alianza Lima has 22 titles. The IP keeps changing it to 23 and saying that the 1934 title was won by Alianza Lima. However, the title was won by Universitario de Deportes as found on the Peruvian Football Federation website. Here the IP is changing the titles again. Rdvarq (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing. --MicroX (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More contrary WP:ENGVAR edits

Just an FYI, the problems reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Contrary WP:ENGVAR edits and questions are continuing. The editor is continually reverting/repeating the same edits over again and it looks like he/she is opening up sockpuppets which are also being used to vandalize tags.MrFloatingIP (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious disruption is obvious - note any further instances to WP:AIV where they can be dealt with quickly as vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest blocking this editor, if it has not been done already. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The only named account in the previous report is inactive, and it is abundantly clear that the anon editor does not have a fixed ip address so CU will not make a definitive match. Presently, whacking the ip's as they appear seems the way to go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Anthonzi

• Anthonzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • See discussions. Talk:Emperor of Japan#exactly meaning of the title tennō, User talk:Anthonzi#June 2010
• Anthonzi all of a sudden came to Talk:Emperor of Japan and wrote "You should probably stick to editting the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly." (copied a misspelling as it is.)
  • Other editor reverted the post as a personal attack and warned the user , however Anthonzi restored the attack and tried to justify the claim.
  • Despite the warning by an administrator SarekOfVulcan , Anthonzi is still insisting the legitimacy of the attack. This proves the warnings by the community are not effective to make the user acknowledge the wrongdoing. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Requested action to Anthonzi: Blocked from editing for an appropriate period of time. As described above, warnings are no longer effective to the user.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to believe that anything that can be misinterpreted will be misinterpreted. I'm not sure how a qualified suggestion about the practicality of attempting to edit an English encyclopedic article with less-than-phenomenal English skills constitutes a personal attack.--Anthonzi (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthonzi, I really suggest you to read WP:NPA. Stating "You should probably stick to editting the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly" is still a personal attack, whether or not you said "probably". (Note to other editors: See this user's talk page for more examples of personal attacks.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a suggestion made in good faith, not an attack. No one has yet elucidated how it attacks anyone personally. As of yet, the only specific accusation was a straw man fallacy. Unlike what SarekOfVulcan asserts, the comment does not tell the user to go away. The intent of the message was to give a constructive opinion on the likelihood of productive edits (one's that wouldn't be reverted in my experience on this wiki) being made with the demonstrated level of language proficiency. Additionally, I found it logical that learning the verifiability criteria would be much easier in one's own native language (given that the user was anonymous, I could only assume from the subject of the article which that might be). This does not constitute an ad hominem attack; it is a legitimate critique of language skills.--Anthonzi (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP accounts 94.116.37.43, 69.110.12.49, 68.122.34.169

IP account 94.116.37.43

• here Pejorative ethnic reference and referring to another editor as a “war criminal.”

• here refers to me as a “racist and a “war criminal.”

• notification

IP account 69.110.12.49

• here Referring to an edit as “vandalism.”

• notification

IP account 68.122.34.169

• here Referring to an edit as “sabotage.”

• notification

It is also likely that the IP accounts are socks of each other since the attacks were coordinated and took place within a short time of each other. Requesting block of these IP accounts.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of racial or ethnic slur should be tolerable here and have dealt with that IP appropriately, I believe Toddst has warned the other two. S.G. _ping! 08:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Karunyan continued stalking

Karunyan (talk · contribs) was indef blocked following an Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Karunyan Continuing Wikihounding/Trolling After 72 hour block and the revelation that he was using sock pupppets to further his stalking of myself. He has continued using some 20 or more IP and named sock puppets in his unrelenting stalking (see SPI for some confirmed). In the SPI, two range blocks appear to have been instituted, which stopped it for awhile, but not long. When he reemerged last time, I asked one of the admins, User:MuZemike, from that SPI if another range block could be instituted, but apparently a high school is in that range (and likely where this guy is coming from) so the collateral damage was seen as too high. That this guy is still doing this mess more than two months later seems to be a sign of his having some serious issues.

I just discovered today that he used more IP socks to register User:CoIectonian (obvious spoof of User:Collectonian) to create Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Giraffedata then populated it with two IP socks Presumably it is also in direct response to my complaints about Giraffedata at the Village Pump and User:Seresin's closing that and stating RfC was the best course of action to take

What, if anything, can be done at this point? Can a range block be done, regardless of the damage, or is it basically a matter of just live with it and hope each and every one is blocked quickly? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ping....seriously, he's now hit this twice, and nothing...*sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Worst-case scenario with a range-block would be 256 x 256 IP addresses blocked, which is probably too wide. A more knowledgeable IP wonk, SPI clerk or checkuser could probably cut that down quite a lot, but it may still be too broad. Stick with SPI, the good folk there are a good bet for helping with range-blocks.

My experience with similar socks is that your "live with it and hope..." solution is the one that is easiest applied... sorry, I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear.

There is a forum for dealing with long-term abuse; I've not used it and don't know how effective it would be.

I'd suggest the next step should be to request that Karunyan be community banned. In the past there was little difference between and indef block and a community ban; these days it seems that a community ban allows an editor to be repeatedly reverted on sight, which may serve to discourage them, and also draws attention to them (hastening the "B" and "I" steps in WP:RBI). (I believe that the same does not apply to a merely indef blocked editor - I hope I'm wrong, but don't believe so).

TFOWR 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion above where the issue of indef blocks vs. community bans is mentioned. B discusses changes at WP:3RR and WP:BAN. TFOWR 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LTR seems mostly useful for just documenting behavior. As the one of Bambifan101 has shown, it doesn't really help stop the abuse, just make it easier for folks to see the history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, I think that may have been my thinking when I looked into it.

If you wanted to call for a community ban of Karunyan, I'd certainly be willing to second it... though that still keeps us playing whack-a-sock. But I guess that's really our only option, barring a possible rangeblock.

TFOWR 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...if a rangeblock can't be done, not sure there is much else to do. Community ban would just be a formality at this point and seeing as you're the only one who even answered this despite his continued disruptions here....it is a rather sad statement of things as a whole. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• If for no other reason than to give clearance to revert and block on sight, I'd support a formal community ban. I blocked a couple of the IP's a couple days ago, but this person goes through them so fast that I'm not sure it did any good. Courcelles (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked 59.96.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 59.92.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 3 months, collateral be damned. I've seen enough. Oh, and he's banned as no sane admin would unblock, but if someone really want to formalize it it's fine with me. Tim Song (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Much much much appreciated. Thank you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he has a named sock that was made before the range block, ConductResult (talk · contribs), whose only edits have been very random edits to Lad, A Dog (kept undoing himself), an article I have up for FAC, uploading a new version of File:Anna Tower.JPG, an image uploaded to the Commons by Karunyan with his sock Karunyam, and to post to my talk page about the range block stating "Actually all he blocked was just three or four floors of some obscure hotel in Chennai, India. It also seems that surfers who connect with their laptops to the wireless network in the ground floor of this hotel connect through the range 59.94.224.0/19 ". May need to do a CU to find the rest before this is truly ended for awhile. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't hear myself think over all the quacking. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And another User:ColIectonian (another spoof of User:Collectonian - either he made a stable of these things, or he's getting around the range block. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've asked a checkuser to take a look. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, found another TheCoIlectonian (talk · contribs) that recreated the RfC/U above, but is already blocked for the username. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone got that one, as well. I've also placed a month's semi-protection on Lad, A Dog to... well, I'm not sure what. Move this tomfoolery somewhere else, at least. Courcelles (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2  Confirmed by Deskana (talk · contribs) that ColIectonian == ConductResult. Sadly no IP block possible. Tim Song (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pooh on the range block...is there anyway to do any kinda filter on the username to auto alert if a play on Collectonian shows up? As it is a made up word, there is no way anyone would be using it as a legitimate user name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) Not a filter, but perhaps a bot? User:X! runs a namewatcher bot for UAA, perhaps you could check with them? Tim Song (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Left him a note, though he is mostly on a wikibreak, it seems like he is checking his user talk :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Question If someone stalks another user on here, should we call the police?--222.154.163.53 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just what I love about Misplaced Pages. When your an IP and you ask a serious question, a) your question is ignored b) some smelly snotrag admin or admin-wannabe goes and checks your contributions like your a crook. Fucking twats!--222.154.163.53 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I check everyone's contributions like they're a crook ;-)

To answer your question, no, almost certainly not. If you're talking about the "stalking" alleged above, then it simply means one editor examining another editor's edits in an inappropriate manner - that's something we'd look at here, and is in no way a matter for the police. If you're talking about something else, then I'd suggest that - at least initially - you describe it here. TFOWR 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While some places have laws against such actions, as long as it is purely on Wiki and the perpetrators are not in the same country as the victim, there is little to no point in doing so. If it gets really bad, the first action would be contacting the ISP. And, FYI, calling people "twats" is certainly not a way to make anyone think your question is legitimate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@IP: Your assumption is wrong when you stated that either your question is ignored or some admin checks your contributions like a crook. Most of us treat IPs as equally as users, since some IP editors have their reasons not to register for an account; indeed, some IPs are quite active in editing legitimately. It is just the fact that vandalism usually comes from IPs that makes IPs look bad; however, since users vandalize equally much (sometimes more – for instance, the "Grawp" incident), that is a bad assumption of an average IP editor. To answer your question: No, we should not call the police, as the editors above have stated. The "stalking" on this wiki refers to WP:STALKING, not real-life stalking. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, calling users "snotrag admin", "admin-wannabe", or "fucking twats" is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks for more information. If you want someone to help or listen to you, insulting them isn't going to help. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User 'WKTU' and 'Islam' article.

This is a mixed case of bad faith, npov, and vandalism. There is currently an 'undo-war' happening on the 'Islam' article. This 'war' is mainly between users Iwanttoeditthissh, WKTU, and unfortunately me. User WKTU is falsifying information on the page and has been asked to stop. We (Iwanttoeditthissh and I) have asked him to discuss this on the articles talk page but he will not. He also deletes warnings from his own talk page. We believe he is acting in bad faith as he will not stop to discuss the edits, and claims 'seniority' over us as his profile is slightly older (although with less edits). Please intervene. Alek2407 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%. In the edit sumary he goes on to say that 'Shia and Sunni are the only sects in Islam!' Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Relevant links are WKTU (talk · contribs), Iwanttoeditthissh (talk · contribs), Alek2407 (talk · contribs), and Islam. This is not the place to discuss this. Take this to dispute resolution. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of my article due to AfD.

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Newgrounds_Linux for details. Rohedin 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Expansion on the above comment from an involved user who has behaved impeccably throughout an AfD: the consensus appears to be that the article should be deleted, the author has indicated their desire that the article be userfied. I've suggested that the article should be userfied, and the AfD speedy closed (delete, after userfication). TFOWR 18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat Over Sourced Statement

I monitor this article "Ed Decker" after going through I forget how this got on my watchlist but it disturbs me greatly [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ed_Decker&diff=366407186&oldid=355897728

I was neither divorced or excommunicated for adultery. I divorced my former wife, Phyllis Ray Decker Montanari Danielson. I did so after extensive counseling with the Bishop and our Stake President and their recommendation that I do so. While I do not throw rocks, It was she who was having multiple affairs. I remained an active Mormon for a full 7 years after the divorce and was finally excommunicated in Bellevue, WA in 1976 AFTER I requested that my name be removed from the records of the church… The original documents from my excommunication are on file at Utah State University Special Collections Library : Collection #210, J. Edward Decker Collection, where most of all the research, books, videos, audio records, correspondence, files, etc are on file for researchers to use. That document clearly shows their reluctance to excommunicate me and that it was”my" decision and mine alone. These two facts clearly show that the Misplaced Pages posting on your website is false and slanderous.

How Ever the Statment Mr. Decker refers to is source by what appears to be a source that looks extremely dubious at best. I intend to remove it but since the legal threat has been made i felt the need to report it publisher page of source

Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant this get even more tangled, i found the diff of the addition, as it appears an Admin inserted the text and the source. In the mean time i have removed the text from the article space and it is now in the talk space Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a legal threat as far as I can see, more a statement that there are WP:BLP issues with the article. I was about to give the user directions to the BLP pages when I saw that, on the article talk page, someone has already done so. S.G. _ping! 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he uses the word "slander" but does no threaten to take legal action. Put yourself in his shoes, how would you feel if you saw an article that portrayed you in that light? He didn't handle it well, but it's easy to understand why he would be upset. I don't think any admin action is needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that he uses the word "slander" instead of "libel" is pretty much (circumstantial) proof that he hasn't contacted an attorney. --Smashville 03:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Intentional repetitive phalse acusation of ethnic prejudice

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

I heve been intentionally acused of phalse ethnic prejudice ( "...your nationalist ethnic prejudice..."), by DIREKTOR, while in mediation process and while I was trying to demonstrate a posible conflict of interess of a certain author. When confronted to provide proof of those claims , this user arrogantly insisted further claiming "my ethnic preconceptions" giving a phalse idea on the mediator using the expression "you remember" towards me , afterwords choosing to ignore my request of proof, and further making phalse statemnets on me , I gave him a last chance to resolve the issue (see bottom comment), but I was ignored again. It is not the first time that happend, but the case is more serios because it happend in middle of mediation perocess, and it happend after I was asked to explain the reasons that I founded for objecting the use of one authors source (from what I understand, I have the right to try to demonstrate a conflict of interess that a certain author may have about analising certain issues, and I shouldn´t be ever insulted because of making them, specially not when asked for).

I am also very sad and disapointed with the fact that Sunray, the mediator, has been refusing to remove the personal coment (please see bottom of ), while he has been sistematically removing me any personal approach, even considering "personal comments" worth removing such as this one, where I am asking another user (direktor) simply to avoid using unpolite expressions... That has not been coherent and has given indirect backing of such racist acusations as the ones that were made against me, in this case.

I would also like to remind that DIREKTOR has showed strong perjudice against Serbs in several ocasions (I already exposed some on previos reports, but I´ll gladly expose them again, now more complete, if asked) but he also feels free to phalsely acuse others of it. All this behavior of this user is outragious and very disruptive, all this, in a number very sensitive articles. Could he please be warned about this racist behavior? Also, could you please ask Sunray to be more coherent and not allow participants to be insulted while responding to asked questions on middle of mediation process? FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is his labelling of what he sees as your bias any different to your labelling of his bias in this thread? "showed strong prejudice against Serbs in several occasions" etc. I think, on the scale of personal attacks (which runs from "you're a prat" to "I'm going to kill your mother") this is a minor one. Why expand a mediation attempt to encompass an ANI thread? If you're at mediation, expect people to be pretty blunt in their own defensive. I advise a thicker skin, myself. S.G. _ping! 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The cases are very different. My education also tells me that racism isn´t definitelly a "minor" issue, and is allways worth reporting and taking action against. FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This communication appears to breach the The privileged nature of mediation. I recommend that if FkpCascais is determined to have a review of my actions, it could be reviewed by the Mediation Committee Chair. He can be contacted via his talk page User talk:AGK. If I can be of any assistance in clarifying, please let me know. Sunray (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don´t make neither I should take phalse "ethnic prejudice" acusations. It happend in a user page, not only at mediation. That is racism, please somebody stop it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that this is a brushfire expected from mediation, and that external intervention of another admin would be counter-productive and inhibit what the mediation is trying to do. I suspect DIREKTOR could come up with as many counter-allegations as FkpCascais and that would be a pointless avenue to pursue. I would propose leaving it with the capable Sunray unless he specifically says he needs another hand. Just my own thoughts, however. S.G. _ping! 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that DIREKTOR had his chance, he has been editing here, but ignored it. I know why, because he hasn´t any allegations of mine because there aren´t any. Please don´t equal us when that is not the case. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I've said my piece, I shan't be drawn into debating it with you. Another admin will happily lend their weight in a moment. S.G. _ping! 21:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What, again?? Oh for crying out loud, Fkp, you stated yourself that you suspect the academic integrity of the respected American scholar from Stanford University because he's supposedly of Croatian ancestry. This is not my opinion, or me making stuff up - you said it yourself. And frankly I'm sick of having to hear how you personally don't like the source because the guy's a Croat. --DIREKTOR 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, those are not my words, and be precise about them. Anyway, that is a mediation issue that doesn´t give you any right to insult me. Please provide proof, then talk. But remember, explaining how a Croatian (not American) author may have a conflict of interes in analising a Serbian movement, as much as you don´t like it, shouldn´t be excluded from the mediation, neither I should suffer pression in form of insults from your side, because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Those weren't your precise words? Well then, what were your precise words when you said Tomasevich should be disregarded on the basis of his ethnicity on Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive 2. I'm sorry you feel "insulted", but simply repeating your stated opinions can hardly be called an "insult" simply because you weren't prudent enough to conceal them.

I try not to be a nuisance on WP:AN/I, even though I do deal with a lot of difficult issues and users. But since we're pestering people here, here's Fkp:

"Your constant silly accusations and free insults just show how weak, and complexed (Serbo-Croatian: iskompleksiran) you are. And please, avoid calling me a lier, hidding behind a cp. That´s highly rude and chicken behaviour, not even needing to mention, against WP roles. You are taking this way too personaly, and by the history of your edits, by your showed incapacity of editing neutraly any Serbian-related article (your hateriot towards Serbia is just too evidente), you should really re-consider your role here. (...) Maybe in your home it didn´t... but, you are not Serb, so it does make sence. You obviously know nothing about Serbian history. You just pretend to do, with all your Croatian history perception."

Which, for the record, was in response to this :P. Actionable, or not actionable? --DIREKTOR 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You reported me on that already, and because of it, I was blocked for one week! When was it anyway, a 6 months ago? And yes, that comment followed a sequence of comments of yours that were extremely strange regarding Serbs in general. It´s on my talk page. I even forbite you to post any more comments there... Now, is this an apologise from your side? Do you understand what are you apologising for? FkpCascais (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is going to just become an extension of the mediation case then it needs closing per WP:BATTLE S.G. _ping! 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The mediation is fine and other participants are making progress. But I have disallowed fighting there so... You probably get the picture. Sunray (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "battling" anyone, I was responding to Fkp's unfounded criticism of sources - a relevant discussion topic. Notice: I did not talk to him all day yet he's running around all over the place trying to get me blocked... again. And I don't appreciate the condescending attitude. We Balkans brutes have feelings too. :)

The guy reports me for some nonsense like every ten minutes, what was I supposed to do? If I don't mention that I'm repeating his statements it looks like I'm attacking him... --DIREKTOR 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew jumping the gun

Jack Merridew has campaigned tirelessly to do away with the use of color in filmography headings. During a discussion at WT:ACTOR in which he inappropriately canvassed support for his POV, a table heading for the purpose of formatting a table was presented. The consensus on the discussion was to implement the use of that template, as is, with the color included. A discussion was opened at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies regarding the color. Consensus had not been formed there as of yet, but Jack went ahead and removed the color, literally jumping the gun and disregarding the discussion at hand, claiming There is no demonstrable consensus for this color and accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as "a group of friends acting as a bloc"and again dismisses opinions ontrary to his own as Why should you and mebbe a half dozen of your friends be allowed to rule over some thousands of articles?. Note that he also claims that "Someone has been evading, by any and all means, a consensus against this ornament for far too long.", presumably addressed to me, while he totally ignores that just as many spoke FOR the color in the template as his cohorts support his POV. That is a typical ploy, diminish the opinions that are against him and demean the editors who oppose it. The truth of the matter is that is also inappropriate characterization and outright dismissal of the opinions of the responders and he uses that to disregard everything that has been said. In fact, there is also no consensus to remove it, either, which is what was wanted when this was opened for discussion. The consensus for the general use of color hard coded into the table was inconclusive at the discussion at WT:ACTOR and it is shaping up that the consensus is again split, with equal numbers for and against. There is no consensus to remove the color either. This is yet another instance of his pushing his POV on the discussion and his sole decision that the discussion supported his actions. The discussion highlights the guideline (NOT policy) at WP:ACCESS#Styles and markup options, which clearly and decisively sets an exception for the point that The Simpsons group would be allowed the use of the color yellow. I contend his actions were grossly inappropriate considering it still under discussion and considering that he has actively lobbied against the color, he acted in a biased way to imposing his POV on the imagined results of the discussion. I do accept that a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves and then proceeded to write "guidelines and policies" set the "consensus" site wide for enforcing their choice. Consensus by force is not consensus, and in fact, the "site-wide consensus" has been challenged by this whole issue. The next step will be Jack trying to push through to remove the tables completely, something he has been quite vocal about pushing. P.S. Someone might want to take a look at the post I made at the pump page about Merridew's wikistalking, denigrating and harassing me, as well, if you care to. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the color of the tables in the middle of the discussion was disruptive. It's not fair to the editors who are taking the time to respond at the Village Pump if JM can simply make a unilateral move like that. And while this isn't the place to argue the color issue, it does make it easier to read. And what is a film actor without an easy to read filmography? I don't think this should be such a big issue.Malke2010 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It may have been "jumping the gun", but I feel it was done in good faith. Your marginalization of "a small contingent" having written our "guidelines and policies", I feel, is an unfounded attack on Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies.  Chickenmonkey  23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, however you can turn it around. Don't muck up the discussion with trying to avert the issue. Show me proof that the standard table coding was not done by a small contingent. I don't think you can show that it was developed by a "large" contingent. And good faith is relative here, since Jack had less than stellar things said about him and he charged in there to make a pointy edit and before replying here, he moved on to another article to change it to blank tabling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to feel -- and I'm not trying to turn this around or muck it up or whatever else you will accuse me of -- you seem to feel that any consensus that didn't involve you, doesn't count. Just because you don't know where the consensus is doesn't mean it didn't happen, and you should assume that the consensus was arrived at in good faith. Instead, you choose to take the same course that you're so offended of Jack Merridew taking: "accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as a group of friends acting as a bloc" and "a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves". It's the same tactic and it's not very civil, either way. I've been a witness to this "relationship" between you two for a little while and I believe it is fairly equal. I repeat my suggestion, if the two of you can't find a way to be civil with each other, you should avoid each other. If you absolutely have to interact, I would suggest no further comments on each other and focus your attention on improving the encyclopedia. Obviously, you're free to take that suggestion, or not.  Chickenmonkey  08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Do NOT bite the developers

a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color? One might root through the ancient history of MediaWiki:Common.css to find where the two shades came in to class="wikitable" but I expect it's old as hell, and mucking about in {{prettytable}} might dredge up older-yet history. One can't easily change this, either; it's now in shared.css, which requires developer access to change. These colours are bedrock; used on all WMF wikis and prolly most wikis running MediaWiki. Personally, I assume that these shades were chosen with considerable care with concern about maximizing accessibility and avoiding cultural sensitivities. Shared.css is for styling that underlays all the skins and the natural next level to consider overrides is Common.css and then individual skins. The most inappropriate level to specify a colour is hard-coded in individual articles. Jack Merridew 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume. And I find the insertion of the baby picture beside my post about this deliberately insulting and demeaning. Things regarding Jack need to come here to keep him honest. Consensus can change, which is the key issue to this table. You can't muster the consensus to support your stance and more editors, different editors, show up each time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith of the devs; WP:COMPETENCE, too. Try it ;) The baby picture was funny and seems to have been intended to lighten the mood. Cheer up, Jack Merridew 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As I found out awhile back, the first photo on a given page will show up if you hover over the link, or some such thing. So putting photos on this page is not really the best idea. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too many know that trick ;) Anyway, I hope you didn't fall for the suggestion that I posted the picture. I see it as a good faith comment by a neutral bystander. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie cannot edit anywhere without Jack following behind trying to dehumanize and demean her for whatever personal grudge he has on her. His spitefulness has been noted many times, even by administrators... but nothing ever happens and he's free to follow WHL to the next page and rinse and repeat the same bullshit. Sickening. Mike Allen 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how Jack followed Wild here. The thread is clearly about him, him joining it to defend himself isn't out of line. That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?— Dædαlus 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um I was not talking about this discussion. Though the "accusations" are based on proof. Mike Allen 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also demonstrably true that Wildhartlivie responds in a predictable way whenever JM happens to end up in the same part of the project as her - to flame out, outright accuse him of wikistalking her and to treat his edits as malicious. This isn't helping, and may be part of the reason that people don't really pay it too much attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This. Seriously, I'll be the first to say I tend to like Jack, but these two have a seriously unhealthy focus on one another. Surely Misplaced Pages is big enough that a way can be found for them both to just stop interacting all together, and if you must be in the same discussion, then don't response to the other. Is there such a thing as a topic ban where neither is allowed to reference the other by name or suggestion at all? As it is, the back and forth between them is really derailing the entire discussion re the template issues, and seems to be coloring the responses some. From my view in reading the RfC--ignoring all the bad faith suggestions re canvassing (evidence?), accusations on both sides of having "blocs" and "cabals", etc--that the RfC was inherently flawed. One discussion was for the template, one for the color. The former ended with consensus to use the template, while the later ended for no consensus on using the blue color - yet the template discussion was for it "as is" with the color - resulting in opposing results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've ignored a lot of shite. I see a solid year of evading the communities input about this effort at WikiProject Branding. All sort of tangents and misrepresentations. The RfC did get off poorly. It began as a sort of quick nose-count by WHL of whomever was watching WT:ACTOR. I bumped that thread up to an RfC and then commented. At length over—what?—six weeks? The arguments agianst the various messes and issues re these filmography tables are well presented in there. There is talk on VP(pol) about running an RfC on colour and I could warm to the idea. I want to see a route forward to cleaning up the considerable mess of code that's strewn about an in awful lot of articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack you know you've been following Wildhartlivie around. You showed up at many articles and conversations that you could have only gone to at the same time as WHL by using her contributions. The behaviors of Jack at WP:ACTOR shows the type of treatment he gives. He knows exactly what buttons to push on WHL to get her to respond in kind, and unfortunately she takes the bait way too often. Articles he showed up at are Cher, Charles Karel Bouley, Kate Winslet and the list goes on. He also goes to user talk pages where WHL is having a conversation with an editor like for instant User talk:Logical Fuzz and User talk:My account now (this one was proven to be a sock like she said it was.). These are just a few examples of Jack showing up to tell WHL whatever. There are a lot more of these but I feel this is enough of a sample to show that there is a problem that needs to be stopped. Thanks for taking the time to look, --CrohnieGal 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, with the seemingly dislike you have for all of us at WP:ACTOR, why did you sign up for it? --CrohnieGal 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The original RfC was quite a mess, sprawling over multiple subjects. It also raised project-wide considerations at a local level. At WP:VPP, there is currently a proposal for a specific, targeted discussion on table top colors with a wider audience, and I imagine that conducting such is the only way to resolve this. --Moonriddengirl 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is probably right about that, but I don't think this current noticeboard cycle is about the color of the templates. JM seems resentful of WHL's efforts on actors/film articles. He seems to pick issues just to get a predictable response out of WHL. WHL then sees the issue as an attack on her and the article. And then JM comes back with a provocative edit like reverting the color in the templates. This is disruptive behavior. It seems like JM is just challenging WHL's dominance on these articles. I can understand why she might be looking at every thing he does now as an attack. I think JM is a good editor, but right now the issues are clouding his judgement. And it's come to the point where there's overreaction on both sides. JM, my advice is just drop the color issue and start finding common ground with WHL. She's really very easy to get along with, and you'll find you both have a lot more in common than you realize.Malke2010 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ccacsmss

I feel reluctant to bring this up but I think I ought to. User:Ccacsmss has been active for over a year and specialises in highly focused edits which seem to entirely consist of stripping out Wikilinks, stripping out Wikilink piping and stripping out Wikilink redirection. The resultant Wikilinks often end up going to the wrong place. I can only describe his editing style as "autistic". There have been a number of warnings placed on his talk page and he was once suspended for 3 days. He still caries on regardless, mangling up around 20 or more Wikilinks a day. He has never commented on his own talk page to criticisms made by others and rarely uses edit summaries. He seems to operate on all topics throughout Misplaced Pages. He is obviously not a malicious vandal, but you have to ask yourself just what is the point of his Misplaced Pages career continually mangling Wikilinks at a rate of about 20 or more a day ? I doubt if he would take any notice of warnings or anything else on his talk page or would another suspension change his behaviour.--Penbat (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Has been dispatched for two weeks by another admin. S.G. _ping! 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this user's contributions are often not very helpful, but I also don't think it's great to describe another editor or their work as "autistic". WP:NPA, please. Lankiveil 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Amateur Radio Emergency Service

Hello. I'd previously listed what was initially a content dispute at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, but this situation has since turned a little bit more problematic. This was essentially just a disagreement on what should be in the article, but now, after a few messages exchanged with the other user (97.92.44.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), I've been labeled a vandal. That's a little uncomfortable. I just would like some guidance here. Dawnseeker2000 00:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the vandalism warning from your userpage and warned the IP user about issuing such notices in content disputes. If such behaviour continues, please post again here. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an article have two RfCs about the same topic?

I set up an RfC at Mass killings under Communist regimes requesting input into how or whether to discuss allegations of genocide against the Romanian leader, Nicolae Ceausescu, since there was a huge discrepancy between the figures used in his 1989 trial and figures accepted by historians. User:Marknutley joined the discussion at the RfC but has now set up a second RfC and reversed my reference to the first RfC when I added it to his RfC, and posted the following message to my talk page: "Per WP:TPO i have reverted your editing of my posts, please do not do this again. The issues are separate and your rfc has no place in the one i just started, thank you".

There are now two live RfCs on Ceausescu, although phrased differently:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#RfC: How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

This appears to me to be disruptive. Is there any policy on two RfCs? Should the second RfC at least mention that the topic is covered by another RfC? Can additional editors now add a third or a fourth RfC on Ceausescu?

TFD (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two rfc`s as they are separate issues, the rfc i set up is to get input on reliably sourced content which has been removed, the one you set up is, well i`m not to sure what it`s for to be honest, you seem to want to talk about the uprising, my edit was about the actual killings over the course of the regime. So as you see they are separate issues. mark nutley (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

N/A0 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were "not to sure what it`s for to be honest" about the first RfC why did you not say that when you responded to it? TFD (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What i meant is that you requested comment, i gave a comment along with reliable sources. You rubbished them, and continue to rubbish them even though one is the BBC so what i am saying is i`m unsure why you asked for comment when the sources clearly state something and yet you refuse to listen, why even bother to RFC? mark nutley (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Cable

Is being reported as being dead on his page with no citations, but according to BBC reports , the identification is not definite yet. 86.136.31.184 (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help. this is developing into an edit war. The page needs protection. 86.136.31.184 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, but I'd note that there is now a source for the claim that the article's subject has died. (The source is the NME, which is generally considered reliable for music-related matters). TFOWR 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a BBC article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help

Would someone mind having a look at this request on my talk page? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mackensen's sorted it - thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat and general incivility

Please see User_talk:Anthonyhcole#June_2010, where I placed a WP:NLT warning after this editor make a half hearted accusation of libel at Talk:Acupuncture. Although I did not take the threat seriously, it is good to leave educational warnings to prevent problems in future and accusations that may be taken more seriously. I also asked them to strike the accusation. Unfortunately, their response has been to repeat the accusation, more forcefully "Too right. You did libel me. ... I now accuse you of being a fool" (diff). Could an admin please just have a talk with this editor about how we avoid legal threats and the term "libel", and that incivility and repeating of the threat in response to a valid warning is not appropriate. I would also appreciate the comments being struck by the author. Verbal chat 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of a legal threat is that it involves an actual statement threatening to take legal action, which seems to be absent here. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is libel a verb? S.G. _ping! 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We have taken the view in the past that accusing other editors of libellous behaviour is not to be tolerated due to the chilling effect we are trying to avoid. Now, I happen to know that what I said isn't libellous at all, but that actually makes the situation for Anthonyhcole worse as he is making unfounded accusations of a legal nature. I am not asking for him to be blocked, unless he keeps making such accusations, but I would appreciate an admin making it clear that this behaviour is not tolerated here. Verbal chat 13:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More importantly (what, with me not being a lawyer an' all) is this libel? (I reckon "no").

If it were me, I'd ignore it and move on. The editor isn't going to go to court over Verbal uncollapsing a collapsed discussion. Ignore it. TFOWR 13:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying "you libeled me" is not quite the same thing as saying "I'm going to sue you for libel". It is an intimidation tactic. As TFOWR notes, the best option is to not be intimidated. The user in question is very possibly headed down the wrong path in general, and time will fix that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but what I am asking for is someone who isn't involved to tell this editor that this behaviour is not on. Repeating the accusation and calling the complaining editor a fool does not help the project. It is better to give a gentle talking too now rather than require an indef block later when they go too far. Verbal chat 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This has now been dealt with to my satisfaction, thanks. Verbal chat 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not mine. I have just been rebuked. I have asked Sarek on my talk page to explain what I have done to deserve the rebuke. But perhaps this is the place for that. Please explain. Anthony (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You claimed that someone calling your edit misleading was libelous. Not cool, whether or not you actually intended to take legal action to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to be clearer than that. Not cool? Anthony (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this at my talk page:

Libel is a legal term for a false statement that when written, negatively impacts the individual it is written about. For one thing, throwing that term around can create a chilling effect - especially in an instance like this where there was obviously no libellous statement made. While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation...and that is not acceptable. In addition, calling someone a fool is an ad hominem personal attack. Misplaced Pages operates on consensus and cooperation, not on intimidation and insults. --Smashville 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And will respond shortly. Anthony (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The history. I collapsed an off-article Acupuncture talk page discussion about User:Middle 8 here with "Copied to COI noticeboard" on the hat. These two edits happened within seconds of each other. Ten minutes later Verbal reversed both with the edit summary "It wasn't copied there" on the talk page edit.

I asked Verbal on his talk page what the problem was and he said, inter alia, "Misleading note." I asked "Misleading?" To which he did not reply.

Back on Talk:Acupuncture Verbal, still not explaining what he meant by misleading, posted this: "Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note." I responded with "Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? Ad hom? NPA|PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly?" You know the rest.

I object to being called misleading. It is a description I'll happily wear if demonstrated. But it has not been demonstrated. In the absence of that demonstration, I deserve an apology.

Verbal has demonstrated he is a fool by inferring a legal threat in no way inherent or implied in my use of the term libel. It can be and is used in law, but also, in popular usage simply means any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise.

So. I have been defamed here. Mildly, sleazily, underhandedly, in a sly, drive-by, hopefully-under-the-radar way by this fool. Rather than apologize when I called him on it he has brought it here, and you have drawn the same false inference and accused me of intimidation. I now deserve an apology from you. Are you mature enough? Anthony (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for repeating the "fool" attack after being warned by two admins it was an unambiguous violation of WP:NPA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They say it's better to wait for an apology rather than demand one. Demanding an apology makes one look very egotistical. –MuZemike 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive newbie Chirco evading block with 2nd account.

Possibly this belongs on some other noticeboard, and quite possibly I will fail to provide the appropriate info in the proper way, for all of which, I apologize in advance. Maybe this user qualifies as a sockpuppet?

User:Nick Chirco, new here since 1 June, was just blocked at 04:03, 7 June 2010 for 24 hours after some disruptive editing. Now I see that he's endeavoring to "fix" things to his liking using a new account, User:ChircoN. I noticed this because he's reverting my reversions on pages I'm watching. I know there's a way to provide their relevant links, but I don't know what it is. Still, here are the nicely-intersecting contributions lists for Nick Chirco and ChircoN. Activity with the second account started some ten hours after the 24-hour block began. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards