Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 9 March 2014

• 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:Tbhotch

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

This user keeps harassing me and threatening to block me and is coming across a bully can someone sort them out for sake of mind? 217.43.162.104 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note this user is THE GTA Guy (talk · contribs), aka AlisaJay (talk · contribs), aka MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs), and evidence can be found at the respective sockpuppet investigation pages Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky/Archive and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AlisaJay. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that this user has a few screws loose if all they think they can do is accuse people without facts 217.43.162.104 (talk)

You want facts. One page: Loud (Rihanna album), a constant target of you. Including a reversion of a reversion of the user 86.142.54.16 (talk · contribs), who is blocked and also comes from the same state you are currently located. Your personal attacks and EMPHASIS matches with those of Maria and your IP matches with already confirmed socks of Maria. I don't need CU evidence to know you and Maria and GTA and Alisa are the same person. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you're going 'round calling it a personal attack; ever heard the expression "The pot called the kettle black?" 217.43.162.104 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So calling me "freak" and to ask some one to "fuck me off" are not personal attacks. Neither "dumbass", "you are pathetic", and multiple of your attacks are not personal. It has no sense to talk with you (edit conflict).

In a side note to other users, is it possible to get this guy/girl banned from this site now? Nothing has changed since the User:MariaJaydHicky era, and now this person has decided to play to be a victim of circumstances s/he provoked her/himself. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If no admin agrees to unblock, that's a de facto ban already. Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, people sometimes want it to be de jure. - Penwhale | 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal for AlisaJay/MariaJaydHicky/etc

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

I propose the following:

For persistent sockpuppeteering and block evasion, which has exhausted the patience and assumption of good faith by the community, MariaJaydHicky is banned from English Misplaced Pages by the community.

• Support as proposer. - Penwhale | 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle - Penwhale The last time I raised such a question, I was informed that an indeffed editor is de facto banned as long as there are no admins willing to unblock. And I believe we are still able to revert on sight, and report to AIV without any of the L1, L2, L3, L4 warning formalities. From some of the really incivil things she has penned, this actor seems committed to this hostile "chav" bit and doesn't seem capable of participating constructively in this community project. To formally "ban" might be to deliver a badge of honor. Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - clearly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Agree that this person is not here to build an encyclopedia. Repeated socking is enough for me. The ban category is where we put our worst cases, and it appears this is richly deserved. Jusdafax 04:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Socking and block evasion are reasons enough. We are all here to build an enclyclopedia, no to disrupt it. Note: I changed "ban evasion" to "block evasion" in the proposed text, since the user is not yet banned (we won't be here otherwise). → Call me Hahc21 05:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Constant arguing over parapsychology

Basically a new user PhiChiPsiOmega has joined Misplaced Pages a few days ago with plans to do "major" revisions on the parapsychology article, unfortunately this user has not read Misplaced Pages policy on pseudoscience or fringe theories. So he has ended up ranting on the talk page of the parapsychology article and using it as a forum ] and basically disagreeing with pretty much everything and anyone has said to him. He's now arguing with users here ]

PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs)

69.14.156.143 (talk · contribs)

If you check his talk page he admits he disagrees with the scientific consensus about parapsychology and even wikipedia. He has left some aggressive comments a few times (both on his account and on his IP) on my talk-page, I am not too bothered about this but he's done the same thing on the parapsychology talk-page and elsewhere. I don't see anything positive about this user on Misplaced Pages. His existence here seems to just want to argue with people because his belief in psi is not supported on Misplaced Pages. I think he should be topic banned on the topic of parapsychology.

To make things worse, he's now hooked up with a fringe proponent Tom Butler (talk · contribs) (an anti-Misplaced Pages editor who talks about Misplaced Pages editors censoring his paranormal views) who has written "Ah, but that is my point: in Misplaced Pages, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success." amongst other nonsense.

I can just see these two editors getting worse and worse and they are obviously not on Misplaced Pages to improve any articles or doing anything productive but just argue with editors so I think a lid needs to be put on it now before their trolling spreads to other places on wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, so the correct venue for this would be WP:AE. I recommend withdrawing this complain and filing it there instead. Nformation 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think PhiChiPsiOmega needs to learn about Misplaced Pages policy in general and WP:AGF, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTAFORUM in specific. However, as a slight mitigating factor, he is a very new user and I don't want to bite the newcomer. It's clear that he believes very passionately in his topic and there's nothing wrong with that, however the situation on the constellation of parapsychology and pseudoscience articles shouldn't be changed just to accommodate one passionate editor. I think the best thing to do would be to pair PhiChiPsiOmega with an editor who has absolutely no involvement with anything even remotely related to parapsychology as a mentor. Encourage him to learn the ropes of Misplaced Pages somewhere where he's less likely to enter into antagonistic situations with long-standing editors. After all, passion speaks to boldness and we want bold editors here. However we also want editors who are willing to seek consensus even when it might chafe their passions. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He's a new user (very new) and I think he is allowed some leeway to picking up an understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I know many editors who had a bumpy landing when they started editing WP and, unfortunately, PhiChiPsiOmega wandered into one of the most conflicted areas on Misplaced Pages. I think that editors who regularly police this area are on the lookout for potential "disruptors" and are overly vigilant. But Parapsychology is not the DMZ or the old Berlin Wall and any editing errors can be reversed. There is no call to block new editors who are not aware of ARBCOM sanctions and the history of these articles. Liz 05:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz but you have done comments like this which doesn't help. "Welcome to Misplaced Pages, User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing!" .

Two issues remain here. PhiChiPsiOmega existence on Misplaced Pages is to just stir up trouble over the parapsychology article (psi is even in his name). He's made it clear he is not convinced by the scientific references on the topic (the hundreds that are on the article), and he rejects the scientific consensus:

Here he even claims the arbitration committee is wrong:

Basically everyone is wrong apart from himself and he isn't going to stop arguing about the subject. I am bringing this to the Administrators' noticeboard now because if it doesn't stop now it's just going to go on and on. The second issue is that this user Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is a troll off and on Misplaced Pages. Off Misplaced Pages he's created countless blog and forum posts against Misplaced Pages like this, and even an entire website against Misplaced Pages policies :

And you only need to look at his Misplaced Pages user page and comments on Misplaced Pages to see he is only here to cause trouble. Here is encouraging a user to quit Misplaced Pages and "give up here" to join his own paranormal alternative On his very own user page it reads "Editors blocked for attempting fair treatment of Rupert Sheldrake The public will know these editors as maters of the search for fairness." and now he's encouraging the user PhiChi . I have no idea why this editor is still on Misplaced Pages considering all the damage he is trying to do to it on and off Misplaced Pages (he's even hosted online petitions against Misplaced Pages). The way for this issue to be solved is to ban these users because they are not here to edit Misplaced Pages, they are using the site to stir controversies over parapsychology and it is going to spread if they are not warned. That's all I am going to say on this. If action is not taken then in a few weeks time someone else will just be coming back here complaining about these users and it is going to get worse and worse. Goblin Face (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather go there than deal with the lack of objectivity and quote-mining I get here. Look, GF, I understand that psi is an uncomfortable topic for you, but he has good reason for posting those things: You are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. I disagree with the skeptics because they DON'T represent their opponents very well, and that their opponents represent a small niche in the scientific community. Appealing to the "hundreds of articles against" (while ignoring the hundred articles ' ' for ' ' ) psi is just proving my point. Don't you dare do anything to Tom Butler. Neither he nor I are here to cause trouble, as I've said (and as can be seen on my talk page!) several times over. My name comes from the last four letters of the Greek alphabet, not an appeal to "psi". Quit reading into things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to call editors trolls, and one could argue whether "troll" is strictly accurate because it looks like an editor who is not trolling but who genuninely believes a bunch of FRINGE stuff, and is disappointed that it is so hard to push it at Misplaced Pages.

PhiChiPsiOmega has a highly original manner of editing, changing the opening sentence of Parapsychology to read "Parapsychology (or psi phenomena) is the somewhat controversial scientific study of psychic and paranormal phenomena." (diff). Clearly PhiChiPsiOmega's edits will need extensive scrutiny, and WP:AE can be used if nothing is learned within a week or two. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, but I'm not a "pusher". It is fact that Misplaced Pages isn't citing the full spectrum of scientific opinion. Not all parapsychologists are woo-meisters or New Age gurus, and a great deal of them are well-respected physicists, psychologists, and statisticians. My point is that the debate can't be just given over to everyone uber-skeptical of psi. I even cited a skeptic who thought parapsychology was a science, but its findings inconclusive. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the inevitable result of this will be that PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) gets shepherded away from Misplaced Pages articles. He's going to waste editor's time because he seems incapable of understanding basic policies. The break is either going to be voluntary or enforced under WP:ARB/PS, and it's either going to happen sooner or later. Right now, I wouldn't be pushing for a ban, but I think it's ultimately inevitable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable. WP:ROPE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, that was so funny I forgot to laugh. Look, the only reason I'm here isn't because I irrationally believe in the face of evidence, or that I believe non-scientists over scientists, or that I am a woo-pusher who wants to cause trouble. I am here because there is a wide spectrum of opinions on psi, and that, at best, you can call it an extremely controversial science that few defendants hold to, but not pseudoscience. Just because a lot of people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it's classified as such. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fully agree with noformation. ANI threads about disruptions in the topic area of pseudoscience are always problematic. That is why we have discretionary sanctions and this thread should be filed at WP:AE to stop the TLDR text and the peanut gallery. Second Quantization (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wolfie, WP:AE limits us to providing diffs of WP:ARB/PS issues. Tom has a long history of WP:COI, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:IDHT issues. If this isn’t the right venue to deal with a chronically disruptive editor then what is? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions available apply across pseudoscience and fringe articles, broadly construed. This includes all contributions where there are issues such as IDHT, NPA etc in that topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really trying not to be a peanut gallery. I just think it's better classified as "fringe science" than "pseudoscience". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Misplaced Pages is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Misplaced Pages's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Misplaced Pages policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Misplaced Pages are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Misplaced Pages is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience. For the record, reliable sources also say psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific. That doesn't make it so. And I presented reliable sources to you, which you ignored repeatedly (which makes me wonder why I'm still talking to you). Once again, I've made my position clear: I am not just a pot-stirrer. I'm saying this topic needs to be looked at more. I only disagree with parapsychology being placed as pseudoscience, and even Misplaced Pages protocol seems to be open to just calling it controversial or questionable, but not completely pseudoscientific. Tom Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's right in saying this has gone in the wrong direction. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi says "And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience". This is nothing more than trolling and it' utter nonsense like all of your other unreferenced personal beliefs that you have spammed on Misplaced Pages talk pages (you have failed to present a single scientific reference to make your case). It's trolling because there's countless references on the article which indicate it is a pseudoscience but every time you say it isn't. Can you not read the parapsychology article? There are over 10 references which indicate it is an obvious pseudoscience and many listed on the talk-page. It is even mentioned in the lead, and is cited in mainstream books on pseudoscience like Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." This is just a waste of time. No matter what is said you are just going to continue to promote your personal fringe beliefs on the subject, arguing, ignoring what people have said to you and causing disrupt. If someone wants to take this to another venue they can, but I am not wasting anymore time on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of references! Your failure to look at them is indicative of something else other than objectivity at work. I gave you plenty of articles from scientific journals and I could have given you more! It's not trolling. There are several authorities who claim psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, even though you still represent the counters of those who support psychoanalysis. They're saying many people refer to it as pseudoscience, not that it's completely pseudoscientific. And even if it is disagreed with, cite the esteemable people who actually support the stuff and are credible enough to get the material published in academic lit: http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Parapsychology_5th_ed.html?id=rPlsF2BJiHUC. This counters several of the criticisms, and I don't see you even looking at it once! It's hardly something not worth citing like SIGNATURE IN THE CELL for evolution or something similar. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys, let's not have this argument here as well. Let's either take this to the appropriate venue, as suggested by Second Quantization and Noformation or just simmer down and let people cool off a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is only one reason I spend pretty valuable time on Misplaced Pages. The online encyclopedia is read by the public, and as such, the articles that slander living people and give people a false impression about subjects have become effective propaganda for a demonstrably biased point of view. None of my edits, none of my comments on Misplaced Pages have been contrary to the belief that the public deserves a balanced view. In fact, that is the nonprofit charter of Misplaced Pages.

As a manager of a nonprofit myself, I am obligated to serve the best interest of the public in the nonprofit's literature. To knowingly falsely represent a subject violates that charter. As representatives of the Misplaced Pages nonprofit, the editors here are equally obligated to be truthful and slandering people and intentionally giving only one side of a subject, while as a policy, rejecting the other is something I have difficulty being quiet about.

You can ban me, but all that does is confirm my point. The real answer is to get off your pompous seat and try balancing the articles. I am sure editors like PhiChiPsiOmega will help. Tom Butler (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Proponents of Flat Earthers proponents have no claim to be equally represented in their views than Round Earth proponents. Not even at Flat Earth page.Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Arildnordby: How does parapsychology fit in with flat-Earth and YEC nonsense? They have no peer-review, no textbooks, and no wide range of academic literature behind them. Parapsychology, on the other hand, does. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom, you serve no purpose on Misplaced Pages but are just here to cause trouble. You are anti-Misplaced Pages and both on and off this site you are promoting libel about various editors who you classify as "skeptics", you even have an entire website against Misplaced Pages which you believe is "biased". Look over your edit history there's nothing constructive but you are encouraging people to cause trouble on here. It's also stupid you claim to be "neutral" but you have written books claiming people can talk to the dead. Basically anyone who is not a believer in your fringe beliefs is "biased" and you attack Misplaced Pages in the process. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, if you had read any of that material, you would understand that my behavior here is a learned one as a last resort. I am also demonstrably neutral in the study of these phenomena. For instance, I am a lone voice against a couple of popular techniques. I may seem biased toward the subject because I write about what I learn. Were it otherwise, then I would be preaching and this is not about religion.

If you do not consider yourself a skeptic, then why do you have "This user is a skeptic" on your page?

And to Simonm223, I can support that contention about slander. Rupert Sheldrake was very close to suing Misplaced Pages for slander. Other living persons have expressed to me similar points. I have even heard talk of a legal defense fund. Do you want to make a case of that? It is the skeptics who use terms like Woo and quack. As a general rule, the most we do is say you are a skeptic.

I will also note that I would not be aware of PhiChiPsiOmega if it were not that many of you were complaining about him on the Fringe Notice Board below where you mentioned my name. I do not monitor the parapsychology article ... it seems silly to try to help those who do not help themselves ... but it seemed only fair to warn PhiChiPsiOmega you were talking about him.

I know it is eating at you that I am inviting editors to come help in Citizendium. You should be happy that I am offering them a way to help that is out of your hair. Citizendium is an outpost on the Internet, but is a good place to develop balanced articles. The existing editors there will assure we do not develop propaganda, but they seem dedicated to balanced treatment of articles. If I were you, and looking at all of the complaints, I would be encouraging people to go there.

I think it is time to stop complaining and either fix the articles or admit that you want them as billboard for your opinions. Tom Butler (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have archived PhiChi's argument on the parapsychology talk page. Goblin Face (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, it is inappropriate to completely archive a talk page. Also, your reasons are way off base. If I am not mistaken, this is a troublesome pattern of some editors that needs to stop.Tom Butler (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will not edit war with you over this, but be advised that the archive is deliberate tampering with an open exchange in information and will not hide the conversation from the world. Tom Butler (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: I've talked with Radin before. He only responds to stuff in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the comments here if you don't believe me: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/06/constructive-criticism.html. That said, if you press him enough, he will respond in a private conversation. I've shared emails with him, and I've kept them. If I'm correct, the skeptical criticisms usually repeat themselves like a broken record (you're defining psi by what it's not, lack of replicability immediately means bad experiment and no further investigation is needed, it'll defy the laws of physics as we know them, etc.), and I'm suspecting Park's criticisms are no different. Radin has responded to criticism, but he doesn't have to respond to every single skeptical writer directly in order to do that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to quit at all. We're not bullies, and I'm guessing you're valued elsewhere. We'd just appreciate if you would find something of substance to give us and stop playing a victim all the time (which means not accusing someone of being a sock). Mr. Steigmann has good reason to be harsh with Misplaced Pages. You're only representing one side of the story while pretending that it's neutral. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages reports the current scientific consensus, which is that paranormal phenomena are fringe science (at best). Neutrality does not factor into it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note another user has correctly removed the comments from me to the sock puppet 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) and his comments to me as it was off topic and he has openly confessed to being banned on his account Blastikus and others. I apologise for thinking this sock was PhiChiPsiOmega. Tom Butler's behavior is being discussed elsewhere by admins at Misplaced Pages Arbitration so I think this discussion should be closed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChiPsiOmega, you just need to contact James Randi to set up some tests. If the results of these tests are positive then that will be a notable enough result for Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Count Iblis: I'm familiar with the Randi Challenge, thank you, but the Ganzfeld has undergone far more skeptical scrutiny. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: No worries. It's the internet. It happens. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What matters is to get results that are widely accepted. So, assuming for argument's sake that you are right and that in Ganzfeld experiments a positive result does show up, one still has to demonstrate this in a way that will gain acceptance within the scientific community. If we also assume for argument's sake that you initially don't gain acceptance because of unreasonable skepticism, you still have to deal with that problem before you can claim a positive result (however unfair this is).

Randi was dealing with the opposite problem in the late 1970s, at that time certain results like Uri Geller's mind of matter results were accepted as proven by the parapsychology community while his criticism of these results were totally ignored. It took several years for him to prove that he was correct and that the entire parapsychology community was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical about James Randi at times. Scott Rogo, an eyewitness to the Targ-Puthoff experiments, seems to have disputed many of Randi's claims. Also, even if Targ and Puthoff's work is as terrible as it seems, more controlled experiments have been done in psi tests since then. In any case, skeptical arguments are often met in the parapsychological literature, which is quite academic, and written by respected scientists who still have their jobs. If the literature shows that the criticisms have been met, I don't see any reason to not include them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles follow WP:REDFLAG—the science which makes planes fly and phones ring finds there is no evidence to suggest that parapsychology is any different from all other junk FRINGE stuff. Of course some eye witnesses dispute Randi's claims—that's what fringe people do. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... WHAT??? You're dismissing eyewitness accounts because James Randi said so? Is that ' 'really' ' your argument? Again, the "science which makes planes fly" is mostly agnostic on the matter. The "professional" skeptics are those who actually care most of the time, and every time someone says "the scientific community rejects it", they're often referring to this crowd of skeptics. Other scientists' feelings about psi being unscientific seems proportional to those who hold that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... WHAT??? is exactly the response of mainstream science to parapsychology. My prediction that this will end up at WP:AE for WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT still stands. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue debate on policy. Unless an admin plans on handing out sanctions, there's nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this thread should be closed as no action is likely, Second Quantization (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The situation has not been resolved, there's now PhiChi with an abusive IP editor promoting conspiracy theories of censorship on the parapsychology talk-page and others. Goblin Face (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

NO! I'm not "presenting a conspiracy theory". I'm presenting EVIDENCE. Please learn to tell the bloody difference, stop accusing me and others of bias, and start acknowledging your own. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you've not provided "evidence." You've provided your opinion, which is against consensus. This is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalising climate data for months

75.191.173.190 (talk · contribs) has been on a trail of disruption, including undoing the transclusion of established templates, falsely claiming "updates" to data (when most government meteorological agencies only update normals every decade), "adjusting" temperatures that have been verified countless times without changing the source, among other crimes. Since this has been going on since at least New Year's Day, a several-month-long block is in order. GotR 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the user? What do they say? --Tóraí (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but to no avail. GotR 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually discussed with them specifics of what is wrong with their edits? All I'm seeing in the above link is a generic templated message about unsourced material. (Such a discussion would also be helpful to administrators, as I'm not seeing any outright intentional vandalism, not knowing the specifics or intentions of the IP editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I told them to: 1) make their edits directly to transcluded templates, not supplant their transclusion with several more KBs of code; an example is Minneapolis#Climate, which transcludes {{Minneapolis weatherbox}}. The user was told by others to obey this custom. 2) False claims, as I find it hard to believe the IP does not notice the main source presently used at {{Seattle weatherbox}} is the same as the "new", and "more accurate" source the IP has been claiming to use; the user may be lying 3) I also hinted to them of the vastly superior quality of normals, which include smoothing for missing and suspect data, over simple arithmetic averages. Therefore, this user has indicated no will to cooperate, and this is a behavourial issue, not a mere dispute over the undisputed official status of Normals. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• The IP has blanked warnings from their talk page and ignored discussion. They're engaged in the same edit warring on Minneapolis, Honolulu and other cities. I've requests page protection. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

At it again, and even reverting the edits of countless others (this one to Madison, WI has nothing to do with climate, too!). Also, Dennis B, thank you for bringing attention to this matter in another venue. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So if I go to editing in {{Minneapolis weatherbox}} is it fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are still reverting, and after all these hours, you have finally come here. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another revert, after edit warring warning. (I would not recommend that Lieutenant of Melkor revert again -- let an admin respond.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All my renewed datas are from NOAA include Average temps and there's no any false informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that he's not putting out blatantly false data, so we can't just treat this as vandalism. But he is changing the data without changing the source (or even the time period of the source), which indicates either that all of the data was false to begin with or that the IP's numbers don't actually match the source he's claiming they come from. It may be, however, that he's putting out data that matches the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and just neglecting to say so or change the source. It does seem that at least some of the data he's adding (I didn't check it all; NOAA's data access takes more steps than it should) does indeed match the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and therefore should stay in the templates if at least the source is changed. —Soap— 02:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These are the official normals; anything else isn't. I had went through and corrected the templates, mostly temperatures, to match them over the past year. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Repeating the same revert six or seven times in a row, as at Template:Boston weatherbox, is not the way to overcome other editors' objections. 2. There has been no explanation forthcoming, that I can find, as to why any changes are necessary to the climate information for any of the cities involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been nearly 24 hours since the last comment on this thread. So are we going to silently allow this disruption to continue as it likely will? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And indeed it has resumed. Administrator attention needed here. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. Lieutenant, while I appreciate your willingness to put so much work into a much-neglected area of Misplaced Pages, I don't think we can simply decide that the NOAA website is the one and only source from which we can get climate data, or even that it is superior to other sources, which is what you seem to be saying. However I wouldn't go to the other extreme and simply accept all of the IP's edits either, particularly as he hasn't explained where they're sourced from. —Soap— 06:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not bent on continuing the arguments from a content dispute at AN/I, but NWS Baltimore/Washington and Pittsburgh all use the quality-calibrated normals, which are more often than not different from simple arithmetic averages; for example, the normal January high at PIT is 35.7 °F, not the simple arithmetic average of 36.0 °F. This is not at all a matter of preference; it's a matter of whether the Earth revolves around the sun and is not up for debate. NCDC states "Procedures are put in place to deal with missing and suspect data values ". "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The content dispute can't be resolved unless the IP goes to the talk page and discusses it. The reason this issue is here on AIN is that IP 75.191.173.190 intends to edit war ad infinitum and will not discuss. I think a block or page protection would prod them to go talk out the content disupte. To me it boils down to a 3RR violation across many articles and templates, and 3RR violations draw a block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated 3RR vios with refusal to discuss should draw escalating blocks. If admins here won't take action, perhaps the Edit Warring noticeboard at WP:AN3 will. Jusdafax 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user socking

On 27 February, Worm That Turned declined the unblock request of User talk:Arri at Suburban Express, a user with an already long history of socking and disruptive editing.

Three days later, there are edits on it's owner's article from 99.67.249.6. Geolocated to CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS; the IP removed substantial information from the article. Can we please get a semi-permanent way to deal with this sock?

Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, a ban or something like that? Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Arri is blocked, has had an unblock declined after functionary review, and is probably socking would strongly imply he's de facto banned (see WP:BAN). As such, and given sufficient behavioral evidence (since CU won't confirm IPs), any admin should feel free to issue lengthy blocks to the IPs in question. If we want to have a formal community ban discussion I think we can do that, though it really wouldn't change anything (and I'm not clear on whether we can have a community ban if ArbCom or the functionaries have asserted jurisdiction over a case, not that I'm sure that's happened here). Regardless, endorse blocking 99.67.249.6 of any length greater or equal to one month (prefer three). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I wasn't sure if a ban was the most effective way or just get an admin to block the IP. Given that either action needed an admin anyway, it was best for me to comment here and let other admins look into this. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well at this point this is probably going to be declined as stale since the edits were a few days ago. It also looks like there are a lot of IPs that may be being used here, so a simple block might not do much. But according to the IP tools, 99 is a static IP, so blocking for a period may help. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Block that sock. Jusdafax 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles

• Carriearchdale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rachel Reilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Carriearchdale has shown a frankly unhealthy interest in Rachel Reilly and articles related to her. Reilly is a moderately successful reality TV contestant with a very few acting credits. Carriearchdale signed up for this account in 2007, but had no edits until two months ago. On her first day of editing, she was blocked for edit warring at Jodi Arias. On her fourth day of editing, two editors asked her to stop reviewing AFC submissions due to her lack of experience, and she responded with accusations of threatening and bullying (User talk:Carriearchdale/Archive 1#Articles for creation reviewing). On January 20 problems were raised with her activity in the GOCE's backlog-reduction drive/competition. At that point, her editing shifted to (mostly) using automated tools to tag-bomb newly created pages with little apparent regard for the accuracy of the tagging (eg, , , uncategorized tag on properly categorized pages; , , inline-citations-needed tag on well-footnoted, sometimes impeccably footnoted pages) In February, she moved on to detailed editing of individual articles (rather idiosyncratically), using edit summaries where the term "copyedit" was used to characterize virtually any sort of edit. And, on February 17, she turned her attention to the articles on Reilly and her husband, Brendon Villegas.

Carriearchdale began by challenging as inaccurate Reilly's declared date of birth, sourced to her own Facebook page (as well removing a citation to a newspaper article discussing Reilly), with a rather specious edit summary. She has proceeded to make a long string of destructive, borderline vandalous edits to the Reilly article. Here for example, she replaces two perfectly appropriate reference citations (dealing with Reilly's college career) with a "citation needed" tag (misdating the tag as well). Here she removes a cite to TV Guide regarding a TV casting, claiming that "show business magazines" are, across the board, not reliable sources for show business information. Here, the article is tagged for COI for no reason other than that the article's subject's husband contributed a picture in which the subject was recognizable (replacing an inadequate one where guesswork was needed to pick the subject out of a crowd). She has repeatedly added zero-value tabloidery to at least two articles about a sexting incident involving Reilly's then-boyfriend, now-husband. And, finally, in a display of truly appalling behaviour, Carriearchdale went to an online pay-for-access "background check site" and created a "Criminal Record" section, even though the "crimes" listed were little or nothing more than routine traffic offenses, many of which were dismissed or otherwise did not result in conviction or the equivalent. After I removed the content on February 16; she reinstated it 3 days later, only to have it summarily removed by a third editor.

I find this fascination with detailing the supposed failings of very minor "celebrities" one has no connection to genuinely creepy, aside from the many violations of editing standards involved.

I don't know how much of this behaviour can be attributed to gross failure of WP:COMPETENCE, and how much to disruptive intentions. But she was at it again earlier today, removing valid sourcing in favor of citation-needed tags in the guise of a "copyedit".

I therefore propose that User:Carriearchdale be topic banned from all articles and other pages related to Rachel Reilly and Brendon Villegas; that she be required to use accurate edit summaries, and specifically instructed not to use "copyedit" as a description of substantive edits; that she be prohibited from using automated tools like "Page Curation", which she as frequently misused, for a minimum of six months, until she was demonstrated competence in applying relevant guidelines; and that she be cautioned that further misbehaviour of a similar nature, regardless of the articles involved, is likely to result in substantial loss of editing privileges. I also hope somebody, when this is settled, will RevDel the most inappropriate material she added to the Reilly article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• response from Carriearchdale (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all please everyone review user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his block log:

14:57, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) unblocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(Per discussion on user talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: violation of the three-revert ruleand edit-warring under colour of WP:NFCC: Linda Ronstadt) 08:11, 27 January 2009 RandomXYZb (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruptive editing)

Regarding the Rachel Reilly article, and all the other ravings of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would first say that the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been following me around from article to article wiki-hounding me. You have the evidence right in his "ANI" report. I think that is a bit creepy to wikihound another editor, and try to make a big hullabaloo about miniscule incidents that may have occurred over a several month period. When that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz started trying to cause trouble, I did the correct thing and posted on the rachel reilly talk page for the article the following statement, which I might add this accusatory user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who has been wiki-hounding me totally ignored. An invitation to discuss??? No discussion was ever entered there by the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I guess he was too busy creepily filling out a laundry list of crap so he could get an ANI posted. So be it!

Here is the post I put on the rachel reilly article talk page. Please ask yourselves, why did the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz not try to come to a consensus there? and to not even make a comment?

I propose that the aforementioned user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from all BLP article issues regarding the Rachel Reilly articles as well as others as the admins may see fit. I would ask that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be instructed, and or advised to stop wiki-hounding and harassing me, and that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would be notified on the proper protocol to attempting to come to a consensus on any article. I always thought discussion between editors on a talk page comes before directly going to file an ANI. After all, the post sat there on the rachel reilly talk page since 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC). Apparently I am not the first, nor I am sure, will I be the last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

post that was placed on the RR talk page: at 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"==This article's factual accuracy is disputed==

• This article has been extensively edited by the subject, and other persons with a conflict of interest.
• This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Superfluous references are constantly being added to this article. For example, anyone can write on a facebook page that they are 97 years old. Now if the person is actually 17 years old, but the facebook pages reads that they are 97, then that would be a superfluous references with no true cite value.
• This article is written from a fan's point of view, or an extremely positive point of view rather than a neutral point of view.
• This article needs to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it simply neutral in tone.
• More than one person or editor has a very close connection with its subject.
• The neutrality of this article is disputed.

• • • This is quoted from a talk page on a different article, but it may be something to ponder upon.

"When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

• • • Any information being added to an article may be due, but the article needs to conform with wikipedia's high standard of quality while remaining neutral in tone.

Let's all just discuss.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)"

• Comment - Concur with Carrie, Wolf appears the be the one with "creepy interest" in Reilly. Otherwise why would anyone go to such as extent as the bizarre explanation given above. --50.148.165.229 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur Carrie seems to be the victim here. I cannot understand any of Wolf's complaint outside of having and editorial disagreement. I see no reason to believe Carrie was outside of the lines. The accusation of Wiki-hounding and the supplied cot combined with this strange afi does cause concern.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Also just to clarify my comment above regarding that I was sure I was not the first nor last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I include for anyone's perusal a true laundry list of "behaviors and their turmoil and consequences regarding user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz": Carriearchdale (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Content was condensed due to its length. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a WP:Topic ban is going to do it, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your thoughts? What would you recommend here? Cindy(talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I posted on Talk:Rachel Reilly (as 199.15.104.149 - my IP address as I forgot to log in, something I keep forgetting to do lately...full disclosure and all that) after seeing this on AN/I. I re-edited the article last night to remove the excessive tagging because, to put it bluntly, Carriearchdale is making a fine mess of things there. I don't know what her aim is but I suspect it's to muck up the article so much that it either gets deleted or to simply disparage the subject because of some personal dislike of her. I have no dog in this race as I don't even know who the subject is but a quick look at the history shows that Carriearchdale seemingly doesn't understand (or care) that we don't tag content with incorrectly dated fact tags that are followed by a source that clearly supports the preceding sentence and template the article with multiple issue tags, we don't tag obvious, non-contentious statements, we don't add "Scandal" sections about a subject's disagreement with her boyfriend supported by gossip sites and we don't scream "COI!!!" without giving some sort of proof for the claim. There are several issues at play here, the most obvious being WP:BLP violations, a lack of understanding about what a WP:RS is, civility issues and possibly WP:COMPETENCE. I think a block is in order if the edit warring, BLP violations, tag bombing and addition of dubious sources continue. If she can hold off on those, I still think she would benefit from a very patient mentor and a topic ban from Rachel Reilly and related articles. She needs someone to help her developed the capacity to work with others as her knee jerk reaction to my (admittedly curt) post was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, accuse me of acting as "judge, jury and executioner" and then she asked me if I was Jimbo (I wish but alas, no). She didn't address the content, the points I raised or even explain why she's tagging content that is already sourced. Even her response here is nonsensical. Pinkadelica 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm intensely concerned by the very bizarre attempts to boomerang this. There is no valid basis for any of the content under the "extended content" hatting, I have no idea who the IP is (and their argument is bordering on trolling, unless they're a sock), and Bob is a quite new editor. Carrie's comments about HW's blocklog are not relevant in this discussion, and are evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The combination of tag-bombing, invalid removal of citation needed tags, BLP violations and woefully inadequate edit summaries make me think that this user either needs a full topic ban from BLPs until they have satisfied a mentor that they will not engage in this kind of behaviour again, or just a blanket indefinite block under WP:CIR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see no weight whatsoever in the comments of the throwaway IP or the relatively new user "Bob the goodwin", and interesting to note that the subject of this ANI filing alsp leaps to goodwin's defense in his section below. I commented at the Reilly article last night, but so far no follow-up. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of throwing good faith out the window, I think WP:DUCK applies to the IP commenting in this thread as well as Bob the goodwin's appearance here. Carrie has a tendency to answer/post with bullet points just like Bob. Both also have a healthy disregard for WP:BLP and neither will back down despite being told that contentious material needs to be impeccably sourced and we don't include every bit of tabloid fodder in an encyclopedia. The combativeness and the possible socking are enough for me to throw my suggestion of mentoring and topic banning out. This isn't an editor that will help the project or add anything to it except extra work for editors like Hullabaloo who try to keep the crap in pop culture article to a minimum. I know reality "stars" and Woody Allen aren't as important as truly controversial subjects like gun control, global warming or politics but the pop culture area of Misplaced Pages gets bombarded with this kind of POV warrior all the time. It's the kind of stuff that burned me out which is why I scaled back on editing myself. Carrie/Bob/whomever will lay low until the heat dies down and start again. Pinkadelica 18:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (resigned using account name as I forgot to log in. Again!)

• Yes, you have thrown good faith out the window in a really big way. My name actually is Bob Goodwin. Send me an email and I will reply with my name, address and if you insist my W2. I Will not speak for Carrie, but I have the strong opinion that she is female, and you are welcome to confirm by any means necessary that we are not the same person. I work in the software industry, and publish articles periodically. She is a publisher, but I do not know in what areas. In the spirit of throwing bad faith, I notice that since I backed up Carrie, that Wolf has started to post on talk pages against me. So Cabal paranoia seems to be overtaking Misplaced Pages. Please look at what is being proposed rather than assuming bad faith. If you think inexperience is playing a role, try writing a sentence drawing equivalence, and watch people change their mind. I change my mind every minute.Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Bob" here accuses me of "start to post on talk pages" against him after he "backed up Carrie." My post to which he refers, on Talk:Ronan Farrow, was made at 00:38 this morning . "Bob"'s post backing up Carrie was made at 1:47 this morning (see above), about an hour later. It's also worth mentioning that I've participated quite a bit on the general discussions on the Allen accusations, going back to mid-January. "Bob", please apologize for your misstatements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wolf is 100% correct, and I profusely apologize for a false accusation and my inability to read time. Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• rebuttal I agree with your concern about the burn out on editing. I do not agree that comments on ANI pages should exclude new editors. I also do not agree that that I have significant disregard for BLP. I have done exactly two edits in Ronan Farrow page (the biography is about Ronan, BTW, not Woody), the first edit was supported by an administrator on the BLP page as appropriate, and the second was to precisely respond to an experienced editors request. I have gotten ZERO feedback on any BLP violations except ad-hominem attacks. I am primarily a medical editor who is trying to learn the skills of controversial editing in an area with less importance (and zero importance to me, but I intend to see it through to its logical end, which could be as simple as an experienced editor with a calm voice saying: "bob, do X", which I will instantly). My position is well researched and your accusation is unfounded. As for my returning the favor to Carrie of reading the record and commenting, as we had previously tried to work together in another article. We have some established good faith, with exists broadly within Misplaced Pages editors, so can hardly be considered bad. I have read the transcript, and gave my opinion. You have chosen to attack the messenger with no assumption of good faith. I assume your good faith in wanting a good encyclopedia, but perhaps you might want to listen and see if there is a good argument being made by Carrie or I, and dispute the content on the basis of balance rather than assumptions. I doubt that you will find two more earnest editors than Carrie or I on Misplaced Pages, and if you want to attract more earnest editors Misplaced Pages should find ways to engage each of us on content rather than false accusation, misrepresentation, POV, or what you think our intent is. Misplaced Pages will die if it cannot find new voices and chooses to descend into a vacuous testosterone pit.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no one said new editors cannot comment on AN/I. What some people did observe was that the timing of your defense of Carrie seemed odd especially since you aren't involved in the editing of Rachel Reilly. Assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact and no one is bound to it eternally. So you're not Carrie's sock or vice versa - that's all you had to say. Also, three editors have attempted to engage Carrie and she hasn't responded. Listening, engaging and good faith is a two way street. I don't care if your voice is new and your ideas are revolutionary, we all have to play by the old boring rules if we want to edit here or we lose that privilege. I presume the rest of what you wrote has to do with what the Woody Allen et al debacle and has no place in this section. Let's not conflate the issues please. Pinkadelica 04:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am concerned that User:Carriearchdale has now offered to help with BLP and language/linguistic RFCs and sent a WikiLove message to a user blocked for socking over 2 years ago. WP:CIR and all that. Woodroar (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well on the last one there, the user probably meant to put the message on the page of User:Sportfan5000, and mistakenly inserted an "s". Let's not attribute malice to something that can be more easily explained as an error, or however the saying goes. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's get back to the meat course here. The numerous walls-of-text and obfuscations added by Carriearchdale seem to have succeeded in taking peoples' eyes off the ball. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz laid out a number of assertions at the outset of this thread, supported by diffs. I find they do support his case that Carriearchdale has WP:COMPETENCE issues; misused automated tools to - very inaccurately - tag-bomb articles; failed to WP:AGF and engaged WP:IDHT mode when experienced editors raised concerns about her editing; has a very poor grasp of WP:RS with regard to BLP; has a very poor grasp of BLP policy (paying a 3rd party to access trivial criminal records in order to disparage a subject on a BLP! Fucking shocking.); and demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards the project. I'm in agreement with Woodroar also: this is an editor that is editing beyond the limits of their competence. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I have sat back a few days, and just listened to what was being said or posted here because I was hoping I might learn something new about how different people work together, or each give their opinion on some issue in hopes of coming to some semblance of an agreement or consensus. I am a general believer in the good faith in people, and hope that most people would set aside their prejudices, and preconceived notions about other persons, and let the weight of different things they were considering each have a due weight when they were figuring out which side of some issue they were going to vote on.

Unfortunately some, but certainly not all of the users/editors/admins who are here at wikipedia are acting with some sort of gang mentality and prejudice toward newly registered editors and or long time editors who may have more recently start to active edit here at wikipedia. I mean I was shocked to read one statement were one of the people insinuated that someone who had registered here only a few months ago, that that newer registrants' opinion on some issue such as these at the ani shouldn't have as much weight even in the voting of how many people are in support or against a certain issue. So in going by that sort of thinking, there should just be a mini paragraph at the top of this ani board letting some of the newer editors or users here that their opinion won't even be considered here until they have been registered and apparent actively editing for X number of months or they have X number of edits down on the wikipedia books.

To pretend that everything is "equal" here is such a big hypocritical mess, that no one would even believe it unless they the whole situation with their own eyes. The paranoia abounds around here to the point where one or two of the posters here were accusing me and Bob the Goodwin of being one person operating as sockpuppets??? OMFG!!! I wish Bob the Goodwin and I were one combined person because maybe then we could ask for some sort of lower combined tax rate from uncle sam! Actually I am quite honored that some of you were thinking Bob and I were alike in writing bullet points and whatever else was said and written here, because Bob the Goodwin is the most earnest writer and editor I have had the pleasure of working with on a few articles here. I read what Bob wrote up earlier in this list of postings and I do agree with him on at least one point that he spoke about.

Misplaced Pages itself has become a sad sad sad victim of the cesspool of mire and cultural rot caused by all the prejudicial actions taken as well as the gang mentality when all the troops are brought in to put their no or oppose down to somehow stuff the balance box and have the outcome be "what the popular kids want who have been here the longest." I mean really this all sounds like high school antics to me. If that the way it's going to be, at least be honest and upfront about. Post and paragraph and state which users will be pronounced to have been here long enough so that the other will let their vote count. It's called transparency people. But alas I fear dear wikipedia is too far gone already being sucked down into the infected mire of the cesspool of cultural rot it has become based on all the gang mentality, bullying, harassment, and prejudice among many other nasty, dirty, underhanded things that go on here. It really is a shame. Jimbo had a great idea here, but wikipedia is swirling away deeper and deeper into the cesspool of cultural rot. Misplaced Pages will soon die a slow and painful death...It is quite sad really, very sad indeed.....................

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Another irrelevant, diversionary, wall-of-text. Meanwhile, other editors are having to trail you with a mop. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that user that you say was mopping there was going around herself as part of the gang to articles I had edited long ago, and then she tag bombed the audy item article. I went back in after she tag bombed it, and fixed the issues she had tagged. So then she went right back to that article, and tag bombed it again. Obviously she never even read, or looked at the changes there, because there was a new lead written and several extra references had been added. But that is okay with me. She or anyone else can play whatever kind of games they want around here. It is all really quite amusing to me. I thought we had the goal of making an encyclopedia here, but I can see that many, but not all of you have your own issues, agendas, and persona vendettas to carry out, so go right ahead! You all seem to still be acting in the way I described in the paragraphs above. I really do not expect that anything will change here, but in the interim wikipedia is dying a slow horrifying death as it keeps slipping deeper and deeper into its' cesspool of cultural rot!!!

ciao!

Have a great day everyone!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A much bigger problem is the number of admins who abuse AGF to allow obvious trolls like this to continue for as long as they do. 199.47.72.58 (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to sit by and let the accusations stand against Carrie. She was obvious trailed by trolls, and the claims against her competence are outrageous, and entirely contrary to both the evidence and my experience. I was attacked by trolls for defending her, and when I protested, was ridiculed. Honest and competent editors need to get supportive voices, and I am willing to take the trash.Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Warning!

An editorial Blog from Lee Carroll

Co-Author of "The Indigo Children," "An Indigo Celebration," and "The Indigo Children Ten Years Later."

The interactive on-line encyclopedia called Misplaced Pages is not representing the Indigo Children subject accurately.

The whole idea of on on-line encyclopedia is actually a very good one, for the concept is that a collective informational base would always be better than even the best expert. That's what WIKIPEDIA is. It's an idea that has merit, in that there are many people who know a whole lot about things that others wouldn't know. The whole enclyclopedia is interactive, in that anyone can make changes to hopefully facilitate a greater knowledge-base for the planet. I celebrate the courage of those who have put this very popular website together.

Unfortunately the implementation of the editing process is filled with flaws. There is no way to verify the edits. In addition, if you are a knowledgeable person with good factual changes, others might have a bias that then erases the changes and creates an "editing war" of ideas. Some of these Misplaced Pages volunteers have nothing better to do than scan the pages of their bias interest, and constantly change things back to what they want them to say. They spend hours a day doing just that.

It would be great if Misplaced Pages had some kind of place where you could go to be validated as an expert, or an author, or to be checked out, but they don't. The logistics of this would take thousands of hours and the cost would be prohibitive. So we get what we get, and Misplaced Pages becomes a place that almost all educators know is flawed, and most teachers never recommend it for students, and will not accept it as a source in educational study or student reports.

source http://www.indigochild.com/wikipedia.html

ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That blog post is irrelevant to this ANI. And you've copied enough of it to be borderline as a copyvio. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy

Dwy (talk · contribs) has been behaving disruptively on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura, defying consensus as to how we should represent the various origin theories of the poet. After a two-month-long debate, we had reached a rough consensus, only to have him turn a full 180 and reject the very position he had earlier been arguing for, apparently just to be disruptive. User:Shii and User:Sturmgewehr88 have also taken note of this, and Sturmgewehr at least agrees with me that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE of a politically-motivated user pretending to compromise when in fact there is no hope of compromise. He has been misrepresenting sources in order to get his POV across in the article (: there is in fact no "consensus view" but rather several mutually-exclusive theories that Dwy has WP:SYNTHesized into a "consensus view" that in fact contradicts all of our sources) and completely changed his "view" of the subject after we agreed to include his POV in the article (: he had previously said numerous times that "it is a fact that Okura was descended from the imperial family" but when I tried to include this in the article he suddenly changed his mind). He also flagrantly violated WP:RFC by posting a very non-NPOV lie in his opening comment in an RFC, thus biasing any third-party opinions.

As for the action I would like to see taken, I want a TBAN for Dwy for "links between Baekje and ancient Japan". It is pretty obvious that Dwy, having no genuine interest in or knowledge of this subject, is politically motivated by his dislike of modern-day South Korea (a fact borne-out by the fact that more than half of his article edits before this dispute related to geopolitical disputes between Japan and South Korea).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy is WP:NOTHERE. He initially fought against the adding of "Okura is from Baekje" (Torajin Theory), using the argument that the Shinsen Shojiroku says that "Okura is descended from the royal family" (Imperial Descent Theory). Once we reached consensus and were allowed to add Torajin Theory to the article, we also added Imperial Descent Theory to show both beliefs. Immediately, Dwy turned around and took the exact opposite stance, and began arguing that "Okura is not of imperial descent". This is just disruption at this point. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

His latest edit also violates WP:POINT, inserting a request for a source into the article, when one is already given. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that he is making the wording more specific, but instead using wording that implies SYNTH and says nothing about the subject is also not helpful. He appears to now have switched completely around again to join my stance that Okura is not mentioned in the Shinsen Shojiroku. Next time we try to accommodate his view he'll probably do another 180 and start claiming Okura was an alien. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sturmgewehr88:Obviously, I seem to have failed to make my position clear during the previous discussion, but I have never argued against the inclusion of Toraijin theory. Rather,I have been arguing for the inclusion of information on Shinsen Shojiroku. In my opinion, Shinsen Shojiroku is much more relevant than Toraijin theory.

At the same time, however, I have been saying that we must be very careful about what we say about Shinsen Shojiroku and that we have to make clear distinction between what is a fact and what is a tradition/legend. My position in this regard has always been:

1. The article should say “Shinsen Shojiroku recorded that the Yamanoue clan has the same ancestor as the Awata clan.”
2. The article should say “Shinsen Shojiroku recorded that the Yamanoue clan was descended from Emperor’s Kosho’s son.”
3. If we have to choose only one statement from 1and 2 above, we should choose 1, because the Awata clan is much more relevant than Emperor Kosho in the debates among the scholars.
4. The article can say “Based on Shinsen Shojiroku, scholars said that Yamanoue no Okura was descended from the Awata clan” because, in my opinion, this is the majority view of the scholars.
5. By the same token, the article can say “Yamanoue no Okura was said (based on Shinsen Shojiroku) to have descended from the Awata clan.”
6. However, the article cannot say “Based on Shinsen Shojiroku, scholars said that the Yamanoue no Okura was descended from the Emperor Kosho” because no mainstream scholar has advocated this.
7. By the same token, the article cannot say “Yamanoue no Okura was said (based on Shinsen Shojiroku) to have descended from the Emperor Kosho.”--Dwy (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (correction of inadvertent omissions --Dwy (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

• Here is a list of quotes compiled by User:Hijiri88 regarding Dwy's stance on the Shinsen Shojiroku. Notice that later quotes contradict earlier quotes:

in my opinion, this is the majority view among scholars In the space of a month, Dwy has found a total of THREE SCHOLARS who might hold this view. Two of these have been silent sice c.1985. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Reece Leonard

User Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism , , , . User has been given two 3RR warnings: , , as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling. User has begun spreading an unhelpful piece on other user's talk pages - to make sure they "understand the situation fully" regarding another user's (User:STATicVapor) "biased" position: . He later amended this post to include me, and added it to two more talk pages: , , and has begun canvassing other (uninvolved) editors with this same material as well, , .

I also believe he's been violating several of the pillars of NOTHERE. He has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively. Of his several hundred edits, at least 90% of them relate to Lady Gaga articles or disputes on talk pages caused by his edits to Lady Gaga articles. He changed "favorable reviews"→"acclaim" on Bad Romance, and removed "mixed" from the intro of Alejandro. Despite his summary on the Alejandro edit, no-one changed it. It had been "mixed to positive" for at least two years prior. He has also removed/replaced positive information from the articles of some of Lady Gaga's contemporaries, such as Lana Del Ray: , , , ; Katy Perry: and Britney Spears: . He was given notices/warnings regarding some of these edits , .

It's clear from his talk page and his edits that he's here for Lady Gaga: a single-purpose account with an unneutral point of view. Some admin intervention would be appreciated, otherwise this will keep going on indefinitely. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE. He has resorted to harassing and attacking other editors when they disagree with him, and as you can see from the diffs Homeostasis07 provided, the user has been canvassing attacking myself and Homeo on other user's talk pages, which is incredibly inappropriate. They have a clear not WP:NPOV when it comes to Lady Gaga and her works, and refuse to contribute constructively and discuss civilly when their disruptive edits are challenged. STATic message me! 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have to be honest: when the article was first created, it ended up on my watchlist. Over the last bit, I've seen edits by Reece that made me shake my head - so much so that I took it off my watchlist, rather than see countless, repetitive ad nauseum bad edits. Might have been here for some reason, and might have started off with good intentions, but they left that cake out in the rain long ago ES&L 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that the only reason why this argument got so out of hand was STATic's ridiculously rude, inflamatory rhetoric, including calling me childish, incompetent, etc. He has a lengthy history of insulting various users (evidenced by his talk page) and that leads to this kind of uncivil discussion. He also admitted that he disliked the artist who's page we were discussing twice. Homeostasis has previously been blocked for behaving unprofessionally on Lady Gaga pages. I've stated numerous sources that back up my claims, although I recently ended this debate because I realized that it was ultimately pointless as these two have no intention of compromising at all. My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, in my time with StaticVapor, he's has been a very good editor with a strong grasp on Misplaced Pages and its policies. Without any clear difs, I'd be likely to doubt any claims of "uncivil discussion" or rudeness. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perusing Talk:Artpop, I have to disagree with Reece Leonard's assertion that this is all the fault of STATic. I believe that the main issue is Reece's dismissive attitude, which he demonstrated somewhat just above me, "My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye." I see that Reece communicates in this manner consistently, proceeding by essentially stating that he is correct, everyone else is wrong, and there's no need to debate the issue. I'm not saying that Reece refuses to get involved in discussions, he most certainly does, but he too frequently refers to those who disagree with him as vandals, and often refers to an editor's past conduct issues as a way to discredit their arguments (as above where he points out STATic's block history). Stating that WP:NOTHERE applies is hyperbole, I believe that Reece is sincerely trying to improve Misplaced Pages, but he has a lot of trouble collaborating, which is a major problem. -- Atama頭 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I can assure you i do not live a double life on here, I am the same person. Reece just seems to enjoy making up things and harassing other users when the conversation is not going their way. He was owed a WP:NPA block for the insane focus on commenting on fellow contributors as you can see above rather then the topic at hand. I have been stating over and over, i have no bias, I can edit any subject, keeping a perfect WP:NPOV, a serious problem Reece has, which can be based off the entire discussion and his other edits as explained by the OP. @Atama: Just saying, he was referring to Homeostasis' block history. NOTHERE might not apply, but WP:COMPETENCE clearly does. When there is clear WP:CONSENSUS he has to learn to drop it, not just keep harassing editors for days and pressing the issue. I feel like this user has attempted to drag my name through the mud on way too many pages through this, as can be seen through the 5+ user talk pages he was canvassing his malicious harassment , , , , through. STATic message me! 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it was my block history Reece was referring to, and not Static's. That was a block for 3RR 6 months ago. Since then, I've not come close to infringing 3RR (ie, lesson learned), so, again, this is just another example of Reece saying anything he can to discredit another editor's position. Attempting to use a 3RR block to suggest that I'm "biased" against a particular subject (see the last 4 diffs Static posted above) isn't cool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bringing this discussion back from the dead. I would like to see some sort of action against this user for the extremely inappropriate behavior as detailed above. The user seems to believe this was "declined" and they have done no wrong, which is clearly incorrect. Since the last comment they have added a false certification which ties in with the WP:NPOV issue bung up above, started genre warring, not abiding by BRD, which they are aware of, and have resorted back to the personal attacks and refusal to not focus every single post to comment on other users rather then the topic at hand. STATic message me! 09:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not declined - what User:Reece Leonard should have got from this discussion is that ANY future similar behaviour would lead to a block. Consensus above was that their behaviour was problematic. As they were involved in the discussion, they know that. You cannot get more of a warning that to have your wrist slapped by consensus. They ALSO learned from above that STATicVapor's actions were NOT overall problematic - again, a good thing to have learned DP 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This user has been harassing me since this discussion was tabled, attempting to goad me into some other argument so that he would have any excuse to bring up this discussion again. If my original actions were punishable by a slap on the wrist then STATic's are as well. He has repeatedly been rude and aggressive with me after I repeatedly told him that I wanted to avoid any kind of issue with him again. His actions in the original debate were absolutely problematic as he called me and another user children, and has accused me of being illiterate numerous times, amongst multiple other issues that I brought up above. I never stated that this board thought that I had done nothing wrong; that is a fabrication. I stated that my actions were not punishable by a block, which they obviously were not. I've not started edit warring; one revert on one user does not constitute an edit war. The user above has consistently used ridiculous hyperbole to blow all of my actions way out of proportion and has issued so many baseless warnings to me with the hopes that I either react violently or cease editing altogether that I can't keep track of them all. I've attempted to move on from this issue and distance myself from STATic to avoid any kind of other problems in the future and he has refused to do the same. I realize that I should've made more of a case for myself originally, but seeing as how I assumed that administrators would review ALL of the information necessary to come to a verdict instead of the stuff that one user gave them that supported their side, I didn't think that would be necessary. I've repeatedly tried to move on and even stated that I would cease all interaction with STATic, and he has responded by bringing this up again with no actual basis for doing so other than what he has attempted to blow out of proportion. Reece Leonard (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Thanks for stating the facts of the matter. The thing is, they have returned to the behavior as seen here. My behavior has been respectable, Reece yours has not and you need to address it rather than repeatedly deny it. I did not call you a child and definitely did not call anyone else that. I only questioned the literacy due to you refusal (see WP:COMPETENCE) to read or understand any of the guidelines or policies I have linked to you including most of all WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. You still have yet to do that. Your "issues that you brought up" are non-existent. Not publishable by a block? The users above sure think so, along with a few in the discussion. The warnings are not harassment, every warning I have gave you was 100% deserved, as would be a block. I am not trying to get a reaction out of you. All the information was reviewed and it is clear as day you are the only one in the wrong. Nothing is being blown out of proportion, how do, you think, this, is, okay??? STATic message me! 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Enough

Based on Reece's comments above, I have a proposal:

1. User:Reece Leonard is indefinitely topic-banned from Artpop, Lady Gaga and related articles.
2. User:Reece Leonard is subject to a mutual interaction ban with User:STATicVapor

These restrictions will be logged, and violations will be subject to escalating blocks. These restrictions can be appealed on AN/ANI no sooner than 6 months after their implementation ES&L 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as exhausted voice of sanity ES&L 18:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Incredible idea User:EatsShootsAndLeaves. I was just about to ask for an interaction ban from this user. STATic message me! 18:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga articles? I certainly support an interaction ban, but I do not deserve to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages indefinitely. That's an extreme measure and unfounded, as @Atama: agrees that I'm not operating with a WP:NOTHERE. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support but with a reminder to all that indefinite is not infinite. Would like to establish a scheduled topic ban review in a few months. - Jorgath (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Edit to add): And by a few months I mean sooner than that 6-month thing in the initial proposal. 3 or 4. - Jorgath (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would I be banned from editing these types of pages at all? The user above has admitted twice that he dislikes the artist at hand and... I would be blocked from editing her pages? Why? What grounds are there for that? The grounds based on STATic's repeated accusations? Reece Leonard (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do not enjoy listening to her music, not my cup of tea at all. When did I ever try to hide that? You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love. I only watch listed the page to combat vandalism on a popular page and my contributions have been nothing but constructive. The difference between us is that I can edit without a bias. You would be blocked from editing them since you refuse to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. If you can prove that you are a proper editor on other subjects, then you can have a review in a few months, good luck. STATic message me! 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You claiming that your edits have been constructive doesn't make them so. I ALWAYS abide by the guidelines you just cited. You claiming otherwise because I don't agree with you on ONE edit doesn't make it so. Absolutely not. Stop attempting to make me out to be some rabid fan off the leash attempting to misrepresent wikipedia articles. I gave NUMEROUS sources to back up what I was saying and you responded with the same argument over and over again. You repeating that you can operate without a bias isn't an argument and it certainly doesn't prove that I can't operate without bias. You repeating that I'm biased over and over again doesn't make it true. You have no evidence to support that claim, other than your own view of a person who disagreed with you on an edit and who you're now attempting to get blocked to shut them up. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, I do not support the statement, "You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love." People should definitely be free to edit subjects that they have interest in, I believe that's how most article creation and improvement comes about. Anyone who does so for a subject they feel strongly about (positively or negatively) must adhere to our neutral point of view policy, or risk sanctions (because their editing becomes disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia), but if we maintained that people could not focus on subjects they liked we'd have an even bigger problem with participation than we already do. -- Atama頭 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: That is why I said not all your editing, obviously 90% of the article building I do goes into subjects I enjoy, but enjoy and interest are two different things. I never implied that editors should not edit subject they like, or edit subjects they do not more often, it is just about adhering to the neutral point of view policy, which Reece has failed to do continuiously after many warnings and comments about it. STATic message me! 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You aren't showing any evidence of my supposed refusal to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. I had sources that backed up my claims; that's not just some biased opinion, and you repeating it doesn't prove anything. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - With the provision that Jorgath suggested. As I said before, I don't think Reece is deliberately disruptive, but he is definitely having problems with collaboration. I don't know if that is just how he is as an editor in general, or if it is due to the passion he feels for the subject making it hard to be objective. It looks like the mutual interaction ban is accepted... mutually... So there seems to be no problem with that portion of the ban suggestion, although it would be difficult to adhere to if they continue to edit the same pages. It looks like Reece has an interest in 30 Rock and other subjects, maybe taking a break for a few months to work on other articles would be a positive change. -- Atama頭 19:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: Just to be clear, what part of this are you supporting? It reads like you support the interaction ban and not the ban on my editing certain pages. And why would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages and not STATic? If the issue is us interacting, why would you only ban me and not the person who's admitted to disliking the artist? I've never operated on anything other than neutral point of view and have always listed numerous sources that back up my changes and STATic has no evidence to support his repeated claims otherwise when I've given evidence of his own bias against Lady Gaga. I will point out, once again, that he had no reason to bring this discussion up again. I did nothing to incite this kind of hyperbolic response and his listing of various guidelines and accusations of myself not following them have no factual basis if you will look into what he's saying. Again: there are no grounds for BANNING me from Lady Gaga pages. That's an extreme measure that punishes me for arguing with STATic when he originally initiated the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. If this is the attitude that wikipedia administrators take (older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them), it's no wonder that you have a serious problem with editor participation on this site. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously Reece, you have been the single most disruptive editor on Artpop since its creation. Hands down. Trust me ... I've had it on my radar since then. The problem seems to be that you cannot recognize how disruptive you're being - THAT is the reason you need to be topic-banned from it. This isn't rocket science, but you're not even using the right textbook when it comes to editing this project as a whole. "Indefinite" means "until the community is convinced that your behaviour will not recur", it's not "indefinite" - I even proposed a review date, which some folks are being kind enough to lower to 4 months. By then, you might have learned how to get along with people DP 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure very single person involved in the Artpop discussion would support your topic ban from the page, rather then mine. That goes without saying though considering the nuisance you created there. You do not edit with a neutral point of view, saying you do does not change the facts, that is the reason for the topic ban. Myself and User:Homeostasis07 listed more than enough diffs and points, and I am tired of repeating them if you refuse to acknowledge your horrid behavior. "Bringing the discussion up again", it never closed and I am so happy I brung it back to the main page because we are finally nearing closure and sanctions for your behavior. About the whole last part, completely incorrect, stop trying to play victim now after all the malicious harassment that you have done. Any result here is 100% deserved. STATic message me! 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

YOU saying that I'm operating with bias doesn't make it so. You cited multiple instances where YOU gave me warnings because you didn't agree with my edits. And of course you're happy: that's what you want. You want to ban me because I disagree with you and create a monopoly so that you can continue on editing pages the way you see fit without opposition. I gave numerous sources that stated exactly the point I was arguing for, which proves that I wasn't basing my argument on my own biased opinion. You repeating that I'm biased and ignoring the fact that multiple publications stated exactly what I was saying makes zero sense. And finally: "brung" is not a word. It's just not a word. This entire process, you've repeatedly insulted me, told me that I was illiterate, called me a child, and questioned my intelligence while continually using non-words and phrasing sentences in nonsensical ways. When I point these glaring instances of hypocrisy out to you, you claim that they are "personal attacks" and proceed to rant and rave about how "malicious" I am and how I'm "slandering" you, and then you have the gaul to accuse me of playing the victim. There is absolutely no basis for banning me from editing Lady Gaga pages as the argument I stated was backed up by numerous sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf) which completely negates your arguments of bias. If this is an opinion shared by multiple journalists, it's obviously not some fabrication of my supposedly "biased" mind. I did nothing to warrant you re-opening this case and even told you that I wanted to avoid these kinds of issues in the future multiple times, and you responded with another attempt to get me blocked for disagreeing with you. You DID originally initiate the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. And now you're continuing to further your goals of banning all opposition by continuing to claim that I'm biased without real evidence to back your claims up, when you previously admitted you didn't like the artist at hand twice. Look: I recognize that my argument wasn't a majority opinion. I took it past the point where it made sense and continued to argue with people when there was no realistic expectation for anyone else to change their mind. This is something that I will absolutely keep in mind when editing pages in the future. That being said: banning me because STATic has accused me of being biased when this is clearly not the case is a ridiculously hyperbolic response and again: If wikipedia administrators seriously think older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them, it's no wonder that this site has a serious problem with editor participation. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

...and with that, it looks like case closed. Thanks for proving me, Static, and every single past editor of the Artpop page correct. DP 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What?! What are you talking about?! Did you even read my paragraph?! Reece Leonard (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reece, I'm supporting both bans (the interaction ban and topic ban). I'm enthusiastically endorsing the interaction ban, and less enthusiastically supporting the topic ban. My lack of enthusiasm isn't because I think that you're not exhibiting a problem, it's because I'm not sure that the problem is going to be solved by restricting you from particular topics. It's more an issue with your communication style.

I will state that it is at the very least counter-productive for STATicVapor to insult Lady Gaga fans on the talk page of one of her album articles. Whatever a person's feelings, it's disruptive (almost trollish) to make statements that will rile up a group of people that are likely to be participating at that page. Combine that with the earlier statement about people not editing topics that they love, and it indicates to me that this topic ban might also be extended to STATicVapor as well. If they have and acknowledge a bias against Lady Gaga topics, why should they be editing those topics? -- Atama頭 21:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If I'm going to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages for four months purely because of the way I communicate (which I don't understand, seeing as how you're not attempting to ban other members of the Artpop talk page who use aggressive rhetoric), STATic should absolutely be banned for insulting Lady Gaga and her fans, exhibiting a clear bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

.... @Atama: What? I never insulted her fans, the only one ever offended by my comments has been Reece, of course in his backwards world where they refuse to acknowledge any wrong doing of there's. You obviously did not read my post above (starts with That is why I said not all your editing), where I was replying to you. I have never ever ever said I had a bias, and I have had to repeat that over and over already to this single editor. My edits and discussion show zero indication of someone that does not have a NPOV, that just sounds ridiculous to me. STATic message me! 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Yes, you did. 2) I acknowledged the fact that I took the argument too far above. Read my arguments before commenting on them, please. 3) I wasn't offended by your insulting her and her fans; I pointed out that you making fun of her constitutes bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: You either have a poor memory, or you don't consider these to be insults, which itself is concerning (and I'll note that Reece has linked this diff previously, which you ignored). Whatever Reece's behavior problems, you've certainly exacerbated them. -- Atama頭 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about earlier. Yes, I went too far with the arguing. I'm honestly extremely apologetic for the way that I approached the situation because it ended up wasting months of my time (and others' time) on users who were never going to change their opinion no matter how many sources I gave them. At the same time, me behaving inappropriately doesn't explain why I would be banned from certain articles. That doesn't really have anything to do with Lady Gaga; it has to do with how I approached this particular situation and how I will revise my behavior in the future. STATic has exhibited a clear negative view of Lady Gaga. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes one diff, the only point he has had. Still no where close to the malicious slander that Reece has brought into this project, need I repeat just this example of links , , , , . I have no negative view at all, I never said I hated her music or had a bias or negative feelings of her as a person. Its pretty clear by my user page and edits I prefer a different type (hip-hop/rock), rather than pop, but I am a lover of music in general. I can neutrally edit any article and I did not cause extreme disruption as Reece did. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think the user's comments above speak for themselves. Also, while "brought" was the word that should have been used in the context "brung" was, Mr. Webster would like a word about the contention that "brung" is not a word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I forgot to address that as I got used to ignoring the irrelevant little attacks they want to throw in their responses. It is most certainly a word, but that goes without saying really. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, pointing out your consistent grammatical errors to combat your own claims of my illiteracy would, in no way, constitute an "attack". You're using insanely hyperbolic rhetoric, as an administrator stated earlier. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've seen this going on for a while and this proposal works fine for me. If this discussion isn't enough to show why the proposal is receiving the support it's getting, I'll just say my reasoning for supporting this is the same as others above me. Gloss • talk 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger:, @Gloss:, What about @Atama:'s statements of banning STATic as well? And can you two please point out exactly what you're having an issue with in my arguments? I'm inquiring with the goal of avoiding this kind of situation again in the future. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Easiest solution for now, and can also be escalated further if the disruption moves elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Best thing for now!, And as per Luke if it gets any worse It'll be extended. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Even though I'm an involved editor (ie, I created the original ANI complaint), I think we can agree that enough is enough of this. The user started off editing some articles about 30 Rock, but then moved squarely on to Lady Gaga articles, and shows no sign of moving on from the topic (read any of his replies above or his contribs page). He shows no sign of ending his disruptive editing. Even though it's been disputed by other editors, I still believe that he's NOTHERE. He's here to "correct any bias" that he comes across on Lady Gaga pages. He's clearly not NPOV. A topic ban (for whatever duration) is warranted. If the user then returns to his old habits after the ban expires, more serious measures might be required. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support the interaction ban and Artpop ban, but I'm not sure about banning from Gaga articles. Since I haven't looked very far into Reece's editing history of Gaga articles, could someone provide examples of his edits to those other pages that would qualify for topic ban? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• It says nowhere on my page that I'm on here to correct any bias on Lady Gaga articles. Linking to my contributions page in no way proves that statement. I'm am operating with NPOV as multiple administrators on this page have stated, and while I don't understand why these administrators would institute a topic ban on myself if the way I communicate it the issue here, if they are going to issue one to myself they would absolutely need to block STATic as well as he has proven he is not operating with a NPOV here: x Reece Leonard (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support the ban on complete non-interraction with these two users, Static and Reece. I do not support ban from other Gaga articles since Reece has not disrupted them I can see. For Artpop edits I think an edit review needs to be done for both their contributions as well, so that no further issues like this crop up. In nutshell, Static and Reece do not edit the article, any contribution you want to make, take it to the talk page first, others have it listed on their watchlist. And zero tolerance on Edit warring from both of them. —Indian:BIO · 06:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment In regards to sanctioning User:STATicVapor I recommend a simple trout and perhaps a warning, since they have recognized that they did cross the civility line and have apologized for doing so. - Jorgath (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jorgath: That was actually me that apologized. His response is just underneath mine. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that - without any intention of offence whatsoever - @Atama: could do with reading the entirety of the Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception page, to avoid confusing the situation. Reece's contention that StaticVapor is somehow biased against Lady Gaga seems to stem from this edit. But if you read it for yourself, StaticVapor in no way suggests that he is biased against Lady Gaga. He in fact says the opposite: that he's there to provide a neutral POV. Reece Leonard immediately misinterpreted/manipulated that edit to make it sound as though StaticVapor was biased, something Reece is still mentioning to this day. But those two diffs I just provided should speak volumes. A certain user has been attempting to misconstrue this entire situation to his advantage for several weeks now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama DID read that section of the talk page and even cited it himself above in support of his conclusion that it warranted banning STATic as well. I didn't misinterpret anything, and Atama attests to that above. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reece, just because STATicVapor said Gaga isn't his "cup of tea" doesn't mean he has a bias when editing articles relating to her or anyone else. In fact, many people make edits to articles of people/things they aren't particularly fond of and never are biased in such edits. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I really doubt he/she read it all, or even close to it if they supported your side in the slightest. As you can see every person that has followed the discussion from the start is clearly on my side, as they know the insane amount of disruption you have caused. Reece also give up the hope I am going to be banned too, it is clearly not going to happen. Thanks XXSNUGGUMSXX, I do not get how Reece refuses to understand this after I have said it no less than a dozen times now. STATic message me! 03:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama DID read it and cited to you the specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans. How can you claim that they haven't read it when they commented on your specific statements in my diff? And you keep referencing the fact that you've denied that you're biased against Lady Gaga, but that doesn't mean anything. I've denied having a bias when it comes to her and yet you keep accusing me of having one anyway. I cited a specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (here, for the third time: x) and Atama agreed that that would constitute grounds for banning you from her pages. Atama also stated that you certainly exacerbated the discussion with this kind of "trollish" rhetoric. You can't just claim that anyone who agrees with me hasn't read the discussion. That's a fallacy-based argument. Furthermore, not all the users on this page have advised for me being banned from Gaga pages. Multiple users (IndianBio, XXSNUGUMSXX, etc.) have argued for the interaction ban and not the ban from editing Gaga pages. As user Atama stated above, you're ignoring certain pieces of the conversation and presenting a one-sided, inaccurate summation of this page. XXSNUGGUMSXX, the point I'm trying to make here is that I've cited an instance in which a user made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (with rhetoric user Atama has described as "trollish" ). If you're attempting to have someone banned on the grounds that they're biased and you don't have any proof to back that claim up (other than vague links to my contribution box) and then go on to make fun of the artist in question, that argument obviously just doesn't hold up. Repeating over and over again that my bias is obvious or clear, etc. doesn't prove anything. When you have an administrator blatantly stating that they believe that STATic is biased (As Atama does above), that certainly does support my case. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

STATic didn't make fun of Gaga herself as far as I know, though calling her fans "childish" was rather unneeded. However, I don't think he was describing all of her fans, just lots that he's interacted with. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there other Misplaced Pages editors who are Gaga fans that he certainly wouldn't describe as such. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparing that one comment to the vile, malicious personal attacks and harassment that Reece has made is like comparing apples to watermelons. Yes I referred to the actions of one of her fans (Reece) childish. This thread is just another example of his refusal to act like a adult in a professional environment and I am just tired of responding saying the same thing over and over. Yes a single admin said they thought that, before they had even read my response to them where I refuted that point. Do not forget they still supported the topic ban for you. Multiple editors/admins have stated here that I do not have a bias, while to quote a very knowledgeable one: "Its clear Reece can't handle himself objectively in these areas." Couldn't have said it better myself... Since there has been ten supporters of both points brought up by User: EatsShootsAndLeaves can we move to close and end this already? STATic message me! 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, he stated "what do you expect from Lady Gaga fans, lol, back to some Ghostfacekillah", insinuating that he has a negative viewpoint not only of Lady Gaga but pop music in general, and then called myself and IndianBio children, as I have sourced above. STATic, disputing with a user who is attempting to have me banned is, in no way, childish. Please stop referring to my actions as "vile" and "malicious" and "attacks". That's ridiculously hyperbolic. The instances you are referring to and have linked to were instances in which I attempted to enlist help from other users and conveyed to them my opinion that you had a biased view of Lady Gaga, which user Atama has contested to above. That's it. That's what you're attempting to spin as a "vile" and "malicious attack", when you have personally insulted my intelligence and my maturity, in addition to calling me a child, illiterate, and have subsequently attempted to have me banned after posting numerous, unearned warnings on my talk page every time I would make an edit that you disagreed with. You're deliberately misleading these administrators. I am not a fan of Lady Gaga; you are making an accusation with no evidence other than your own opinion. I don't know where you got that ten users agreed to both of these provisions. Seven agreed with both while several have stated that I should not be banned from Gaga pages, and two voiced the opinion that you should be banned from her pages as well. You and Homeostasis are involved parties and can't support these provisions. None of these users have explicitly stated that you don't have a bias. That's a fabrication. One of them has stated that you do, point blank, after you alerted them to the response that you allege "refutes their point", so that is, again, a fabrication. Can you all see now why I behaved the way I did on the discussion page? It's impossible to have a civil conversation with someone who refuses to intellectually debate an issue, ignores valid points and makes up points in his responses. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Reece, but you completely lost me with that edit. You're "not a fan of Lady Gaga" all of a sudden? After all this? It's clear you're trying to WEASEL your way out of this. Also, your comment about " stated "what do you expect from Lady Gaga fans, lol, back to some Ghostfacekillah", insinuating that he has a negative viewpoint not only of Lady Gaga but pop music in general" is very reaching. Seriously admins, don't let this just fade into archive territory for a second time. This needs to be sorted out one or the other now. I've closed the Critical Reception discussion that instigated this ANI, but Reece tried to start a similar situation up in ] (which is why this topic was activated here for a second time). This user seriously needs a talking down. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly denied being a fan of Lady Gaga, so this is not "all of a sudden". I'm not trying to weasel out of anything and that accusation is unfounded; linking to my contribution page isn't proving anything. That "situation" you just linked to ended three days ago after all of the users at hand, including myself, came to a consensus of "EDM" for the album genre, which obviously does not constitute re-opening this already baseless request for banning. You and STATic are compiling small incidents and using ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric to mislead these administrators. This was re-opened because you and STATic wanted me banned, plain and simple. That was both of your go-to responses when I disagreed with you; when I brought up my concerns on the ARTPOP critical consensus, STATic immediately accused me of being biased and threatened to have me blocked before the debate even started, and when I called you out on removing sourced facts from the critical reception page (something you did multiple times) because you personally found them to be "too positive", you accused me of bias and called for a ban on myself because I disagreed with you. You've also added unnecessary, negative information to the page, cited tabloids to add ridiculous, slanderous claims against the artist to her page, reworded reviews to make them sound more negative than they really were, and attempted to misrepresent her album sales to be listed as lower than what they actually were, which would all also suggest that you have a biased view of this artist, something you admit you've been accused of numerous times in the past. You've also previously been blocked for such unprofessional behavior on Lady Gaga pages. And no, it is not reaching to assume that someone who laughed at anyone who would be a fan of an artist, would personally have a negative view of that artist. Again; this debate got out of hand because STATic has a tendency to insult (he called me and another user children here and then called another user a child here) and threaten users that disagree with him by redirecting them to WP guideline pages and accusing them of bias, as evidenced by his repeated accusations of my supposed "bias" above without any actual proof. Could I have ended the debate sooner? Yes. Does my drawing a debate out constitute grounds for banning? No. Does it, in any way, insinuate that I have a bias and should be blocked from editing certain pages? No. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Its clear Reece can't handle himself objectively in these areas. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am in support of the Lady Gaga topic ban (he clearly has a bias opinion against her that cannot be stopped), but I am opposed to an interaction ban (I personally do not like the idea of such a ban). — Status (talk · contribs) 02:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support both proposals. → Call me Hahc21 05:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lockean One

User:Lockean One is a single purpose account who has been engaged in protracted, wearying debate at Talk:Libertarianism since December. Today, he edit-warred to remove all reference to capitalism from Libertarianism, a change which involved the removal of, by my count, 34 sources from the article. In my experience, User:Lockean One does not cite sources, but rather explains how the article should be based on his own ideas of logic and history, some of which are idiosyncratic. He claims that all of the sources (maybe 20?) which are cited for the left-libertarianism sections of the article are illegitimate or biased. My understanding is that he is not here to help build an encyclopedia, but to endlessly debate his own personal views on libertarianism. — goethean 22:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to add, except that there's a previous ANI case of this editor warring on the same article, which resulted in a 24-hour block. Finx (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem goes beyond Lockean One, but he is definitely a top contributor. The Libertarianism article has been mired in ideological debate for some time—reasonably understandable considering the nature of the topic—to the point that consensus is essentially impossible. As goethean stated, Lockean One has a habit of misrepresenting capitalism and socialism and concluding that these views, authoritative in his mind, demand the removal of well-sourced material. He rarely brings forth reliable sources to support his views, and instead relies on claims that a socialist libertarianism is only evidenced by biased sources. I must admit I don't find this rationale persuasive, as he is more than happy to retain classical liberal sources talking about classical liberalism, but refuses to admit anarchist sources talking about anarchism. (These two terms—classical liberalism and anarchism—are alternates for the most popular currents called libertarianism and are often ideologically opposed, which is why so much vitriol exists on that page.) The impetus for this ANI was a mass removal of article content with a clear intention of feeding a feud with another user (User:Finx), who retaliated to Lockean One's aforementioned comments favoring the elimination of libertarian socialism from the article by demanding the removal of capitalist libertarianism (i.e. classical liberalism). I reverted Lockean One's mass deletion as it was blatantly fueled by petty vindictiveness, and received this note in the edit summary when I was reverted: "I'm not joking, mentioning capitalism is necessary and Finx should undo it if the suggestion was not good faith." Honestly, I'm so disgusted by editor conduct on that page, from both sides of the debate, that I am leaving Misplaced Pages as soon as I finish a translation of the French article on Le Libertaire. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The talk page may not be the most appropriate venue for satire, but I'd hardly call a tongue-in-cheek proposal a feud or retaliation. I'd call it a joke, with a point in there somewhere. Whether on not the brand of libertarianism some editors want to evangelize can stake a claim to classical liberalism, this crusade to expunge disagreeable political views from the article has been going on for years, and I don't know why anyone entertains it when it offers nothing new to the discussion. I want to see an encyclopedia article and some other users apparently want to write a political brochure for the USLP. That makes things considerably more difficult than they need to be. Anyway, I hope you reconsider leaving. Finx (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One argues that only free market libertarians are real libertarians and therefore other libertarians should be removed despite the fact free market libertarians reference non-free market libertarians. Obviously a POV editor who has wasted our time for months. Recommend a ban on editing libertarian articles. TFD (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been a bit of a pseudo pseudo moderator there for about 3-4 years. The main decision that started quenching the flames 3-4 years ago was a decision to cover all (significant in sources) strands of libertarianism. The term has widely varying meanings, and there are lots of complicated debates, and people who want more coverage of their preferred type and less of others, but I don't think that there is any ongoing underlying conflict. The "flames" were more a tower of babel situation than an underlying conflict. People immersed in vastly different definitions of libertarianism each sincerely thinking that the definition that they know was the correct definition. The more recent activity started when Lockean One made what I thought was a pretty convincing case that libertarian socialism is socialism, not libertarianism. I ran the idea of dropping that sub-section explicitly up the flagpole (even including it in two edit summaries, and the article has about 950 watchers) and there were zero objections over 2-3 weeks. I then did the edit and was reverted, and then a substantive discussion ensued. While various general discussions of the topic occurred (which would be OR if put in article space but not out of line for a talk page) in the end Lockean One's argument was not an unsourced assertion, but that persons arguing to keep it were making an unsourced assertion (that libertarian socialism is a form of libertarianism.) IMHO sufficient arguments for keeping it were made where I now believe it should be kept, so now I do not agree with Lockean One on how it should end up, but do not consider their arguments to be mis-behavior. A new (now admitted to be a wp:pointy in response volley) suggestion was made by Finx and Lockean One went with it (or a part of it) and made one edit which I think had some merit / a good point (that pro-capitalism is permitted by but not an element of significant libertarian philosophies) that was a bigger and bolder edit than I would have done, and they went to 2RR trying to keep it in, (and MisterDub went further to (but not past) 3RR to undo it). I do not see what they have been doing overall as "reporting level" out of line Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick comment, North8000... you say that Lockean One made a "convincing case that libertarian socialism is socialism, not libertarianism," but I think this betrays a deep misunderstanding you two have of libertarian socialism; it is socialism, but it is also libertarianism—in the original sense of the term, no less. Anarchism is the libertarian side of socialism, as opposed to the authoritarian socialism of Marxism and its variants (Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc.). American individualists called attention to this difference, stating that "the fact that State Socialism during the last decade or two has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea." (Benjamin Tucker, 1897. Instead of a Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One.). "After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." (Sacco, Nicola and Vanzetti, Bartolomeo, 1928. The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti.). In other words, this libertarianism, up until the modern American movement appropriated the term, was necessarily socialist in nature. Murray Rothbard acknowledges this fact in The Betrayal of the American Right: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ... 'Libertarians,' in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...". -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, thank you very much for that! I guess two things added complexity. One was that my comment was referring to the moment 2-3 weeks ago when the conversation was much more limited. The second is that I guess (at least in the US) "Socialism" has picked up a common meaning which is different than it's technical meaning, basically that of (or limited to) country-level implementations of socialism in modern times. That might even be the cause of the disagreement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

North8000, I think that is exactly the cause of this disagreement, and were I able to locate Lockean One's first posts—before he was a registered user—I would quote him here to illustrate this. As I stated in my initial comment above, he "has a habit of misrepresenting capitalism and socialism" by equating them with voluntary exchange and domineering economic control, respectively. As for the "explicit" call for comments regarding the deletion of this material, no new section was ever made to specifically discuss this. It was appended to a previous discussion that had severely waned, and no one but you and Lockean One were paying attention to it anymore. Hence, it actually was a surprise when the material was removed. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This quote from Lockean One demonstrates well his bias and intentions with the article:

The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. ... It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition.

— Lockean One, as IP 166.147.72.36 ]

Sorry, it took me so long to find this; the conversation was hatted for violating WP:FORUM, which prolonged my search. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I ended up disagreeing with Lockean One (and thus with my own original edit) over inclusion/exclusion of the material, (and think that that item is settled) but do not consider it to be misbehavior to argue otherwise, particularly since that argument is valid under one common meaning of the term socialism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You think it's okay to edit war over the removal of 30+ sources from the article, because one party believes that they are biased? Because that's what User:Lockean One did. — goethean 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the removal of the "libertarian socialism" subsection, or of the capitalism related edit related to the section that Finx started? North8000 (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a "common meaning of the term"; it's a wrong interpretation, used by people ignorant of what it means. We shouldn't be promoting ignorance on Misplaced Pages. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Common meanings/uses are and are what create definitions  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If an administrator would like my input on something specific above, please let me know. Otherwise, it would seem that the profound confusion of goethean and MisterDub here (and on the Libertarianism talk page) is fairly obvious (assuming honest confusion instead of purposeful deception), and the false statements above need not all be refuted one by one. Sincerely, Lockean One (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld / The Banner dispute

There is a dispute going on between Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and The Banner (talk · contribs), both long-term editors. See Blofeld's talk page as of now. I don't know what started it. Lately they have been warring over the semantic distinction between parish and village in County Clare, Ireland. This is childish. Can someone step in and try to resolve it. Maybe some sort of ban or at least rap on the knuckles. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

After removing some inappropriate grave dancing from Banner on Blofeld's talk page, he left this charming bad faith response for me, with no reason, no evidence and no truth to the insults. - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading over the gist of the dispute, it seems like it was completely avoidable. Dr. Blofield was cleaning up a large area of articles on Irish parishes and Banner took issue with several, when they were mostly likely a work-in-progress. It's unfortunate to lose someone who has been such a productive editor and I hope he returns to editing. It won't happen with this "win/lose" mentality. Liz 23:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I had told him before that the list of civil parishes in County Clare was a total mess that had to be cleaned up first. I did that here: User_talk:The_Banner#County_Clare in a rather friendly discussion. The discussion at Talk:List of civil parishes of County Clare, including some remarks of mr. SchroCat, was already more desperate, topped up with this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of civil parishes of County Clare. It did not help at all. And from here it spiralled down is a fast pace. The Banner talk 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Civil parishes? More like be civil, or perish! I'm here all week... Lugnuts 08:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Banner, of course: it's all to do with everything that everyone else is doing, and nothing to do with your actions or reactions at all. Perhaps you could read through the various topics again and put yourself in someone else's shoes, asking if your comments needed to be as pointy as they were, and whether you could/should have reacted differently. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, could you please stop throwing fuel at the fire? You are absolutely not helpful in resolving this case. The Banner talk 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Banner, I am not "throwing fuel" onto anything. I have pointed out that your behaviour has been sub-par, which is why someone has brought the matter to ANI. Your approach to most of the things Blofeld has been doing has not been constructive and you need to accept a large part of the blame for that, not just try pointing the finger at others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While we are here, it should be known that The Banner grave danced all over Dr. B's talk page when the latter took some time out to cool off. If anything, THAT would be "throwing fuel at the fire". Cassianto 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation of trolling was also very useful. And yes, it is hear warming to see how many of Blofeld friend are coming out to protect poor Blofeld, but nobody is talking about the behaviour of Blofeld and his accusation of bullying by me. You guys could spend you time more useful than hanging around here. In a few days Blofeld has dried is tears and is back. Just like the last time. The Banner talk 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And your accusation of me being guilty of owning and primma donna behaviour was just laughable. Your uncivil approach to people just because they disagree with you is the reason a third party has brought this to ANI. It's reflected in the fact that your pointy (and pointless) attempts to delete an article like Kilmoon was kicked out with absolutely no-one thinking you had a leg to stand on. Your approach is belligerant, you treat discussions like a battleground and your stalking of Blofeld's activities needs to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read, my friend, read. It is a remark directed at Blofeld. And I am not stalking Blofeld. He is not worth the effort at all.Not are you worth the effort of responding to your aggressive and attacking behaviour. The Banner talk 22:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not being aggressive or attacking Banner (and I am not your friend, either). What I have done is point out that your behaviour is sub-standard. You are approaching Blofeld with an overly-aggressive and battlefield mentality that does nothing to help anyone. Blofeld's taken a sensible option of stepping away for a few days before he over-reacts to something you will undoubtedly drag to ANI. You should have done the same, rather than just treat the whole situation as some form of pissing contest against another editor. I suggest you try stepping away from conflicts and avoiding unnecessary conflicts with that editor in future, or ANI will see more of this as it escalates. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by an admin

I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account. My motivation was:

1. To avoid being attacked by Eric's supporters
2. To avoid people complaining about how I work for the WMF and the WMF is trying to "police Misplaced Pages". Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF, but I was made an en.wiki admin 5 years before being hired by the WMF and have been an active member of the en.wiki community for nearly 10 years. My work and principles as a volunteer are separate from my employment at the WMF, but that seems to be a difficult concept for some people to recon with.

Initially, I did not consider this edit sock puppetry as I was not involved in the interactions I was reporting, but simply wanted to report them anonymously. After talking with some other people, I've come to the conclusion that this was an incorrect assessment and my action was a violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically "avoiding scrutiny". Since I have interacted with Eric in the past, and even once blocked his previous account, it's only fair that this past interaction be open to scrutiny when evaluating my report. No one has threatened to out me or take any negative action against me, but as an administrator I feel it is important that I hold myself to the same standard as I expect from everyone else. I apologize to everyone for violating this policy and I apologize to Eric for not being forthright in my interactions with him. Also, I apparently misread Eric's comment to Bencherlite, so I apologize for that as well.

Clearly, I have strong feelings about civility on Misplaced Pages and these feelings have caused me to act in a manner unbecoming of an administrator. In light of that, I hereby resign my administrator rights. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your very principled stand. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• What complete rubbish! You had no fears of attack from Eric's supporters here and continuing to justify your atrocious attack. It's quite obvious that you have been rightly checkusered and have chosen to go before you're pushed; doubtless thinking that will make for an easier return. The whole case was a disgrace to avoid the bad timing of negative publicity for the first officially paid Wikipedian ,which woudl have been very embarassing for those supporting paid Wikipedians. You just added to the whole hypocrisy and deceit surrounding that case. Giano (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to confirm, Kaldari's admin rights were removed this morning and the SPA User:Vox Brevis was blocked indefinitely a couple of days ago. WaggersTALK 09:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Before this is hurriedly archived, I do have a few very petinent questions for Kaldari: Your sock account was blocked almost three days ago ; why has it taken so long to come to this 'honourable' decision? Secondly, you are an employee of the WMF; were you socking from a WMF computer, if not - from where the edit was made during business hours? and thirdly, how do your colleagues at WMF feel about one of their own being investigated for abusive socking, especially as that sock was smearing an editor who had already been insulted by one of its former employees/interns. I would like to hear the answers to these questions. Giano (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Aww, how cute. You're playing at being an attack dog. And by virtue of that, you're only proving Kaldari right. Resolute 14:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Resolute, you might want to think about that for a minute. The sock was obviously an experienced user using deceptive socking to focus attention (whether or not appropriately) on someone whose edits he had been following - and in at least one case misinterpreting. Checkuser is standard in those cases. A lot of other people's information got caught up in those checks; Giano isn't the one who brought the WMF into this. But make no mistake, this was nailed down three ways to Sunday by standard CU investigation. What does the community usually do if experienced editors use socks in this way? Full disclosure, Kaldari and I spoke yesterday before he posted this statement, and part of that discussion was weighing the risks and benefits of resignation of administrator tools against the inevitable request for arbitration. I agree that his admin resignation was a better result for everyone involved (especially the community) than a long, drawn-out and nasty Arbcom case would have been. Risker (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit. That is the fair result based on what Kaldari did. But at some point Arbcom is going to have to start looking at things like why. And despite Giano's hilarious protestation, there is validity in Kaldari's stated reasoning. I think we both know that Giano and his ilk aren't happy that Kaldari resigned, because it took away part of another opportunity to harass their enemies. They will just find another avenue, however. Resolute 15:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hold on. What you're saying is that it's okay to sock on this noticeboard if one is worried someone might question the motivation for the report. But the inability to examine motivation and history is exactly the reason that our socking policy forbids such use of alternate accounts. And I think you might be missing something I've said obliquely in my prior comment. Risker (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• What part of "I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit" means "I think it is okay to sock" to you? I'm not defending the socking. But if you don't think there is a legitimate concern over harassment and attacks for daring to question these users, I really don't know what to say. Certainly members of the current Arbcom share that fear given the kid gloves treatment; One that dared stand up to them ended up eating a barrage of misogynistic attacks for her trouble. Kaldari was wrong in their actions, but at some point, you might want to take a serious look at the why, especially their first reason. Resolute 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if anyone would argue, but is there an official statment anywhere this is "under a cloud"?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That particular "offical" statement would be best at the 'crats noticeboard IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point Pedro, I've reposted my question in the thread on that board.-Cube lurker (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An "attack dog" is just a personal insult, and I am sad to see it raised here, but the points raised by Giano are pertinent. It is an issue of bringing an institution into disrepute by actions that have caused grief for more than one person in the past.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And we have another sock tagging this sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and a sleeper. Not sure what skin they have in the game but judging by previous account contributions they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To be an administrator means to be targeted for attack by certain people. This isn't a "have pity on the poor admins" statement; to the contrary, administrators use the tools knowing that they're going to be subject to harassment from people on occasion (sometimes relentlessly). It comes with the territory. If at some point an administrator feels that they need to use deception or some other means to deflect retaliation in the course of performing the administration role, rather than taking those steps (like creating an undisclosed sock account) they should consider whether or not they should resign the bit. The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps. -- Atama頭 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this course of action you describe would certainly be gaming the system to retain, after a break, one's admin status. If discovered, it should certainly result in a removal of tools, just as has happened in this case. This is because it shows a distinct lack of desirable qualities and morality, and a distinct excess of deceit that would render that person unsuitable to be an admin, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I don't think Atama was saying what you were suggesting - I see no suggestion to pick the tools back up in what Atama said. However, even if that were what was implied, I would think, instead, that it would be thought of as "taking a well-deserved break", and encouraged. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Under a cloud", in Misplaced Pages-speak, is solely a way of saying you have to go through another RfA to be resysopped, so presumably there was an implication of picking the tools back up.

ddstretch, I think you misunderstood: Atama was suggesting resigning as a wise alternative to socking, not something to be done in conjunction with it. —Emufarmers 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Emufarmers: I agree with your comment about the implication. As for your suggestion of a misunderstanding by me, I can explain my reasoning as follows: What Atama wrote was "The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps." Amongst the controversial actions Kaldari did was undoubtably and clearly creating a disruptive SPA sock from which an attack was mounted against Eric Corbett which contained errors of fact amongst other undesirable accusations. So, Atama seeems to be suggesting that it would be acceptable to resign the admin bit so as not to be under a cloud before taking the actions that Kaldari did (creating a disruptive SPA account). If we consider this as a "thought experiment", then taken together with the tactic of resigning not under a cloud, if this disruptive SPA account was not detected, then they would certainly be apparently free to take up the tools again. It is this which is the attempt to game the system that I was objecting to, because it would have evaded correct action that should be taken here. This should be detectable and counteracted because it automatically, in my opinion would provide sufficient evidence to deny the former administrator the tools ever again. Now, may be I have misunderstood what Atama wrote, in which case, I must apologize, but I certainly would not think that the actions could be described as "a well-deserved rest", and even less "encouraged", if looked at in its entirity.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if an administrator feels that they need to use sockpuppets or do something else to avoid scrutiny because of the added pressure and attention that they receive from being an administrator, just give up the tools. I'm not saying to give up the tools, and cause disruption. I'm also not just saying that so that an administrator can come back and ask for the tools again, because anyone who has given up the tools because of the stress that comes with them would have to think very hard about whether or not they want to deal with being an admin again. No need to apologize for misunderstanding me, I apologize for not being clear enough originally. -- Atama頭 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest archiving this discussion. Whatever everybody involved has done, Kaldari is down now, and should be treated with understanding. Please don't kick a man when he's down.76.126.140.150 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation; I hope the WMF are taking this breach of trust, using its own computers, seriously. I have always refused to identify to the foundation because of just such a employee have access to private and sensitive records. Quite frankly this is just not acceptable and only confirms my view. What steps are being taken to prevent another breach of trust. Giano (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Giano, first, your question is predicated on a misunderstanding: Mr. Kaldari had no such access to private or sensitive records about volunteer identity. In fact, such records do not exist. We've made it very clear that we destroy documents submitted for identity verification once that's done, so no such files exist for him to access. The Wikimedia Foundation takes this circumstance extremely seriously. I don't know that your statement "using its own computers" is true - I also do not know that it is not. I see, above, where you asked that question, but I do not see a response, so I would urge you to be careful about presenting it as fact. As to your question regarding breach of trust, I'll be happy to carry any suggestions forward on your behalf. I believe that it's too soon for us to come to a knee jerk statement about changes to policies or steps to be taken; I'm the wrong person to speak to that regardless. It sounds like a question better suited for our executives - probably Gayle Karen Young, the Chief Talent and Culture Officer. It's rather outside of my purview and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment or commit the Foundation to anything there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation: You destroy documents that if ever there was serious legal problem would have to be used in a court of law? How extraordinary. Anyway, destroyed or not, there is word of mouth from those that have seen sensitive material. Are you seriously suggesting that unlike all other offices in the world, the WMF does not have at least one very large mouth. This is just not acceptable, is this person still in WMF's employ? Giano (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• With certain well-defined exceptions, there is no requirement for any individual or organization to retain information just because it might be used in some future lawsuit or criminal case. You can't delete things once you know about the legal action, but having and following a data-retention policy is allowed. One of Philippe's jobs (along with the entire legal team) is to figure out what information we need to retain and how long to retain it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, let's kick. Dishonesty needs to be dealt with. Admitting it (in odd circumstances) is mitigation, not absolution. 3 month block. 6 months if it's member of WMF. If it interferes with their day job - tough. Been more than enough mischief caused by WMF Admins. Leaky Caldron 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why does this person work for the WMF? This isn't the first wiki that Kaldari has created a sockfarm on either, see en.wikiquote. I say get the WMF to cease paying them, and remove any advanced permissions, since they obviously can't be trusted with them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ajraddatz: I think you have them confused with Kalki... --Rschen7754 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That I did, sorry. Rather similar usernames O_o. Still, a block would seem appropriate here, as would firing them from the WMF. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Kaldari should be blocked, pure and simple. Resigning their admin status a few days after deliberately creating a disruptive sockpuppet should not change that - at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Can you show evidence of ongoing disruption or the threat of it? Resolute 20:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Standard procedure is to temporarily block anyone who deliberately games the system via a sockpuppet. That this person was originally an admin, and took the coward's route out, should not make the slightest bit of difference. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that a block serves a useful purpose here other than being a ritualistic "he socked, therefore he should be blocked". Unlike some others, Kaldari has recognized the problems with his actions, and has taken steps to mitigate them. He has self-reported. He has apologized (which is more than can be said for many others who have walked this path before). He has taken steps to eliminate the need for an extensive and caustic arbcom case. I see more value in encouraging Kaldari to restrict his participation to more circumscribed areas of the project (some interesting but not very controversial topics would be a good place, for example, or doing copy editing or AWB or AFC reviews); after an error in judgment like this, it's important for everyone to take a step back. Risker (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Risker. A block would just be an expression of unhealthy excitement IMO. Would it help the encyclopedia? No. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

HE brought the issue to AN/I on his own initiative, acknowledged his mistake and resigned as an admin. I think that is a fair punishment for creating a sock account. Liz 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's rather naive. The course of events is that he was caught by a checkuser and decided in consultation with others a few days later that this would be his least damaging course of action. So let's hear no more talk of a "principled stand". But having said that I don't see what good blocking him would do, even though he's blocked me for less. Eric Corbett 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is possibly one of the bigger "facepalm" acts I've seen in a while (well, that someone has owned up to). Agree that blocking pointless at this juncture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that blocking will not serve any useful purpose here, because what is needed is evidence of an appropriate recognition of what has been done here. That has to come from the ex-admin himself. I don't know about anyone else, but if I were ever to do anything like this, I would not only hand in my resignation as an admin, I would also try to become as invisible as possible, because I would be just too ashamed and disgusted by my own behaviour to appear "in public" on here again. If I were an employee of a related organisation, my shame would lead me to resign. May be different people have different ideas, but if any rehabilitation is to take place, it requires sufficient action from the ex-admin, and just handing in the tools may not be sufficient for the community just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've very recently become aware that Kaldari operates this rather unwholesome site, which is rich given the recent events in which he took part. What was that about "principled stand" again? Eric Corbett 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone signed up to take a look? Is it what it says it is?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worse. Wikipediocracy has it. I dropped the link here earlier, but someone deleted it. It's as bad as you think it is. I'm disgusted. Hell might be other people (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it is it makes his original complaint about Eric in the Kevin Gorman case look more than a tad hypocritical. Leaky Caldron 23:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is and it does. And it doesn't seem like an appropriate activity for an employee of the WMF. So what are they going to do about it, having recently sacked Sarah Stierch for paid editing? Eric Corbett 23:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps creating a website that mocks and belittles the brutal, real-life rape and murder of a 6-year old girl is not against the WMF's T&C of employment? It ought to be, of course. Either way, they can fucking whistle up their arses for any more donations from me: I'm not paying his fucking wages any more. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What this episode and others like it has shown is that the WMF carry out no checks at all on their future employees, they just have to be friends of friends. Doesn't seem like a good way to run a top-ten web site. And true to form Jimmy Wales is nowhere to be seen. Eric Corbett 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, Jimmy Wales is exactly where everyone knows they can expect to see him. Why fault him for granting deference to the community noticeboards, or expecting that if one wanted his opinion, one would feel welcome to ask?—John Cline (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I see below that he has been notified; I suspect he will answer – and I've only just learned of snuffster, which precludes my ability to support Kaldari or rationally discuss this matter further.—John Cline (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not important to this discussion, but I should record that my "principled stand" above was stupid—sorry! I had drafted something else with qualifications regarding possible reasons for the announcement and the clueless approach regarding Eric, but it looked ugly so I removed it. A better statement of my opinion is at my talk (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indulge me; to ask a question: not knowing the answer troubles my conscious. How is the above revelation exempt from the policy provisions at wp:outing?—John Cline (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I have never mentioned the site on Misplaced Pages and have no public association with it other than the domain name registration, I do think this is a pretty blatant invasion of my privacy. It's one thing to post such personal information on Wikipediocracy, but bringing it onto Misplaced Pages, especially as a way to attack me, does seems like a violation of our WP:OUTING policy. Kaldari (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

    Don't you think that's a desperately flimsy defence, not to mention a blatant lie? Outing refers to the revelation of personally identifying information, not information that you'd quite naturally prefer to be hidden. And in what way is it an attack to provide evidence of your abominable hypocrisy? Eric Corbett 07:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari did not appear to offer a defense for the wrongs he admitted doing, but rather to answer my question; solidifying my concern as valid. Several readings of the policy that governs attempted outings are in stark contrast with your previous comment. I believe you erred in posting the information, attempting to identify Kaldari's job title and place of employ as the owner/operator of xyz.com. More than likely, outing is a concept that has outlived its wiki-usefulness, whereas I suspect you will not be held accountable. Then again, I may be wrong in that regard. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric posted a link that was already accessible via earlier references to the discussion on Wikipediocracy. I don't think it would be appropriate to hold any editor to account for outing where the presence of the offending material was already previously mentioned in this thread and therefore only a couple of clicks away. As for the claim that it was a blatant breach of privacy, in the circumstances that Kaldari has put themselves in, that's just risible. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@John Cline. Seems like I have to repeat my question, in words of one syllable. What personally identifying information about Kaldari was made public? His name, occupation, employer, job title, even where he lives, is all a matter of public record here on WP. So in what sense was Kaldari outed? But I realise of course that you're simply trolling in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from Kaldari, so I don't expect any kind of sensible reply from you. Eric Corbett 14:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Time for a block?

Is there any real argument against blocking, really? Do you really need to consult the endless WP:* arcana of rules and essays and policies to tell you that this is an a) deceptive and b) disgusting human being that no one in their right mind should wish to be associated with? I realize this runs counter to the hipster/libertarian streak that permeates much of this websites these days, one that loathes to ban people just because they believe in or advocate distasteful thing. But seriously, a WMF staffer masquerading socks and operating a faux snuff site has to be a scale-tipper here. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's not very often that I would publicly call for someone to resign or to be fired, but I feel this has to happen here; Kaldari's position is now untenable. Talk about falling on your own sword in spectacular style. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• I totally agree this is some of the most offensive stuff I have ever seen, considering I survived a fucking suicide attempt back in October and I'm dealing with a mother who might die any day now. Anyone who takes death as some kind of pleasure and entertainment should be banned from Misplaced Pages and let the foundation deal with it. Secret 00:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The site appears to be a parody / art project, not associated with actual deaths. Are we seriously going to try and use that as an excuse? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• JonBenét Ramsey is an, quote, "actual death." Go set up an arty-farty "parody / art project" about that in Boulder, Colorado and see what happens. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Jon Benet Ramsey page shows four photos which are various modeling photos of her, nothing to do with her murder or body. It is in poor taste, but does not depict any violence. We ALSO have no way of knowing who signed up with that profile; I believe everyone who's looked at the site had to sign up, correct? So you understand that it could be anyone's posting of material there, not Ryan's? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Squirm all you like in defense of kaldari. Your premise has been proven false. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• He hosts the site, pays for registration fees, approved the user login who is listed as a friend. It's beyond sickening. It's worse that you're defending the indefensible because of misplaced loyalties. If he were not employed by the WMF, this would already by a ban. Hell might be other people (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Really? I saw much more real blood and wounds at the last Folsom Street Fair than on that whole website. Frankly I am not sure there were any wounds depicted on the whole site that had more damage than the two IV lines I had inserted while in the Emergency Room last Monday. While in poor taste, this is absolutely tame compared to any real blood/gore sites. The idea that anyone who participated in a parody this tame would need banning from Misplaced Pages is ludicrous and absurd. I certainly am not going to praise him for it, but he's put it behind a sign-up wall, it seems all fake (as opposed to any number of non-protected sites with real bodies, body parts, etc), and is obviously self-posted parody by most of the members. Get a grip. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Don't turn up to a gunfight with a knife, hombre. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that WP is not supposed to consider off-wiki behavior unless it involves violating wiki policies (like outing). As tasteless as it might be, it should not have any bearing on whether or not the editor receives a block. Liz 04:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's very similar to some of the material hosted at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which various well-known Misplaced Pages editors and functionaries are or have been involved with. (Whether that makes it "OK" or not is another thing.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be accused of being a shithell etc, discussing blocking here is, of course, s acceptable but behaviour related to Kaldari's employment isn't (simply because this simply isn't the correct venue). I would ask that this be raised with the Wikimedia Foundation through the proper channels: Maggie Dennis the community advocate, the three community representatives on the Foundation, SJ, Phoebe and Raystorm, and of course, Jimbo Wales. ANI and the administrative corps of this site, well, we're completely unable to do anything about the behaviour concerns relating to employment. All we can do is block Kaldari's own account or instate a ban against the user's own account, if that is the wish of the community. Nick (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've notified Jimbo's talk page, but we have every right to discuss Kaldari's future; people who donate to the WMF pay his wages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've pinged Jimmy to try and attract his attention. I've no issues with you discussing it at all, just that this page really isn't the correct venue (you might be better off discussing employment related concerns about their editing behaviour their extra curricular behaviour somewhere on Meta) and we are unable to take any administrative action other than blocking Kaldari's personal account. Nick (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages's own policy on socks such a blatant abuse of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, disruptively edit, deceive the community and pose as an uninvolved editor, is deserving of a ban. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• A single edit under an an undeclared alternative account when not used to carry out an administrative action or make an abusive edit is not reason to block anybody. I would not even have argued that it is adequate rational for a de-sysop after the explanation given. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are free to interpret policy ("The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Misplaced Pages and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses") however you want in order to defend one of your own. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how using the most drastic actions available for this particular isolated instance is likely to have any effect in preventing disruption of the encyclopedia, or discouraging the sorts of sockppettry that do disrupt it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Had Kaldari not been an administrator I doubt you'd be so forgiving. Eric Corbett 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose block per Liz. NE Ent 11:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

NO to McCarthyism/cyberbullying!

I don't know if the "sockpuppetry" of trying to report something you think is a wikicrime anonymously normally receives a block if you apologize for trying. The community is nuts about that whole issue - we should have a system whereby anyone can start as many new accounts as they want, and the weight given those accounts' opinions is light enough that this is not a gaming mechanism.

But what I do know is that this practice of claiming that Wikimedia employees should be "vetted" to see if they've ever in their lives said something outrageous -- of trying to get editors' real names claiming that is some step toward accountable behavior, immediately before using those names to try to collect together a list of oddities and photos you think are unflattering to try to make them feel uncomfortable -- those things are just plain and absolutely wrong and we have to hold absolutely firm against them. If we let these bastards pull this stunt, it could be like what they did to Fae all over again, and Misplaced Pages establishes itself even more firmly as a shining example of cyberbullocracy as a form of government. Sure, they should be free to have their giggles at WO if that's what they feel like, but the basis of that freedom is that we angrily resist any effort to use that to change our behavior. With freedom comes responsibility - and this is the responsibility. I urge Wikimedia to stand by Kaldari's right to free expression, and not allow a couple of edits to outweigh his day to day work history, let alone some content he may have something to do with that is totally outside of his duties at Misplaced Pages!

I say this despite the fact that I agreed at the time that Eric Corbett had been poorly treated - based on what he mentioned about his father, he deserves our sympathy just as much as anyone else in that story. There are many times when the best thing for us to do is nothing at all, sanction no one, but recognize that we should aspire to a higher standard of freedom than what we have. Wnt (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly I agree with Wnt. It will be a sad day indeed if those with responsibility for a site, one of whose main activities is the documenting the peccadilloes of others, are ever subject to the same level of scrutiny that the sites victims are. John lilburne (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Anyone who finds entertainment in the murder of children has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I created the Snuffster website as a parody of Friendster back in 2003. As you can see from this archive of Friendster, virtually every word on Snuffster is a direct parody. As the site was just an outdated joke, I never policed the content that other people added later. And for the record, I was only responsible for a single profile on the site which had nothing remotely offensive on it. If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of not pro-actively censoring the offensive content that other people added. Now that it's been brought to my attention, I've disabled most of the site, although I left the home page if people are curious about it. The site had long outlived its purpose anyway. I'm not ashamed of having created it, however. Maybe it's a bit morbid, but I thought it was a fun experiment in creating a social networking site (and not a bad parody either). That's all I have to say on the subject. Kaldari (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sick, you created a website, it is your responsibility to police it. The fact that you did not and have no shame in the content posted shows a lack of moral fibre. You ought to be banned for that shit. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not buying your argument, Kaldari; you were paying the bills to keep that website online, and being the owner of a website that mocks the murder of young children is unacceptable, and would get you fired from most jobs if that became public. This should be no exception. The hypocrisy of you running a website that mocks suicide, and then attempting to claim that Eric did the same, should mean that you should quit yourself before you get pushed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's certainly some hypocrisy in Kaldari's behaviour. And yes, the person who owns the registration for a domain bears some (moral) responsibility for things that are posted there. Just as I would hold the person listed as the registrant of wikipediocracy.com responsible for some of the things posted there; though it serves no purpose because he's already banned here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's unconscionable that Jimbo doesn't police the site he created. At least Larry Sanger takes his responsibility seriously! —Emufarmers 11:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight, Kaldari; at the time you posted this, you were funding a website, which you had created, that mocked a murdered child? And then you created a throwaway sock account to attack another editor? But you're still defending your conduct? Is that your position? --John (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's easy to read your first sentence as meaning that the website as created by Kaldari mocked a murdered child. Which is not the case. Just pointing this out, as I'm sure you didn't intend to be ambiguous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I chose my words very carefully, but thank you for clarifying if you found them ambiguous. Once more, at the time Kaldari posted his ill-founded rant about Eric supposedly "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian", he was paying for a website, which he had created, which mocked a murdered child. That's the scenario we are looking at, yes? --John (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but if one is specific one ends up with at the time Kaldari posted his ill-founded rant about Eric supposedly "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian", he was paying for a website, which he had created in 2004, to which someone else had added content which mocked a murdered child. Those are the facts, but writing them out in full like that sounds a little less dramatic, eh? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I followed some of the links from wikipediocracy, he had commented on a lot of those images, so he know that shit was there. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Same here. One or two of the snuffster.com pages mocking actual deaths of children that were linked on WO had a comment by "Ryan". "Ryan" was linked to his profile on the site. I don't know when he made those comments. It may have been ten years ago. Andreas JN466 11:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• If Kaldari was a common-or-garden member, and not part of the WMF/a former admin, they'd have been indeffed by now. Typical bias. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• If Kaldari was, as you say, "a common-or-garden member", this probably would not have reached witch hunt level. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  What's your definition of "witch hunt"? Are you suggesting that Kaldari is a witch? Eric Corbett 16:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  Anybody got a large duck so we can check? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Another similar website

Above we have claims that Kaldari was involved in a website that made fun of murdered children. And we have a plausible statement by Kaldari that he was not responsible for posting the material concerned; and he states that he's now removed that material.

Another website that makes fun of murdered children, where the material in question has not been taken down, can be found by googling "Encyclopedia Dramatica Madeleine McCann". The Google search results give you an idea of the sort of content there; visiting the page itself may be inadvisible for many. That's only the most notable example that springs to mind; there's a great deal more like that on that site.

And we have an English Misplaced Pages oversighter, checkuser and OTRS member who says in 2009 (that's really rather recent, compared with things Kaldari was up to in 2004) "I'm also a sysop on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Yes, it's true! ... I keep both these arenas very separate". The big graphic on that page is an interpretation of Encyclopedia Dramatica's logo; there's an even bigger one on her current userpage that's similar.

There's nothing to indicate that person has edited the pages about murdered children there - either to add to them or to make them less offensive - just as no-one has suggested that Kaldari added any of the similar material mentioned above. But Kaldari does seem to do a better job of keeping "these arenas very separate"; he's not promoted or mentioned his Friendster parody on Misplaced Pages.

The English Misplaced Pages community has historically been quite tolerant of editors involved in such things. Maybe it's one of these "free speech" things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the substantive point you raise here, but you should have notified Alison that you were bringing up her conduct here. I have done it for you. Is this one of these "two wrongs make a right" things? --John (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you managed to drop a template on her talk page exactly 120 seconds before I posted a hand-written note. That was useful.

And no, I don't approve of the behaviour of either of them. The purpose (as my last paragraph suggests) is to provide context about how the community has viewed similar cases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you didn't forget and that you spent those seven minutes well, crafting a hand-written notice to Alison that you had brought her user page from 2009 up here in 2014. That was certainly time well spent. --John (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the community had any problem with it in 2009 either, unless you know otherwise? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's be clear. WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal even for things with a far more immediate connection to Misplaced Pages. Some people here are essentially saying "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" Well, as it happens, there is a difference between allegedly being uncivil on a project that tries (counterproductively) to prohibit incivility, and allowing similar alleged incivility on a site you administer elsewhere on the Web. Even if you try to ban the one you don't have to go out looking for ways to penalize an author for being prolific. Now to be clear, I'd prefer that people on Misplaced Pages be free to freely express their anger toward those who commit suicide and leave people behind. But Kaldari shouldn't have to walk on eggshells because he has other writings in the world. He should be free to be as wrong as anyone else. Wnt (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed, we should all have the right to be wrong. I don't think it is civility that we are talking about but more hypocrisy and dishonesty. It appears that Kaldari (by his own account) made a false allegation about another Wikipedian supposedly "speaking ill of the dead", while a site that he set up and was paying for was hosting mockery of a dead child, and then set up a sock account to harass that Wikipedian. All this in a matter of a few weeks? Do I understand correctly that this is what Kaldari admits to? No, incivility is nothing to do with it. --John (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well stated. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How?

If Kaldari (talk · contribs) is no longer an admin, how was he able to protect his own talk page? Thrub (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's because he still has the editinterface permission (see meta:editinterface). Salvio 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is using it in a (very mild) personal dispute on his own talk page not an abuse of that right? Thrub (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(I should add the IP on his talk page was me - I lost my connection and got logged out a couple of times this morning) Thrub (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally he should've asked someone else to do it, or asked at WP:RFPP. But asking for one's own talkpage to be temporarily semi-protected is absolutely non-controversial if there's new accounts posting there that one doesn't want posting there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

When he didn't even bother to ask the other person not to post there first, and there was no record of any persistent problem? I'd have been happy to oblige and not post there if he'd asked me (even in an edit summary). I think he abused his permissions here - editinterface is not granted for use in closing personal disputes. Thrub (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? There was an IP edit-warring on his talk page to re-insert something described by another editor as "a personal attack", one minute before Kaldari semi-protected it. I don't see any posts from you there at all...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See above, where I said "(I should add the IP on his talk page was me - I lost my connection and got logged out a couple of times this morning)". And I wasn't edit-warring and was not reinserting the same thing - I made two distinct comments, that's all, and would have been quite happy to stop posting there had he simply said so. Thrub (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So you made three edits to his talk page while logged out, as two different IPs. Your first comment he removed. So you added a second, different comment. Which he also removed. You should've started getting the hint at that point, but instead, yes, you edit-warred to re-add the same comment. One minute later he semi-protected the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The last one was to reinsert a comment that had been inappropriately removed by a third party (the one who went on to make an incorrect accusation of personal attack) - I would not have reinserted it had Kaldari himself removed it, and I *did not* edit war with Kaldari over it (and he's the only one who can decide whether he wants a comment that does not break any rules on his talk page). And this does not answer my question anyway - whether it is proper for a ex-admin to use alternative permissions to continue to perform admin actions. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Thrub (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not proper if it's controversial. But I don't see anyone other than you making the case that it's controversial for someone to semi-protect their own talk page when there are two different IPs posting material they don't want there, one of them edit-warring to re-add it. If you think it's inappropriate for the page to be semi-protected, you could make that case at WP:RFPP, but it's unlikely to be well received. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I thank your for your opinion, and will wait to see if there are any others - I personally consider it improper to use alternative permissions to continue to perform admin functions after one has lost one's admin bit (and *that* is the issue - not whether the page should have been protected at all). And whether or not there's only me who thinks so is currently moot, as we really haven't had much time for many other opinions yet. Thrub (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(Oh, and just because someone else labels something a "personal attack" doesn't mean it is one - have a look yourself and you'll see it was just a couple of factual observations Thrub (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Actually, it seems apparent to me that editinterface is not intended to be used for admin actions at all (only those granted admin status should perform admin actions), it's essentially for coding and technical use. So using it in this way does seem like abuse. Thrub (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why?

It appears that Kaldari (talk · contribs) was caught socking by a CheckUser check, and was then offered the chance to resign the admin bit as faux-honorably as he chose (and it's ironic that he chooses to retain praise on his talk page for doing so, while removing statements that point out that inconvenient fact - but that's a digression). My question is why should an admin be afforded such a courtesy when non-admins who sock are routinely blocked on sight? Thrub (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually in some cases the non-admins are merely the subject of an arbcom ruling that the shared IP template should be added to their userpage; but if the non-admin makes enough of a fuss that subsequently doesn't happen anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well, technically, this is the discussion to decide that. However, simply creating another account is not "socking" - the WP:SOCK policy lays out many legitimate reasons to do so. It is necessary to show that in its four edits, the other account actually worked with Kaldari's main account to give him undue influence over the conversation, which is far from cleart. I would rather see all Wikipedians be free to start fresh accounts or do IP postings to raise administrative issues without the inevitable death-match "boomerang" aspect of it, provided we are willing to streamline the process by which repeated and unreasonable allegations by such people are discounted so that they aren't used as a method of harassment. Wnt (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to see *all* Wikipedians given the same appropriate consideration when caught misusing an alternative account (and this *was* misusing the account, otherwise there would not have been a CheckUser check), rather than just admins - it only reinforces the image of those in power helping cover each others' backs. Thrub (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (modified to "appropriate" Thrub (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Is there some "case law" here? What is the usual penalty when an editor in good standing registers a new account solely trying to file an administrative issue of this type without backsplatter? Wnt (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't know - interesting question. It just seems corrupt for a misbehaving admin to be allowed to dishonestly claim to be confessing honorably when what had happened was that he'd actually been caught. Thrub (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if there's no set of precedents to prove otherwise, I'm going to assume that this experience has likely soured Kaldari on the whole starting a different account thing for a long time coming, and so there is no need for a preventative block. You can say that he was "actually caught", but that is a bit of a stretch -- if he'd wanted to stonewall he could have had people debating for weeks whether it was a visitor/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/cyber-cafe/"borrowed my laptop while we were scanning Misplaced Pages images at the library", whatever. The way he phrased it may have been self-serving, but he deserves some credit for sparing us that. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree there's no reason for a block now and I'm certainly not calling for one - and I'm as sure as I can be that Kaldari won't do it again. But I'm not actually talking about him here - my issue is with the CheckUser (and whoever else in power was part of this) who appears to have given preferential treatment to one of their own. That appearance might not be true, of course, and I might be wrong - I'd welcome an assurance from those responsible that they would treat non-admins in exactly the same way (and I'd further welcome evidence of their having done so in the past). Thrub (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Malleus was also contacted privately in just the same way, so that's an example of their having done so in the past. One wonders how friendly a response they got. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I'd have to research for details in my history, but I know I've encountered this case before. For a first socking offense, I would treat it as I do pretty much any first socking offense: indefinite block for the sock, two weeks for the master. There's no question that this is a violation of WP:ILLEGIT as being done to avoid scrutiny and being an edit to project space.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of post

I've received a good faith user talk query about the thought process behind my removal of thread . At the time I did not know (or care) who the actual poster was. There have been numerous prior WQA / ANI discussions regarding Eric and an arbcom case, none of which have led towards any convergence to consensus on addressing alleged disruption of Misplaced Pages by either Eric or those engaging with him. They have led to acrimonious exchanges by many valuable mainspace contributors who sincerely believe they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia by being either "pro-Eric" or "anti-Eric." In that context, I consider opening yet another pointless ANI thread about it simply trolling, and, as a former unmoderated alt-usenet contributor, know the way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, and policy e.g. wp:3rr supports removal of such content. I'm not sure how / when this stupid trend of "look at me censoring this content" by putting a gaudy hat around it started, but it is not a good idea, as hats are mostly just neon signs saying "click here for drama!" (It's WP:RBI, not WP:HBI).

I'll note that a prior arbcom has suggested that editors with good faith concerns regarding his behavior should be creating the still red-linked after all these years Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Eric Corbett. I cannot in good faith suggest anyone do so, because a) they will get a tedious set of ad hominem attacks back them and b) more importantly Eric isn't the real problem. The real problem is English Misplaced Pages does not have a functional civility policy; I essayed as much three years ago at Notes on civility; more recent evidence is the the arbcom case and the technically open but moribund civility enforcement RFC. NE Ent 13:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've previously commented at the talk page for WP:Civility that it is bloated up with an incredible amount of unicorns-and-rainbows blather about what would be nice in a perfect world. The policy should be combined with WP:Disruptive editing and perhaps others, and limited only to such things as are actually policed, and those should be reduced as much as possible, because the more civility is enforced the nastier Misplaced Pages gets. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that *at the time* DENY was a perfectly reasonable action; however due to the unfolding issues related to said thread, it may be advisable in hindsight to just add the thread in question to the most recent ANI archive so it can be linked to. Rgrds. --64.85.216.160 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove edit-interface right?

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

It seems to me that resigning as an admin while retaining the edit-interface right is a relatively symbolic act, as it means that Kaldari retains the right to change article protections and edit through protection. I can't see any reason that he should retain those privileges.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Seems sensible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I wondered how he was able to do that too. I didn't know this was possible. It shouldn't be. --John (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Just solve the problem by some other admin taking over the protection, which was justified. Risker (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The protection itself was dubious (we don't grant the same free reign to protecting user talk pages as we do user pages), and the fact it was done after the bit was resigned makes it a deliberate attempt at gaming the system. Again. Another reason why Kaldari should be blocked as a preventative measure (not punitive, despite how several people have tried to wing it). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The protection was not dubious, the page was being trolled and the action would of been taken by another admin. This would be a punitive measure, as no abuse of this tool has taken place nor is there evidence it will.Blethering Scot 16:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• This tool is not supposed to be used for protecting one's user talk page, as someone directly commented. So yes, it is a blatant abuse of the tools. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Page protection in this situation was tool abuse. "You abuse it, you lose it." should be our motto. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm the one accused of trolling his talk page (while accidentally logged out), but I wasn't. I expressed two fact-based comments - I think it is perfectly reasonable to question praise given to an admin based on ignorance of the actual circumstances, and then to question his removal of it while retaining the undeserved praise. And Kaldari was entitled to remove it (but the other editor was not). I'm also the one who raised the question about Kaldari's protection of his own page, in a section just above here. But a clarification of his use of editinterface was all I wanted, and it seems he was indeed wrong to use it to protect his own talk page - if he is told clearly that he must not abuse the right again and he does not do so, then I think that's all that's needed Thrub (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  Kaldari has accepted his mistake and unprotected the page - that seems like a satisfactory outcome to me. Thrub (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warn, but preserve. This all seems like too much over too little. I don't deny that it was a misuse of editinterface to use it in this way as people have said above; but he was an admin just the day before and I'd allow for a chance of confusion. One ANI posting under a pseudonym, one page protection that an admin probably would have done anyway... it's not enough for us to purge a developer over. The warm fuzzy glow of knowing that the next person won't try to report an incident just isn't worth having an upload or thumbnail feature left broken for hours or days more on the entire encyclopedia while we're waiting for someone else to work on it. Therefore I'd say get clarity on this, and if you absolutely must wave your rod around then suspend it for a brief and defined duration, but don't disrupt the encyclopedia just to make a point. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• "upload or thumbnail feature left broken for hours or days" - that's what usually happens anyway. Look at VisualEditor, and several other debacles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ask arbcom for a motion It should probably go without saying, but perhaps a general motion from arbcom stating that WMF toolkits should only be used for "office" actions would be helpful if retaining some appearance of "community-led governance" is desirable. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 18:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• The editinterface right is a global right, and cannot be removed through voting here. With that being said, per WP:GRP a bureaucrat can tell someone with this right to stop using it here, and if they violate that, it's grounds for a block. --Rschen7754 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  I was about to write the same, also, for a long-standing sysop is a pretty common mistake (there are no difference in user interface), I'd suggest evaluating if Kaldari still needs that right and maybe hide the relevant buttons via css. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Prohibition of Kaldari's local usage of global editinterface rights

• As an enwiki bureaucrat, and in the interest of drama avoidance if nothing else, I've asked Kaldari, under WP:GRP, to cease from taking administrator actions as a volunteer editor using his global groups per discussion here and at the crats' noticeboard. If no crat objects, the situation will be just as if he had been desysoped for cause for the time being. Obviously this is a bit unprecedented in a few ways, but from the perspective of drama avoidance alone, it makes sense and I'm willing to stand behind it. Pakaran 19:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  Does that mean that if Kaldari pulls another stunt like this he'll be blocked? Eric Corbett 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  That's even more moot than before. Pakaran 21:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  Problem solved then. Eric Corbett 22:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by Empire of War

User talk:Empire of War has been reverting the article Forced adoption in Australia

See below (all times UTC)

• 07:06 7 Mar 2014
• 07:09 7 Mar 2014
• 13:06 7 Mar 2014
• 13:16 7 Mar 2014

These are clear reversion, but there are actually a number of edits in between that technically could be described as reverts, and certainly edit warring, but I have not bothered to provide those diffs since I think what I have here is enough.

I first reverted the user here, advising him to take it to the talk page, explaining here and here what was wrong with the article and why I had removed the excessive references at a single point in the lead (10 refs!) The next time I reverted I advised EoW that another revert would earn a trip here and advised EoW not to exceed 3RR in this article talk page post. EoW does not seem to understand how 3RR works and the edit summary to his last post makes it clear that he intends to continue reverting. Hence we are here. I recommend he receive a 24 hour block with escalating periods if he continues down the same path. - Nick Thorne 14:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Nick I followed all your advice and we settled it on the talk page where you told me my edit was okay but I shouldn't have so many references in the opening, which I took on HiLo48's advice. So whats the problem exactly?--Empire of War (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC) I have just reverted another edit by HiLo as he continues to stoke the flames by saying, "read the advice you were given". What advice? I've followed everything, and have asked repeatedly on what grounds do they have to revert my edit? Both HiLo and Nick Thorne have failed to answer me. I gave credible references but that apparently was not good enough for HiLo so I now suspect he is pushing a personal bias in the article.--Empire of War (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Empire of War and User:HiLo48 both blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have appealed my block and been unblocked, and I now have a simple question. I was never advised of the existence of this thread, and so was unable to even attempt to explain or defend my behaviour here. Was my block EVER valid? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

People are required to inform someone when discussing them on AN//I and if someone notices a lack of such notification they should carry it out or ask the person who made the comments o make it. But there's no requirement a person be given the opportunity to respond before most blocks. So the lack of notification doesn't invalidate most blocks just as someone sleeping or in a hospital during a discussion. (Exceptions would be stuff like a block for being unresponsive.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Block review

I've moved this from the "Review of my actions" section down below. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I blocked User:HiLo48 for edit warring at Forced adoption in Australia. The original report on this is at #Edit warring by Empire of War. Although they've now been unblocked, they've complained to me on their user page and seem, to me at least, really quite unhappy with my actions. As I'm still relatively new at being an admin and they've been around a long tine I'm asking for a review to see if my actions were reasonable so I can possibly do things different in future. Dpmuk (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's a difficult situation. On the one hand, it is edit warring. On the other, it is reverting a very misguided edit (diff) made by an inexperienced editor. In a case like that I would recommend protecting the article and strongly warning the participants. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Blocking someone who has edit warred is within the realm of what admins do. You've done nothing wrong. Could you have handled it differently? Sure. Would it have been better? What is better? Of course he's pissed; you blocked him. People who get blocked tend to get angry exactly 100% of the time. If people don't want to be blocked, getting unhappy isn't the solution. The solution is to not commit actions that they knew before they committed them can get them blocked. You could have done what Johnuniq said, and that would have been fine too. But you've done nothing wrong by blocking either. --Jayron32 02:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I should add that the edit warring was also misguided—all experienced editors should know that the edit in question does not satisfy WP:VAND or any other policy that exempts from 3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know blocked editors get angry, and I wouldn't have brought it here for just that. The reason I asked for review in this case is that there seemed, to me at least, to be an implication that I acted outside of policy and/or our norms. Dpmuk (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd agree with Johnuniq. You didn't do anything wrong, your action was quite within policy, and I don't remember any community norms that would condemn your action. At the same time, I'd advise against such an action in the future, for more-practical reasons. Blocks are best applied when everyone's misbehaving equally, especially with a one-on-one edit war, e.g. the edit war of 23 June 2009 here. When it's more than two people, blocks-all-around generally aren't best: two people are more of a consensus than one, so a block for just the one may be appropriate (assuming that neither side is violating policy majorly), or protection may be best. I guess the biggest thing in my mind is that all participants "lose" when blocks-all-around are applied (the block log is expanded), while a protection log entry and a usertalkpage warning don't have the same longtime-obvious effect. I'd be tempted to protect immediately upon seeing a more-than-two-person war, and then unprotect-and-block if only one or two people deserved a block. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Okay, so now I realise that you didn't block Nick. What I said about blocks-all-around I also say about blocks purely for 3RR/editwarring: I don't think that a block for HiLo was the best idea (although completely within policy) because of the circumstances, so I think I would have protected in this situation rather than blocking anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Block was fine. I especially don't like that HiLo was communicating with the other editor in edit summaries, and claims that was an appropriate way to explain issue. WP:DR exists for a reason, and "believing something has become vandalism" does not mean it is vandalism. On the other hand, I'm fine with the unblock DP 10:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues on WP:MOS-JA

Ryulong (talk · contribs) has been behaving very badly on this guideline page for a very long time and I'm not the first to notice it. You can look at the entire page history and see him liberally adding/removing material himself, but demanding that everyone else get "consensus" on the talk page first ("consensus", unfortunately, seems to mean permission from him despite the consent of everyone else). I could cite legion examples of him opposing changes just for the sake of opposing them (not providing any other justification), but for me the breaking point was "Ah ah ah: you need my permission before you're even allowed touch this page; I on the other hand am allowed introduce radical changes on a whim". It might be worth noting that a currently still-open RM is affected by this, and while Ryulong appears not to agree with me on that RM he decided that radically altering the relevant guideline page would be more constructive than directly opposing the move. For good measure, he also decided to revenge-revert me on a completely unrelated article at the same time. (His edit summary claimed to only be reverting a separate edit by a separate user three weeks earlier, but he chose to revert said edit hours after mine, and "accidentally" got my edit too.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have engaged in talk page discussion on all relevant issues. Reverting undiscussed changes to WP:MOS-JA, particularly in a recent case still somewhat under discussion on the guideline's talk page where another editor removed a large swath of the content with no preceding discussion, is not WP:OWN. If my rewriting of existant parts to be clearer in their intent without changing the meaning is improper, then I will accept that judgement. I have raised a question regarding the old wording and the new wording I implimented on the guideline's talk page. However, I believe that Hijiri88 is grasping at straws here with the remainder of his arguments.

His reference that I was "opposing changes just for the sake of opposing them" was in regards to Nanshu's arguments for changing the guideline that are peppered with ad hominem attacks towards me that still take up a good portion of the guideline's talk page. I have admitted that I refused to acknowledge his statements at first due to their excessive length and because he repeatedly called into question my intelligence, as well as a false assumption that I was the original author of the content that he so opposed. However, I have since acknowledged the arguments and put forth an alternative that appears to have acceptance by other parties. Hijiri88, on the other hand, has blatantly admitted he would oppose anything I've suggested simply because he believes I am violating WP:OWN, which is a definite WP:POINT threat.

And I did not "revenge revert" Hijiri88 at New Ishigaki Airport. I intended to revert Jpatokal's use of an improper romanization and I just went back several revisions because undo would not work. Either way, that reference that Hijiri88 removed seems useful, as it seems to be sourcing the fact that the unofficial name of the airport is in use.

I would gladly like to solve this issue amicably, but Hijiri88 has already made up his mind about me and I've no use in dealing with someone who refuses to assume good faith like this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You make an average of like 100 edits a day: why did it take you weeks to revert Jpatokal but you just happened to do so less than hours after I edited the page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And again: I wanted to resolve this issue amicably (I think I even had the good faith to tell Ryulong my real name in an email a few months back), but after a full year Ryulong's position of "my changes don't need to be discussed, but everyone else's need not only to be discussed but to be approved by me" has only gotten worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't have New Ishigaki Airport watchlisted and didn't see the implimentation of "paï nu sïma" until yesterday. It may have been because I saw you edit the page through your contributions, but your deletion of a single ref tag really doesn't weigh much in the scope of things. And what does your fight with JoshuSasori have to do with this mess?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. That's why if you re-read my comments carefully and thoroughly you will find that I did not mention him once. You went back and read my e-mail to you, and published that particular piece of information from it. I would ask you not to publish anything else that was in that e-mail, or my aforementioned good faith will wear even thinner than it already has. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not like the JoshuSasori dispute is secret.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're trying to intimidate me by bringing up completely unrelated bullshit, it's not going to work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that the last user to insert random references to that guy into unrelated discussions in order to intimidate me wound up getting indefinitely blocked (his word was "lynched"). I don't want Ryulong to be blocked. I want either a TBAN or 1RR on MOS-JA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LittleBenW got blocked for violating a topic ban and had nothing to do with your dispute with him. Your mention of him is definitely "trying to intimidate me by bringing up completely unrelated bullshit". Neither TBAN nor 1RR are necessary just because you and Nanshu disagreed with portions of the page and took matters into your own hands to impliment massive changes that have been opposed. My proposals in both cases have since gained the approval of other uninvolved editors in any capacity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my all mistake but solve my articles issues

But why my all articles have issues?I deleted all copy rights and also i deleted these websites,so please my humble request to you admin make clear all issues,and delete these all tags and deletion nomination.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This thread is related to the above thread titled Balochi tamur & Thbaluch. -- SMS 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reporting an administrator

User removing Speedy Deletion Template on page they created

User:Kamie256 has repeatedly removed a speedy deletion template from Kamie Jimmie King, a page they created. The page does not seem to meet the guidelines for notability and is ridden with poor grammar, external links, and badly formatted references. Evidence of the removals can be found here, here, here, and here. Also, judging by the user name, and the fact that they have only edited that page, they may be attempting to create an autobiography. G S Palmer (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article, it was an odd mix where the creator was taking pains to promote the subject yet at the same time failing to assert the subject's importance. I agree that it was likely an autobiography due to the preponderance of candid images and the unlikelihood that the subject is well-known enough for someone unconnected to him to be inspired to write it. -- Atama頭 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I also deleted the redirect (the article had been moved from its initial name). I'm normally pretty forgiving about A7 criteria, because it's a pretty low bar to clear, but this was not enough even for me. -- Atama頭 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I just G11ed his userpage, since he pasted what was in the article. §FreeRangeFrog 06:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User page was speedy deleted, but user has created it again. I've tagged it again. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm watching this page, and the SPA who has popped up in support. Leave it with me, and I'll do whatever needs to be done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles

To whom this may concern,

I apologize to have to bring this incident to your attention, but while I was doing some edits on behalf of WP:MDP, I found that Talking bird was listed on the page. Before I did any substantial edits to that page, or related pages, I noticed that there was a dispute happening in regards to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Talking bird". Since I was not one to boldly determine this term's primary topic, the only edits I did for the time being were cleaning up the disambiguation page A and editing a few hatnotes due to no primary topic being established B, C, and D (revert of my hatnote edit due to what I am about to state.)

The reason I performed the edit in diff "C" was due to JHunterJ reverting the non-consensus based move from Talking bird to Talking bird (mimic) - E. The original non-consensus move was performed by CYl7EPTEMA777 - F. This move was performed without consensus, and there is currently a related discussion on Talk:Talking Bird (mimic) that has yet to conclude. In addition, there is currently an AfD discussion for Talking bird (cognition) happening.

Even with all of these events happening right now, mainly in regards to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, CYl7EPTEMA777 has been performing a series of disruptive edits on Talking bird, Talking bird (disambiguation), and Talking bird (mimic). In a situation such as this, I am aware that the standard procedure is to kindly inform the editor of the disruptive editing on their talk page. However, this editor went out of their way to "threaten me with an "unlimited block" on my talk page", as shown in the following diff: G, and then seemingly seemed to mention/threaten other users with a block in the next diff: H. So that all editors' names in that diff are listed, here they are: DrChrissy, Johnuniq, Kurt Shaped Box, Boomur, Epipelagic, and Dbrodbeck.

After reviewing the conversation on Talk:Talking bird (mimic), it looks like CYl7EPTEMA777 has threatened a block at least once already. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that CYl7EPTEMA777 also has problems understanding Misplaced Pages copyright policy - for example the paragraph entitled 'Aimee Morgana' here is a direct copy-paste from the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) CYl7EPTEMA777 has threatened to get people banned in the past for little to nothing. I told him to knock it off at least once. See Talk:Talking_bird_(mimic)#mimic_vs_utter_in_lead_sentence for the background to this. As far as I know, English is his second language, and I suspect that there have been communication issues here. Also of relevance is an IP editor who has issues with User:DrChrissy in the past (not sure of the full details) posting on CYl7EPTEMA777's talkpage with allegations about DrChrissy's 'gang' of POV/COI-pushers - which CYl7EPTEMA777 appears to have accepted and run with, I think leading him to believe that every editor not with him on the issue of talking bird cognition must be working against him in a coordinated manner. Hence the list of names posted on Steel1943's page tonight... For the record, I am not a member of DrChrissy's gang - should any such gang in fact exist, or otherwise. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no gang....Honestly! Please can we drop any reference to this complete falsehood or the IP hopping Troll will pop up again creating work for us all. ...and I for one am on the verge of leaving wikipedia bcause of the sustained and unwarranted attention.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to Kurt Shaped Box's very peculiar assertion, I would like to counter-assert that, for the record, I am not a member of Kurt Shaped Box's gang - should any such gang in fact exist, or otherwise. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I returned the Talking bird (mimic) article to the base name again, and move-protected it for 2 weeks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CYl7EPTEMA777 has been causing a large number of problems at a few articles. He/She has a poor grasp of English (see for example). This editor has accused a number of editors of being sock puppets of each other, with no evidence for example, oh and in that same edit he or she has edited another user's comments on an AFD. He or she has used non helpful or descriptive edit summaries such as . There is a complete lack of civility (the user continually calls user DrChrissy 'DogChrissy' which stokes me as uncivil , or see . I propose an indefinite block, there is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE and this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, user DrChrissy was also threatened with "unlimited ban" by CYl7EPTEMA777 . Additionally, Johnuniq was individually accused of sock-puppetry on an earlier occasion . CYl7EPTEMA777 admitted that their English was too poor to write a full article alone , but ignored advice from other users after writing up a draft in their sandbox, which they went on to publish. Also, having been accused of being in cahoots with DrChrissy and other editors, I would like to go on record saying I have had no contact with the other editors involved with the exception of our discussion on public talk pages related to the Talking bird dispute. It's not really clear to me what CYl7EPTEMA777's intentions are, but regardless of whether or not they are trying to be constructive, they do not seem willing to cooperate with other editors. ~ Boomur 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to recommend. CYl7EPTEMA777 does not have enough English to participate adequately, and it's hard to tell whether that may explain the inappropriate commentary on other editors. However, one helpful thing done by CYl7EPTEMA777 is that they have not attempted to restore attacks on another editor made by an IP hopper—attacks that I and others have removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

After looking over their edits, they appear to have competency issues and I believe serious behavioral issues Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CYl7EPTEMA777. I am One of Many (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See the thread farther down: I've blocked CYl7EPTEMA777 indef for a repeat of the behavior outlined in this thread and for other issues, including implicit endorsement of attacks from the Australian IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Misleading RfC wording

I don't know if this is the right place to post this.
An admin hastily started an RfC on the Battle for Berlin's talk page without asking me or the user I was debating with for any input on how it should be worded or even if we wanted to have an RfC at all.
He (or she?) has left out important issues I brought up regarding sources and violations of wiki policies.
Currently, it looks as if a well sourced fact is being challenged by a fringe source, which is far from the truth.
When I participated in disputes that required an RfC before, the admin asked both sides about how it should be formulated and there were also drafts.
In this case, the admin refuses to change anything for the RfC wording.
I don't know how he came across the dispute in this article (he also reverted my changes) or if this was done on purpose on behalf of the user I was arguing with (who had three reverts in less than 15 hours).
What should I do to get a fair RfC? -YMB29 (talk)

Given that the admin, Diannaa, came out of no where to revert my edits, start the RfC, and then proceeded to comment against my position in the RfC, it does look like Diannaa reverted and created the misleading RfC on behalf of PBS (the user I was disputing with). -YMB29 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa may or may not have formulated the best wording for the RfC but the way to deal with that is through the bullet point guidance in the WP:RFC:Suggestions for responding (a bullet point I helped draft)

• If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.

Bringing a complaint to ANI is inappropriate. Further your accusation "it does look like Diannaa reverted and created the misleading RfC on behalf of PBS (the user I was disputing with)" is both a breach of assume good faith and factually inaccurate (I am one of many who have disputed the issue with you on the talk page of the article to date not one person has spoken in support of your position). It also implies that Diannaa have colluded we have not.

Your edit history shows that since 17:49, 16 January 2014 you have made between about 250 edits all but one of them about changing the wording in the Battle of Berlin article. About a year ago you became simmaly myopic over Continuation War where you were singled out by a frustrated editor (Thomas.W) on 25 February 2013 to read certain guidelines including Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing (see here). During Continuation War dispute you brought a similar appeal to AN and were ignored Request to change RfC result (13 March 2013)

Your repeated Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing in this area could easily end up with a topic ban on all articles about the Eastern Front in World War II.

I too have spent far too much time arguing with you on talk:Battle of Berlin and more recently reverting your changes for with there is no consensus for the biased wording you wish to add. But to show you that I am not being hypocritical about this: that I am not obsessed with the issue as you appear to be -- since the 16 Jan I have made many edits to many pages and for example have created more than 60 articles that have nothing to do with World War II, (many but not all of the article are geographic stubs with in Belgium and France, and Napoleonic War officer stubs -- because I am constructing an large detailed article on the advance of Coalition armies into Germany during the Waterloo Campaign and for that I need the location of places (see {{Coord}}) and short biographies on the actors in the campaign who do not already have biographies). -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming abit contentious. @YMB29: You might consider disengaging. Misplaced Pages doesn't have a deadline. Take a breather and it'll be there when you get back. Diannaa modified it adding a third option that was your suggestion. Everything you wanted added other than that you could have added as has been pointed out to you multiple times. If this is stressing you out so badly consider concentrating on one of the other 4 million plus articles for a while until you are less stressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to state that there's been no off-wiki communication between myself and PBS. The reason I opened the RFC is because I've had good success with its use in solving content disputes on other articles. My actions on this article are as an editor only, not as an administrator, as I have edited the article in the past and am thus involved. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Useitorloseit

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

Do we have any mop holders who want to volunteer to follow this editor around and tell them not to stick their finger in a light socket? or do we just let them stick their finger in the socket and quietly inter the remains? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is just about WP:BLPCRIME? The subject of this BLP blogs himself about his arrest, but there is no secondary or third party source to confirm that he was ever convicted? Per BLPCRIME this would suggest that it ought not to be included. However, I can see that the significance of the incident may be larger than the incident itself: the topics he writes about, the history of his education, involvement in any issues that touch on life in a particular neighbour if you are a particular ethnic background, etc. may make the incident significant in his development. It could, I suppose, be included as a directly attributed comment from the subject that he got in trouble at school, and then as an attributed comment rather than a "fact" would it fall outside BLP?

In the mean time, to address your question, the user is certainly operating against current consensus and bordering on WP:POINT. The trouble is, everyone is involved. The content issue in my first paragraph is for discussion somewhere other than AN/I. The basic disruption, well. I might message the user. --S.G. _ping! 13:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left the user a message, possibly in the mould of WP:ADOPT I could discuss calmly with him the ins and outs of the situation, without the user resorting to ironing out the issues while wielding the revert button on the article, while the rest of us wield the ban-hammer around the place (note: I'm not being critical of anyone, just using colourful metaphors!) I think there is a point of BLPCRIME that I alluded to above that I'd like to work through with this user. S.G. _ping! 13:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2024 Manila Olympics

2024 Manila Olympics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inappropriate (promotional?) username with an inappropriate userpage, creating inappropriate articles, considering the 2024 Games have not been awarded to any country and will not until 2017. Not sure if this requires a block, speedy of the userpage, MFD, username change or all of the above. §FreeRangeFrog 05:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for title blacklist override

(please  mention me on reply) Not sure where to request this. Can someone create the following redirects?

• Lᵖ → Lp space {{R from Unicode}}
• ℓᵖ → Sequence space#ℓp spaces {{R from Unicode}} {{R to section}}

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist seems to dislike the "ᵖ" character. Keφr 06:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (Yay, my first post to ANI!)

@Kephir:  Done. 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, Lᵖ space and ℓᵖ space could be created as well. Keφr 09:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kephir:  Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over use of a celebrities' talk page

So many of you recall the conversation that was here regarding photos (an aerial photo I took) of the range. Well the user and I had some harsh words and it escalated rather quickly, then resolved itself as quickly as it started but it seemed to gain me WPPilot a new stalker Hijiri88 Talk:Daniel_Catullo#COI_editing and I do not know what to do now. I simply went back to uploading my many years of photos and it would seem that Hijiri88 did not like something about a story I contributed photos to in 2010 and 2012 for Producer Daniel Catullo and he has turned this mans talk page into a personal war upon me. I have tried to take this personal conversation and his attack to his talk page, as it has no business on Catullo page, but he seems dead set on pushing this into yet another fight. I can understand it for the life of me. He discovered that his discovery was something that was already well known and he scaled up his use of this personal talk page to attack me. I have tried to be nice and explain in detail but I can no longer continue, this has gone on for a week now over my donating a Aerial photo of a mountain range and it seems this user Hijiri88 is going to continue regardless of what anyone says. I am at a loss of what to do. This user has already been banned once before and seems to be, based upon his editorial history to be simply picking a fight and he is determined to do it on the talk page of a celebrity. WPPilot talk WPPilot 07:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that I merely questioned whether the article read like a promotional piece. User:ChrisGualtieri agreed. I had my comments deleted from the page (with some "charming" edit summaries), received this somewhat threatening message, and now I am getting called a "stalker". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: bit of a note: Dc3director = Daniel Catullo. The connection was already revealed prior and the fact that Daniel Catullo is the Dc3 Director is self-noted. With that being said, I tried to fix the issues, but I ran into this mess. Personally, I'm not even a native Japanese speaker but "良い一日を" is probably more sarcastic/rude in Japanese than it is in English. WPPilot means well, but its not the photos that are the problem - never was. You don't see me tooting my own horn for getting a spot in Guinness, but I think some of the claims here are quite stretched to the limits on clever wording or technicalities. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a far cry from what he says above. .WPPilot talk

I have been challenged for over a week now and it has worn thin. For the most part I try to contribute photos and not be bothered here, I don't care to post on Ani boards and I NEVER pick fights with people, I don't understand this guy. He decided to challenge me and picked me out on the talk page of a celebrity and has been waging a war upon me all day. I have been more then cordial and more then once provided detailed perspective that he only ignores and picks a fight regarding the words that he feels are in need of being posted upon on Catullos Talk page. He has in fact a hand full of accounts and has a history of confrontation with other users. WPPilot talk 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

over a week I commented in your,earlier ANI thread once, less than two days ago. When my comment was followed by a rather strange one from an SPA, both myself and (I think) User:The Bushranger noticed. I found that SPAs other edits were all to a very poorly-written and poorly-sourced BLP article that read like a promotional piece and had a disproportionate number of photographs. I noticed that virtually every editor of the article seemed to be connected to the subject. This was last night (16 or 17 hours ago). I can't help but feel like I'm getting peripheral anger that was meant for User:Beyond My Ken or someone else. The title of this thread, a reference to a dispute in which I was barely involved, seems to verify this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User :ChrisGualtieri never did anything of the sort, in fact he told this guy to chill out and that I was well meaning, yet he just continues to attack me, publicly on the talk page of a Oscar nominated producer. I KNOW Catullo's is going to freak out when he sees this. WPPilot talk 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I also posted a request from him asking what is was he was trying to do, he simply removed it. Placing things that have already ben resolved upon the talk page of a celebrity is simply not the way to communicate with someone. He has simply pointed out that a ID was traced back to Mr Catullo, and that was made clear to him by the user he seems to think was supporting his attack on me. These type of conversations belong on user talk pages, not on project pages.WPPilot talk 07:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris agreed with me that the article has severe problems, and that you mean well. I have never said that you didn't mean well. Please point to one instance, one instance where I impugned your good faith or attacked Mr. Catullo. You will not be able to find one, because it doesn't exist. Chris didn't tell me to chill out, but I think someone really needs to tell you to chill out.

(And what do the Academy Awards have to do with any of this?)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You are attacking me & my words with assumptions regarding your perceptions of what you thought the words meant to you, on a celebrity talk page. I asked you over and over what you were trying to accomplish and you removed my remarks and went back on attacking my words on Dan's talk page: you were badgering me about 1) The use of the name Dan 2) You did not like me calling you sir (out of respect) 3) in spite of the fact that you signature has Japanese character's in it, when I told you to have a nice day, (in Japanese) you claimed I was being rude as Japanese is not native to me?????. What on earth does that have to do with Daniel Catullo and WHY do you think it belongs on the talk page about him? This has nothing to do with anyone other the YOU, sir. You have yet to respond in any way to what I posted in reply to your "Discovery, DC3director=Daniel Catullo" that you started by calling me out for taking some pics of this guy. You pointed out some users that, years ago seem to be in your view connected and you digressed the conversation, on the talk page about HIM, to a battle over the words I use out of respect for others. Why is it that you feel the need to air a dispute that had NOTHING to do with Mr Catullo, on Mr Catullos talk page? What are you trying to accomplish. Lastly "what do the Academy Awards have to do with any of this"? Well if I was a Oscar nominated producer and some stranger from Japan decided to wage a war upon another editor on my page just after the awards I would be livid, as I am sure he will be when he sees your comments and personal attacks upon me for using words that you decided were designed to be inflammatory in some way......... You should have use my or your own talk pages, not on Dans page.

talk WPPilot 14:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Will the both of you stop this and let other people respond? At this point, its just two well-meaning editors bumping heads. I don't think WPPilot was making a legal threat, but the response was not great and Hijiri88 sees the SPAs and the COI. The page was a mess and I abandoned last year because of the theatrics over trying to fix it. It was even more promotional in the past, but Catullo likely meets the notability barrier. While I personally do not think that the notability is really his own; the fact that an award is given to the crew stands. I don't know where is the best place to resolve the page's actual issues, but it used to be a big puff piece. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot, I don't know where to start. The fact that you refer to the subject of Daniel Catullo as "Mr Catullo" or "Dan" demonstrates to me that you feel some closeness to the subject. This opinion is reinforced when I see the messages you've posted to User talk:Daniel Catullo where you are very deferential to him and so you are likely protective of article on him. Also, Talk:Daniel Catullo is not "Dans page", it is Misplaced Pages's page. As long as editors abide by WP:BLP, WP:NOTCENSORED holds and I think Catullo's opinion of a talk page discussion is irrelevant until the moment he wants to participate in it.

I think it's clear that you acting overly protective of this article (would you behave the same about an article on a different person?) but I don't know that it's a COI that would totally prevent you for editing the article. But you should at least acknowledge to yourself that you are not approaching editing this article as you would if you had never met the man. You need some detachment. Liz 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• At what point does detachment come for someone in my shoes. Under the threshold you establish (use of the name of a person in a personal manner) that makes me attached to someone, then I guess I am attached to everyone... In regards to this article the user starts out in his post regarding COI with my name WPPilot and then goes on the hammer my use of the English language. I have not edited the Daniel Catullo page for a while, I just watch it along with the other 200 or so places that my pictures sit upon. As I have mentioned before I as a "Professional Photographer" have been to a lot of places, and was lucky enough to meet many people. For example just in the last few days I have loaded photos for many notable people, whom, without "Knowing" these people, I would have never been able to get near them. As far as Catullo, over a year ago, as the result of the questioning of his reference about the World Record & him having some award, I went up took photos at his studio and did meet him. Did we drink beers and shoot pool, no. Did he give me squat for driving up to his place spending my money on gas and such, yes I got nada, zilch nothing well, I think I might have had one of his redbulls. Does that make us buddies? I took his pictures, he showed me his awards, his studio and introduced me to his staff. Paul Allen did the same thing at the launch of SpaceShipOne. He even invited me into his Jet for Coffee, so, do I know him? No. My problem here was that a user was using Mr. Catullo's page to attack my words, do you think that is the proper place for the user to express his incorrectly implied thoughts about what I really meant in the use of words that are a normal part of my vocabulary. Catullo is a nice guy and, when we spoke, at his ofice he was clearly concerned about the propensity of Misplaced Pages to be subject to vandals that post unsavory things about him. With that in mind his talk page was not the place for the current conversation. I did tell Catullo that I would "place a watch" on his page. I did that and about a month ago on my way back from the Bahamas I got a number of them on a lay over in Dallas, Texas. I looked at the page, the allegations words were disturbing so I fixed it and moved on to the stuff I am working on now. NASCAR the lead photo is my photo, I was close to the race track as you can see, and I have posted it on the race tracks page. Would it be OK for another user to come and start attacking my use of English, in that if I use on format or the other of a persons name I know him, or if I am nice to them and call them sir, its perfectly ok to attack the word sir, in the discussion on the NASCAR talk page, or does it go to our own talk pages? I thought that it was funny really that the user from Japan got mad at me for using Japanese. I have "by the invitation of the Imperial Household Agency in Tokyo", been into the Inner grounds of the Imperial palace, and those photos were the first photos I ever loaded to Misplaced Pages over 4 years ago. To have the user get mad at me for being nice in what looks to be HIS native language was just outright silly, was it not? The user for whatever reason uses Japanese in his own sig, yet if a non native speaker uses it, attack him about how you think. weird to me. I am going back to uploading more photos. This is Hollywood and, well, as you have pointed out, I am friends with everyone, Cheers! talkWPPilot 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

BetterThanSuchAsYou here to help?

Take 2 - We have an editor (User talk:BetterThanSuchAsYou) that despite a previous block for editwaring and the concerns raised by multiple editors by way of reverts and talk page discussions is still adding the exact same content over and over at Culture of Canada and Template:Culture of Canada sidebar. Its very concerning that they are claiming consensus with edit summaries like "pls we have a discussion here with most of the contributors being agreeable to this & that's where we're working it through" and "mplementing outcome that pornography be not classified under 'arts'" yet there is no such outcome. What can be done here? Do we just keep reverting every day or can real action be taken here? Is this person here to help.... Culture of Canada: Revision history. -- Moxy (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite re-adding the same content over and over several times he/she only edited the talk page of the article once, with no consensus whatsoever. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor helped generate a lively and (in my opinion) interesting discussion on the talk page of the article, so what they should have done was participate in the discussion or at least wait for a consensus to be reached before implementing changes. Continuously re-adding the material while discussion is ongoing is disruptive, and they've breached WP:3RR, so I've blocked them for 48 hours. I'll leave a note that if they promise to stop re-adding the content, and especially if they want to participate in the discussion, I'll consider unblocking them, otherwise they will stay blocked for a couple of days while the discussion proceeds. I can't quite tell if they're here to improve the encyclopedia, maybe this will help show it. -- Atama頭 19:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of NFCC

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

Censorshipwiki (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added non-free media to User:Censorshipwiki/ Ultras Dynamo in violation of WP:NFCC#9. They where warned several times and have refused to communicate. At this point a block is needed until the user confirms that they will abide by NFCC#9. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Salt Warx2 please

Hello, could an Admin please delete and SALT Warx2... It's being recreated too many times recently by Guputa1111 (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppet Lioness00 (talk · contribs). I have opened up a SPI case too. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to speedily delete the film in its current state. It's not overly promotional, it doesn't contain information copied from the production company's web site, it credibly asserts importance, etc. I doubt it would survive AfD but you'd have to start (another) one first. If deleted via AfD, any recreation could be speedily deleted per G4.

As for sockpuppetry, that's a whole different issue altogether. -- Atama頭 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:It was at AfD already, AfD and the result was Speedy Delete. JMHamo (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, the AfD was canceled because the article was eligible for speedy deletion at that time, since it was basically a copy of the web site. Afterwards, the article was recreated with original language so that it was ineligible. If the AfD had concluded as usual then further recreation of the page that didn't address the concerns at the AfD would be eligible for a G4 speedy deletion (recreation of a page deleted via discussion) and persistent recreation would probably necessitate salting it. But if an article is recreated and changed to no longer have the same problems it had before, then speedy deletion isn't an available option.

I think the article should be deleted, if no AfD is started I'll probably start one myself. It looks like someone using Misplaced Pages to promote their film, to try to generate attention by having it here, which is backwards; something must be notable first before it merits an article. -- Atama頭 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you send it to AfD again then please. Thank you! JMHamo (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been done. -- Atama頭 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

86.27.22.111

Please review/block Special:Contributions/86.27.22.111. Thanks. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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

Dear administrators, I hereby request a ban on User:Gįs Contismalter for the following reasons:

• Personal attacks. (please see the image file attached)
• Constant edit-warring, trolling and vandalism of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

User:Gįs Contismalter has repeatedly showed vandalizing behaviour by maliciously adding false information to an article knowingly it is not true, getting involved in edit wars with other editors (violating the WP:3RR in the process), while ignoring instructions / advice given by an (involved) administrator, User:Mjroots.

Please take this matter into consideration. Thank you. --Mark Chung (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The user has been blocked indefinitely by User:DragonflySixtyseven. Mark, I'd recommend filing a complaint at Commons also if you haven't done so yet (unless there's a Commons admin reading this who can also take appropriate action there). --Kinu /_c 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

might I make a request to look at the other 2 people too (User:Kage Acheron and User:Thecodingproject).they kept removing each others post and "fighting" to be honest it was an absolute mess. should I drop them a note about this post? Redalert2fan (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I was only trying to undo the vandalism and call Gis out on his unsourced claims and inconsistencies. I apologize for any mess created or problems caused. Kage Acheron (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Having taken a break for several years, I am now unfamiliar with the procedures of reporting to a Commons admin. Can you please show me how I should so it? Thanks. --Mark Chung (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it's been done for you. Images deleted and Gįs has been blocked on Commons. --Kinu /_c 21:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's beyond me why not such displayed level of malevolene does not lead to immediate permanent block, rather than indefinite.Arildnordby (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but permanent and indefinite both mean forever, or am I missing something ? Redalert2fan (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, "indefinite" is "permanent, unless you are able to convince Misplaced Pages you've changed"Arildnordby (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So I did misunderstand it, well thank you for clarifying. It totally agree with you, however im getting a little off topic now. Redalert2fan (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Olympics Figure Skating Pages

This relates to the following 2 pages:-

1. Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics

2. Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

These 2 pages contain large amounts of opinion related content pertaining to the outcome of the ladies figure skating competition at the 2014 Olympics. Essentially, it is the view of supporters of the skater, Kim Yuna, that Kim Yuna should have won - not Adelina Sotnikova (the actual winner). Unfortunately, Kim Yuna has a considerable number of highly extreme supporters (known as "Yunabots"). Since the Olympic ladies competition, these Yunabots (90% of whom are from Kim Yuna's home country of South Korea) have gone to extreme lengths to try and get the result overturned (unsuccessfully). These activities have included death threats, extreme abuse targeted at Adelina Sotnikova herself and Russia as a country, and other highly obnoxious behaviour.

In terms of the 2 pages referred to above, they have essentially been hijacked by Yunabots. They contain a considerable amount of pro-Kim Yuna related opinion which quite clearly breaches wikipedia neutral POV policies. The two pages in question were compiled specifically as a results page as you will note from the equivalent pages from the 2010 Olympics (Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics & Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles). As a results based page, they are not supposed to contain opinion related content. Normally, where there are controversial results, a separate page would be created (i.e. in this case, for example, it could be something like: "The 2014 Olympics Ladies Figure Skating controversy"). with appropriate links to other relevant pages. That would separate out the controversy from the results pages. As a figure skating fan, I find the results pages invaluable - but they should not be contaminated by the controversy, which can addressed separately elsewhere.

Although there should be a separate page dealing with the controversy, the page would still need to conform to wikipedia standards in terms of a neutral point of view (i.e. well sourced, and containing both sides of the argument). At the moment, its all been hijacked by the Yunabots as they have been conducting a highly aggressive campaign and have removed all opposing points of view. Hence, clearly, the page would need to be well monitored.

In terms of the 2 results pages, to keep them as purely results pages, I think the controversial content should be removed and transferred to the new page in question (with the content in the new page rewritten to conform to wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements). I think the results pages should then be locked for a period until the attempts by Yunabots to hijack the pages abates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthatpenguin (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've refactored your message to include wikilinks instead of URLs. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be glib, Wheresthatpenguin, but is there anything stopping you from removing that content and creating a new Misplaced Pages article for the "controversy" content? Admins can respond to your request to protect the page but I think few will volunteer to rewrite an article and you clearly know a lot about the subject. I say, bring up the subject on the article talk page and go for it! These fans of Yuna may disagree about the content but they might not object to a separate article from the results page. Liz 00:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to create a controversy fork, see Misplaced Pages:Content forking and Misplaced Pages:Criticism. Users should discuss on the talkpage and hopefully come to some sort of consensus. I see Discospinster is watching the articles, fortunately, and has blocked one revert warrior. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

Ban evasion; COI; Legal threats; Not assuming good faith.

IP editor 92.90.17.13 claiming to be subject of BLP article (Rachel Marsden) is avoiding a previous block for legal threats (see #Legal threat by IP user claiming to subject of an article above). See edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I believe that this is a block evasion, not the "ban evasion" of your title. Secondly, although I haven't yet digested these edits in full, they seem to be amicable and constructive; the author seems to be the person she claims to be; and (putting aside WP's policies and guidelines for a moment) it seems extraordinary not to allow a biographee to make suggestions on the talk page of the article about herself -- an article that she (or more strictly speaking the person claiming to be her) still wishes would just disappear. I'm not going to revert your deletion, but this is something a previously uninvolved administrator might consider doing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the exact procedure, but if she is the subject of an article and she has concerns about its content, she should contact WMF, not edit the article. Liz 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the block evasion (which I don't know anything about) subjects of the article can still edit their own article. As long as they are not adding content that is promotional or where they stand to gain financially from the content. But this appears to simply be someone making suggestions on the talk page and that is more than acceptable. However it has been easier for the subject to simply contact an admin or other editor to seek assistance in regards to content that either is a BLP issue or that they can help identify the accurate information. We should be sensitive to the subject...trust me.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my misuse of ban vs block. Regardless, this user was blocked last night for legal threats. You can view that IP editor's edits to see they also claimed to be Rachel Marsden. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And while serious, the legal threat can be (and hopefully will be) unambiguously retracted.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the OTRS team but I've seen recent mention of an OTRS reference in a context that suggested that she was the writer. I've no idea what the ticket said (and don't want to know), but I think that yes she's using the other channels that are available. As Mark Miller points out, she's not attempting to edit the article about her; she is attempting to influence it. The long, deleted comment makes clear an inference of bad faith in one other, specified editor; I'm not happy about this, but it doesn't obviously go further than what that editor was told directly by a admin (not me) only a few hours ago. I don't think it's be a good idea for a biographee to appeal to a particular admin for problems that aren't humdrum, because there could easily be the suspicion that the particular admin was chosen for a particular reason. ¶ Meanwhile, I've started to look through the points in the deleted comment. I've edited the article where/how I think appropriate. I'm soon going to pause, and I encourage some other editor who's experienced, disinterested and neutral to take over. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be much more than requesting accurate information be added or contentious material removed and I believe you are absolutely right that any editor or admin assisting in the manner I mentioned (which would be best for simpler issues) would be viewed with suspicion and that could create unneeded drama.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

what, specifically, was the legal threat? --SB_Johnny | ✌ 00:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears the subject claims litigation is ongoing. That would need clarification that such has ended before any block would be reversed I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can be found here: Talk:Rachel_Marsden#Message_from_the_article_subject_.28Rachel_Marsden.29. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor update: Whether or not I was right to read, digest, and at my discretion act upon the long comment that EvergreenFir (with a degree of good reason) deleted, it's what I was doing. But I've now paused. (Not because I think I should pause, but because I have other demands on my time.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be how I'm viewing things (and a lot of edits have been oversighted so I know I'm missing a lot of content) but what the original IP says is there is some legal action by this editor against another editor. There are no legal threats against Misplaced Pages or against anyone, just the disclosure that some legal process is ongoing. So, it's not clear to me that WP:NLT was a good basis to block this user based on what exists on the article talk page now.
I should also mention that I came across this Arbitration Committee ruling regarding this particular article that should be kept in mind: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden. Liz 03:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure that had nothing to do with her relationship with Jimbo. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Mike V has swept away the message that was the immediate prompt for this thread, and rendered it irretrievable. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was requested by Hoary to comment on this matter. Unfortunately, all I can say is that there was material that met the oversight criteria that needed to be removed. Often such material extends through multiple revisions and needs to be oversighted as well. The content relevant to this thread can be viewed on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR again...

This is the second time I am posting a notice about this user and again regarding his behavior the same pages he seems to think he owns. The discussion spans for almost over two months now, main contentious issue being wheter Kingdom of Croatia was in personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary or not. There are large number of sources confirming the view of the mainstream historiography (both Croatian and Hungarian) that the personal union is in fact the best way to describe the relationship. There are also 5-6 sources which mention the dispute but they all also affirm that there was some kind of union whether it be personal or dynastic union or something else, but nevertheless that Croatia was not part of Hungary but a separate legal entity with large amount of autonomy. There is also a source which explicitly states that the view of mainstream Hungarian legal historiography is that Croatia and Hungary were in personal union, most similar to that of England and Scotland prior to Act of Union 1707. Now we achieved some sort of compromise by removing the wording personal from personal union only leaving union as an ambiguous term. I have personally made notes, linked the term union to List of personal unions#Croatia (disputed) and the other user (User:Tzowu) recently introduced a small link under it leading directly to the section elaborating on the matter. Needless to say all don't seem to satisfy the said user besides his own and only his own POV. Neither lead paragraph nor the status in the infobox mentioned personal union in any manner whatsoever. That somehow again provoked DIREKTOR and now he considers even that contentious and started another edit-war on both Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Croatia in the union with Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), completely reverting all changes without any valid discussion prior and certainly by no consensus. Now the other user is not completely innocent in all this (I personally have backed down almost two months ago now) but it should be clear that it is the user in question here that I consider is the main solicitor of these recent events and edit-wars. He even resorts to blatant sockpuppetry accusations without any proof. Also this was his reaction when I warned him about WP:EW on his page and he then proceeded to post this as some sort of retaliation or whatever he thinks he was doing there. The reason why I am posting in here is because I am not sure whether this belongs under WP:3RR or just blatant violation of WP:ARBMAC. Only by looking in how many disputes this user has been and how many times he was reported here I believe it should be about time someone actually does something about this users blatant WP:OWN, WP:HEAR and his constant Edit Warring all over the place. Shokatz (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Direktor and the other editor he was edit warring with were reported to WP:ANEW and I blocked both before I saw this thread. My block should not be taken as an indirect endorsement of this complaint. Salvio 13:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dbrodbeck

, , , , , , , , , - vandalism,distruptive editing,trolling, and - infinity cruel and absurd trolling,harassment and , attempt indefinite block me (that hide animal intelligence that torture and kill animals) -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

None, none of those diffs show anything of the sort. Based on this thread, the thread above and the SPI evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CYl7EPTEMA777, I'm blocking CYl7EPTEMA777 indef for this bad-faith report, competency and general NOTHERE issues. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards