Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:43, 1 June 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• 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?

Gregory Kohs' co-conspirator

Looks like someone else is also looking to make a buck off of Misplaced Pages. See here and my response here. His response was, shall we say, less than mature.

This earlier edit to his User Page is also, shall we say, telling. If he's so unhappy with not making any money here, perhaps someone can assist him in moving on to where he'd be happier? --Calton | Talk 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What a weirdo. Is there any reason to have that link around? Could we blacklist it? Grandmasterka 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I like how you refuted his points one by one, as he apparently asked you to, and then he couldn't respond with more than arm-flailing and childish attacks. Good work. Grandmasterka 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe a note at the spam blacklist page -- which I'll have to hunt around for, first -- is in order. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think either Centiare or Gregory Kohs should have an article, given the notability afforded by the Washington Post and others. --A. B. 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The very slender reed of a single -- or even more than one -- newspaper mention is nothing to hang an actual article on, whatever grasping at straws Kohs or his helpers engage in. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, A.B., I personally know someone (& who has attended all of the Wikimanias so far) who has been doing exactly what Kohs wants to make a killing from -- but the Misplaced Pages article on his company was placed on WP:AfD. His Wiki is also one of the ten top Wiki sites according to this person, too. So I'd be surprised if Kohs is the subject of an article in Misplaced Pages soon. -- llywrch 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is just another sucker taken in by Kohs, who is very charming and persuasive when he wants to be. Kohs' project looks to be dead in the water, despite his undoubted SEO skills, so I can see why he is desperate for links from Misplaced Pages. He can get lost. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I know several people who have been mentioned in newspapers and been on TV, can I make articles about them?</sarcasm> This guy's just trolling; I think a short block would be good, and if he keeps on going, indefblock. (Revert, block, ignore trolls.) · AndonicO 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to Meta, but Kohs has popped up to dispute my nomination and the admin there doesn't seem to really understand the history or be convinced by the evidence of linkspamming. Some more opinions there would be helpful. --Calton | Talk 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, despite yet another warning, User:Andman8 still figures spamming is OK. I'm sensing a slow-motion limits-testing. --Calton | Talk 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

is anyone monitoring his recent changes? because he could be blocked if he spams again. it's getting a little annoying.--Camelcast 10:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Marioemily101 Chronic Edit Warring

User has an extensive history of vandalism and edit warring, first in List of best-selling video games and most recently in Insane Clown Posse. User has made a habit of "correcting" already well-sourced material, and has displayed hostility when edits are restored to their sourced versions. User has been warned against 3RR violation and edit warring. Though user is not currently in violation of 3RR (edits are more than 24hrs apart) the user has persisted in altering data that has been accurately sourced in the database of RIAA album certifications even after having been warned.--Rosicrucian 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur; this user is being disruptive on Insane Clown Posse. - Merzbow 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User now been issued level 2 and level 3 warnings for introducing incorrect information into the article, with the edit pattern continuing.--Rosicrucian 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, admittedly belatedly, I've restarted discussion on the article's talkpage in hopes of keeping this civil. We've discussed this on the talkpage before, but that was prior to this user actively editing on the article. We'll see if that works out, I guess.--Rosicrucian 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He continues to edit war, ignoring all attempts at discussion. Can an admin drop him a note? - Merzbow 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike18xx (talk · contribs)

Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive editor who frequently engages in incivility, tendentious editing, and edit warring, as demonstrated by his block log. he has shown complete disdain for Misplaced Pages policy for well over a year now, and he continues unabated- with recent incivility (i.e. , , , , , , ), edit warring (for which he was blocked recently, please see his contributions post-block), tendentious editing (i.e. , ). he also refers to me abusively as "Intaqallah", both on- (, ) and off-wiki, the latter being when he was unashamedly soliciting meatpuppets to "vote-away" in an AfD and edit war on select articles, in the interests of gaming Misplaced Pages. he does not heed the warnings given to him by multiple administrators, and his talk page is testament to that. ITAQALLAH 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do about it? Viridae 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

whatever you deem reasonable in ceasing the personal attacks, incivility, and other inappropriate behaviour. i do request some sort of intervention, apologies if i wasn't specific with that. ITAQALLAH 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Itaqallah should cool down a bit. He himself reverts at least as much as Mike18xx, and misspellings of his user name such as "Intaqallah" can hardly be seen as "abusive", unless one is somehow very focused on finding "reasons" for making allegations of "personal attacks". If Itaqallah (better check that again for typo's, or it will come back hard on me it seems...), is so sensitive about how other editors spell his user name, then perhaps he could choose a new more common English user name, that other editors are more likely to remember the spelling of. This being said, Itaqallah has been extremely active in his attempts to get users that disagree with his personal opinions removed and banned from the English Misplaced Pages, and among other things he has previously made attempts to get me banned from at least parts of the 'pedia . Perhaps Itaqallah should try to work with other editors instead of harassing them with his constant attempts to get them banned. For now it seems that he haven't made a single contribution to Mike's discussion page, except for a couple of templates regarding an image. In my opinon, Itaqallah should consider actually working with people, instead of harassing them with requests about them get banned. -- Karl Meier 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue is more serious than "Itaqallah should consider actually working with people" Karl. My main concern would not be Mike 18xx's uncivility or his 9 times blocks, mainly for uncivility, but solliciting meatpuppets. This issue re solliciting meatpuppets at Faith Freedom International blog has been discussed a couple of months ago here at the AN/I and now it is getting disruptive with Tauphon (talk · contribs) as well. So action needs to be taken. I cannot do anythng as i've been involved in a debate w/ Mike in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikiislam (conflict of interests?) and probably my action would not be appropriate as my username would be a "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname" for Mike 18xx. So which is important? "Itaqallah needing to work better w/ others" or all these disruptions and uncivility? Meatpuppeting should stop once and for all and Mike 18xx should consider actually working with people in a civil manner. -- FayssalF - 13:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see why it should be a problem that an editor go to a website that he has created an article about, and mention this on the sites forum. The users of the websites is likely to be some of the best informed people regarding what perhaps makes it notable, and their input might very well be useful in the process of determining whether or not it is indeed notable and should be kept or deleted. Another fact is that the point about soliciting meat-puppets doesn't make sense either. First, an AfD is not a vote, it is a debate, second, any "votes" from new and/or unregistered contributers doesn't count. It doesn't make sense to blame him for the actions of Tauphon. Mike, like all other editors is only responsible for his own actions, and he has as far as I know never supported him in any wrong doing anywhere. Any speculations about what might have motivated him to come here is also only just that; Speculations that is entirely irrelevant to Mike's good standing on Misplaced Pages. What I frankly more worried about is Itaqallah's obvious stalking of editors outside Misplaced Pages, where he take it upon himself to monitor various forum's for comments made by Wikipedians, in order to attack them here. As you properly know, this is not the first time he has used the results of his off-site monitoring efforts to attack people here. As for his comments regarding your surname, I'd wish he haven't done that. As an administrator that actually seems to genuinely care about remaining reasonably neutral, I don't think you deserve to have such accusations and suspicions raised against you. I don't know if he has already apologized for it, but perhaps he will do the right thing if you ask him? As for his block log, I believe it is also important to notice that he has only been blocked one time the last eight months, and that was for a 3RR. The other issues in the block-log seems to be mostly a thing of the past. I believe the best solution would be that Itaqallah give up his project monitoring editors outside Misplaced Pages and end his constant attempts to have editors disagree with banned. Mike should on the other hand be more careful about what he accuses people off in heated moments and remember that this is against policy. It would properly help to clean the air a lot if he admit that he was wrong about making such accusations and insinuations. -- Karl Meier 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you've noted from my words, all i ask from Mike 18xx is to behave in a civil manner and avoid controversies. He's just not a newbie. We don't have to waste our time arguing about matpuppeting. It is just highly inappropriate according to the policy. We don't have to waste our time arguing about Mike 18xx meatpuppeting: Everyone please attend to the revert war on Misplaced Pages's FFI page concerning Intaqalla's repeated attempts to marginalize and POV the WikiIslam section. All I need are one or two people to revert. Please also keep track of whether or not Intaqalla violates Misplaced Pages's 3RR policy. So as you see, the solliciting isn't limited to votes but to edit warring and game the system to get someone else blocked for 3RR. Noway!

As for my username, i just don't need an apology as it doesn't matter if someone calls me X or "my mamma". He is invited to read these quotes.

• "We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box." - Anon.
• "They stick you with those names, those labels -- ‘rebel’ or whatever; whatever they like to use. Because they need a label; they need a name. They need something to put the price tag on the back of." - Johnny Depp -- FayssalF - 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl, i don't really have the time to deal with much of what you wrote about me - not only is much of it pretty fanciful, you certainly are not an impartial party here given our history. you noted that Mike had only one block in the past eight months. that would appear reasonable, were it not for the fact he went on a hiatus in October, returning days before he was blocked again. you employ an incredible amount of spin to downplay Mike's soliciting of meatpuppets, gross incivility, and his deliberate baiting, yet you appear quite eager to take pot-shots at my own person for issues which you have blown out of proportion. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah: I am sure that you don't have much time replying to comments about your stalking and endless attempts to have editors that disagree with your personal opinions banned. Tracking down Wikipedian's down off-site must be a time consuming business. It is true that Mike18xx was not very active on Misplaced Pages during a few months, and it is also true that he was "welcomed" back by you with sometimes sarcastic comment such as "having trouble logging in Mike?". Anyway, you don't have to reply to my comments. You just have to end your crusade to have editors disagreeing with your personal opinions banned. -- Karl Meier 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF: To post what was posted at that forum is of course the most appropriate one can think of, but at the same time I believe off site staking of Wikipedian's is something that much worse. I believe it is something that can really discourage a lot people from editing here. I still remember BhaiSaab who took his off-site stalking as far as calling the workplace of a person that he disagreed with. The intend of his off-site stalking I believe was to drive people he disagreed with away from the site, just like Itaqallah use his off-site "investigations" to get rid of people that he disagree with. -- Karl Meier 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier, it should go without saying that off-wiki solicitation of meatpuppetry is inappropriate, and I see nothing wrong with Itaqallah keeping an eye on it. Can you blame him, seeing as he's been twice been specifically identified as an enemy editor? Soliciting meatpuppetry is bad enough, but urging FFI participants to scrutinize particular editors borders on harassment, and is completely unacceptable. See WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.Proabivouac 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I had extensive interaction with him on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch (2nd nomination), and not in an exactly "allied" way - however, I never found him to be especially incivil, or in any way disruptive - rather, he just seems to be determined, outspoken, and edits with feeling. I actually quite liked discussing with him - although my opinion on the matter was eventually disagreed with by the debate, I still think my discussions with him played an important role. --Haemo 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. I picked more or less the top four contributions of his just now , , and and in my view there isn't a collegial edit in the bunch. I'm not sure this user has learned much from previous blocks. I don't think I'd care to edit in the same areas as him as it would be less than pleasant. That's the definition of a (mildly) disruptive editor if you ask me. I admit bias, I've blocked him before after he didn't heed warnings to be less disruptive in his approach. I'd support at least an admonishment that his approach is in need of changing. But of course, pure civility blocks don't often work. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that there has been an effort to resolve this dispute, a user-conduct RfC might be considered. I suppose this section qualifies as such an attempt if there has not been one already, and I urge Mike18xx to respond to it in a productive spirit.Proabivouac 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All measures should be preventive and not punitive. Following this logic, Mike 18xx should refrain from meatpuppeting and chill out in order to avoid being uncivil. If there was no meatpuppetry there would have been no off-site stalking. Anyone has the total legitimate right to follow my off-site activities which are directly related to the functioning of wikipedia. In this case, Itaqallah found out that there is a massive meatpuppetry based on the All I need are one or two people to revert strategy. Would you accept to ask people to do the same Karl? I am certain you wouldn't. This is an unacceptable thing in wikipedia. We stand firm against harming the smooth process of how stuff work here. Itaqallah doesn't go foruming, voting and disrupting the off-wiki site. Mike 18xx has been doing just that. So i don't quite understand how you legitimate Mike's actions by accusing Itaqallah of something that wikipedia has no business w/. One is free to browse any page in the net and report to wikipedia about things that could harm it. I tell those people that We don't vote and we don't count them & We do not encourage edit warring indeed- we just discuss. I'll leave the civility issues for anyone else who might be interested to discuss them with Mike. So whether he would follow out train or else he could just easily change at the next station. There are many other busy passengers as there are trains. We don't need passengers avoiding payment (come to vote once in a year) and we need our train to preserve and protect its standards so we can attract more passengers (new editors who have much more to give to this project than a single seasonal vote). Anyway, it is time for the user in question to respond. Itaqallah has already said his bit. -- FayssalF - 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please.... To paraphrase Rodney King, Can't we all just be honest? They say I'm tendentious, uncivil and distruptive -- my goodness, you'd almost think I was being accused of not getting my facts right in the articles...except I'm not being accused of that here. In fact, I'd submit that this business is going the way it's going because I am getting my facts right in the articles, and some people find it very unpleasant when a cherished belief is skewered on the spit of a reference. To boil this broth down to its essence, FayssalF and Itaqallah do not appreciate the contributions of many editors (of which I am only one) to various Islam-relating articles, and are well-versed in laying about the Administrative Cudgel to get their way. This has been going on for years, and I doubt it's going to stop anytime soon. I see little to alter my expectations that it's probably going to get worse in the future. Personal mail: I urge you to respond to them with a productive spirit, aiming to address these complaints and resolve the dispute. --Proabivouac. I receive strong indication that there will never be any satisfactory "resolution" to the "dispute" short of complete "Submission" (a double-entendre) before the concerted campaign to savage articles by bad-faith AfDing absolutely everything in sight and drawing upon their own networks of supporters to swing in and post "delete"s regardless of merit. What can't be deleted will be neutered, merged, smooshed, crunched, reverted, marginalized and mangled down into as small of a nearly invisible and innocuous a pellet as possible. Maintaining a "productive spirit" is extraordinarly difficult amidst such destruction.

You will do whatever you are going to do, and whatever the resultant effect upon article veracity is will in turn affect Misplaced Pages's credibility as a source of accurate and pertinent information in matters occupying the great void between dry scientific obscura and cartoon episode guides. Such credibility is forfeit in the blink of an eye in the internet age, and, once lost, virtually impossible to recover.--Mike18xx 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike18xx, think practically: let's suppose just for the sake of argument that Itaqallah and FayssalF want you gone, as you say, because you are adding facts to the articles that they don't like. Okay. They can't just say that, because that's not against policy, so they point to things like incivility, meatpuppet solicitation and edit-warring instead. Okay. So don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them. There, you see, I've accepted your assumptions at face value, without judgment or rebuttal, and the way forward is still exactly the same.Proabivouac 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We want you gone or not gone. Choose your train. I am focusing on MEATPUPPETING. It is in bold. I am not talking about your uncivility (i am proud of my name as you are - plus don't forget that your username is biblical and therefore it is middle-eastern as well. So next time be accurate and say Arab or Muslim so people would understand better what you mean). So talk about it. Don't talk about your edits as i haven't mentioned them at all. I may not like edits of a dozen of editors but still this is wikipedia where anyone can edit. Meatpuppeting encouraging edit warring is not acceptable. Instead of aknowledging what you've done wrong you are still trying to talk about cakes. We got rules here. As per Proabivouac, don't leave yourself vulnerable by doing them. So again and again, you stop or you'll be stopped. -- FayssalF - 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know perfectly well why you don't want to talk about article veracity, FayssalF. As regards to the rest, I dare you to claim with a straight face that Misplaced Pages Muslims aren't organized. Why, look at this! See? Everybody's doing it -- except that one side isn't mounting a hypocritical jihad over artificial differences in order to silence its critics.--Mike18xx 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

that's right. myself and Matt57, a user who i frequently disagree with (to put it lightly), are part of a cabal, because he asked me to prove Ibn Warraq was a reliable source (which he isn't). you've shot yourself in the foot in spectacular fashion, Mike, and have simply vindicated peoples' comments about your approach. ITAQALLAH 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike18xx. Till this moment, you haven't answered and defended yourself re the accusations which are backed by facts above. Failing to do that, i'd consider this thread as a waste of time and choose another path as per Proabivouac → RfC. What do you think? Would you acknowledge your wrongdoings and promise to stop them or would you gamble by going thru an RfC? -- FayssalF - 11:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To chime in, I only recently came across this user in the Jihad Watch AfD. That and the post history shows very clearly a user with an anti-Islam axe to grind, with "not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surname" being a rather notable slur. Tarc 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick look through your contributions on articles such as Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and Hamas makes it obvious to me that you yourself are not entirely without opinions, Tarc. I can understand that you may be annoyed that the article that you mention above wasn't deleted, and that Mike voted against your wishes, but the media attention it has received should have made it obvious to you that the articles subject was clearly and without any doubt notable. The debate just reflected that reality. -- Karl Meier 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl, what can be said about X can be said about Y. Please focus on the issue or else we would just fill this thread w/ unnecessary talk. People are talking about incivility, edit warring and i personally focus on meatpuppeting. We got all these issues and you are talking about the opinions of someone else? Irrelevant and i am afraid if this goes on i'd just consider it as an avoidance to discuss the issues on hand. Mike is being accused w/ incivility and meatpuppeting and that are supported by facts presented by Itaqallah. So let's talk about incivility and meatpuppeting. Would Mike18xx aknowledge that? If yes, would he promise to stop it? Talking about anything else outside this scope would be irrelevant. -- FayssalF - 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The accusation that Tarc made was that Mike18xx is somehow biased in his contributions. I believe it is very relevant to see such accusations in the light of what appear to be the opinions of the accuser himself. In Tarc's case, a quick look through his contributions gives me reasons to believe that his opinions are very different from the opinions of Mike18xx. -- Karl Meier 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that has any bearing on the accusation - if Bill O'Reilly told me Ted Kennedy was a drunk, does that affect the truth of the allegation? Moreover, I don't see why "bias" is a big deal, in either direction - the point is if they meet Misplaced Pages standards for good editing practices. --Haemo 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to the subject please? -- FayssalF - 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tarc wrote that Mike18 has an "anti-Islam axe to grind". Whats wrong with that? Some people like Islam here, some dont. It shows up in our edits. If anyone hates candy, they'll go to the Candy article and talk about its harmful effects. Someone who loves candy will put in the benefits of Candy. Thats how an article is made from different viewpoints. Same is the case with Islam. I raised this issue of "POV" on a Talk page of a policy here but no one responded there. I dont like Islam, there and it shows up in my edits. There are many people who like Islam a lot and that shows up in their edits. I dont see anything wrong with that. All that matters is that viewpoints contributed are relevant, balanced with each other, sourced and scholarly etc, thats all. --Matt57 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Karl, yes, I have a certain point of view. We all do. The problem is that a single-minded POV coupled with such a vile and bigotry-tinged attitude is what leads people like Itaqallah to drag people like mike into the administrative noticeboard. Don't think for a moment that I am comparable to this person. And no, I was not "upset" that the article was not deleted. That was a rather silly/spurious comment to make. Finally, if you're going to trawl though my contributions, then be sure to take note that they run the gamut from the Brady Bunch to Gertrud (novel), as well as Middle East affairs. Tarc 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ Matt. Tarc intervention was out of line and discussing it further would be just a waste of time and space. -- FayssalF - 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say, FayssalF, your patience is commendable. If there is any ambiguity in our policy re off-wiki mass solicitations to meatpuppetry, there shouldn't be: where the evidence is clear, as it is here, users who do them should be blocked (at the least) until they agree to stop, lest they find another WP issue to become attached to, and be likewise moved to misconduct. All the rest of this is a distraction to our purposes in this thread (though they may not be in an RfC.)

Mike18xx, I don't mean to sound smarmy, but you must not realize how patiently and graciously you're being treated here. Given your unproductive approach to this thread, and in light of your block log, he or any other administrator could have blocked you for a month (for example) without much dissent. An RfC isn't a block, but may be the last step before Arbitration or a community ban.Proabivouac 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details of this dispute, but I was asked to comment. I've just received an extraordinarily bad-faith personal attack on my talk page from Matt57, because I want to use as a source in Islamophobia an academic that he feels is too junior.

He may be right about the source, and I've put up an article RfC to see whether others agree. But in Matt's eyes, the very fact that I might want to use this source shows I'm ... well, I'm not sure ... I'm assuming some sort of Islamist jihadist. He wrote to me: "I've always had some questions in my mind about you but after seeing that you personally contacted Mr. Hasan to retreive his picture and insert the non-notable opinions of this really unknown user with no authority on Islamic matters (needless to say graduate assistant doesnt count), my questions were answered."

My experience over the last two-and-a-half years of editing is that there's a group of users who consistently make anti-Islam edits, and sometimes extreme anti-Islam edits, behavior that includes trying to get rid of intelligent arguments in defense of Islam, or at least in reply to its critics. To reply to Matt, yes, this is a problem, and it's not how NPOV is supposed to work. We're not here to provide people with a pro- or anti-Islam platform, and I hope you'll try to assume good faith of people you disagree with in future, at least until they demonstrate more clearly that you really do have reason not to assume it. SlimVirgin 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, how was any of what I said an "extraordinarily bad-faith personal attack "? This is really funny. All I said that you were putting in the opinions of someone who is not a voice on Islamic matters, let alone notable. What you were putting in was a violation of WP:RS (which I've discussed in more detail on the Talk page there). And it was not I who said Jehanzeb Hasan is junior, it is you who said it. He is not even a Junior scholar on Islam, he is a plain non-notable graduate assitant at a university. Bad or good faith, thats not the issue here. The issue here is, we cant allow any unknown XYZ Graduate Assistant's personal opinions into Misplaced Pages. And then you contacted him for his picture and captioned it, shining even more light on someone who is completely non-notable and doesnt have any authority on the subject. The inclusion of an opinion is not decided upon whether the argument is intelligent or not, its decided on notablity and its quality as a RS.--Matt57 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, please re-read SlimVirgin's message to you above. She specifically did not say that your personal attack was the disagreement about the validity of the source, but that it was specifically your message on her Talk page where you were making vague allegations and innuendos about her person or character, "I've always had some questions in my mind about you...my questions were answered". Please read our WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. Crum375 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe disruption

I'm involved in this content dispute, so I shouldn't use any admin tools myself, but...

Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is a long-term editor in apparent good standing has decided for no apparent good reason to ignore discussion or consensus building after I objected to and reverted pending discussion some merges he BOLDly made. He has now reverted the merges back in 3 times on each of two pages: on Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean), on Dauntless (Pirates of the Caribbean), and twice on Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean). I believe that multiply reverting to an un-discussed merge and refusing to discuss it in favor of just redoing it is disruption, and it's clearly in violation of WP:MERGE ("Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages.").

I would violate 3RR to revert anymore and I shouldn't make admin decisions regarding someone I'm in a disagreement with. I would like to request uninvolved admin attention... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm perfectly happy for there to be a merge proposal and discussion, and if I wasn't at 3RR I'd put the articles back with mergeto tags as appropriate, etc. (I probably should have earlier) But that's a grey area when treading on the edge of 3RR, so I would rather someone else review and do so if you feel it's appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've notified Mr. Apostrophe of his involvement in this incident board. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, good. I should'a done that. My bad. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the pages being reverted because there was no discussion or because people disagree with the information being merged? If it's the latter, that seems fine; a discussion should happen. But if you're just reverting just "because there was no discussion", that makes little sense. It's doing no more than forcing unneeded discussion. TTN 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't get it - the only reason for opposing the merge is due to it being an "undiscussed merge". That's not exactly compelling. --Haemo 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've made it clear to Apostrophe that I object to the merge; I'm happy for a discussion to conclude to merge anyways, but I'm not ok with him just merging over my objections and requests to discuss it. I'm not wonking this insisting that he just discuss it to check some boxes on a form somewhere that procedure was followed; if there was no objection, WP:BOLD would be fine here as elsewhere, but that has to give way to process when there are objections. Georgewilliamherbert 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It really doesn't look that way. It just seems that the whole thing is based upon if discussions always are required on "controversial" mergers or not. I see no comments like "the information is important" or "it can be brought up to standards." The merger isn't automatically controversial with just "discussion is required" messages because they're often just used to stall or wikilawyer. I'm sorry if I missed a comment that did express actual desire to keep them. TTN 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This got somewhat legalistic sort of quickly because he initially didn't even believe we had a merge process documented anywhere. If in that discussion I didn't clearly enough communicate that yes, I object to the actual changes, then let me do so here and now. No, I don't want articles redirected; I believe the merges are bad for the Encyclopedia. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You received uninvolved administrator attention at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Merging and moving pages BOLDly guidelined. However, it isn't an answer that you liked. The issue got legalistic because you were wikilawyering, not Apostrophe. You've abused the vandalism rollback tool several times in an edit war; you have threatened to abuse more administrator tools; and your logic here is entirely circular. This is explained in detail at the aforementioned noticeboard section. Uncle G 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• There appears to be a pattern of people focusing on the wikilawyer issues, which the argument with Apostrophe clearly degenerated into. However, as I have said, and will say again: Yes, I do have a content dispute with doing the merges. Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process. If I have not effectively communicated all of this then that's my fault, but the situation remains that he's trying to bulldoze merges through against opposition without discussion. Even if there wasn't a policy document on the subject, that's against other general policy.

  I have not intended to abusively rollback, and wasn't aware that I'd used it more than the one goof I knew of last night. If anyone wants to pursue the issue feel free to; the record is whatever it is. I don't think rollback versus undo makes any difference to the end result on those edits.

  It's apparent that there have been communications breakdowns in this, in addition to the root problem. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Policy says not to merge against opposition without process; I oppose, he won't follow process. — You opposed solely on the grounds that he didn't follow process (same diffs as before) and created a wholly Kafkaesque set of hoops for an editor to jump through for no real reason.

    Apostrophe performs a bold merger. You state that you are reverting because xe hasn't followed procedure, and revert. Xe asks that you do not revert simply because some process hasn't been followed and reverts. You point to WP:MERGE and revert again. Xe points out that you weren't actually supported by what you are pointing to, and reverts.

    Characterizing this as Apostrophe trying to bulldoze things through without discussion, when xe plainly has discussed this with you, on your talk page, is wrong. The problem here is not xem. You've been beating Apostrophe over the head with rules, yet you have still to articulate any concrete objection to the merger, in the several places that you've now discussed this, apart from the fact that it didn't follow a process that it isn't required to follow. Your circular logic continues to be that the merger must be discussed because it was objected to, it was objected to solely because it didn't follow a process, and it didn't follow a process because it wasn't discussed. Uncle G 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I did not oppose soley on the grounds that s/he isn't following process. I oppose because the merges are bad, taking large contentful referenced pages on a topic of high interest and turning them into small unreferenced uninteresting sections in a collection page. The articles were not stubs, were not bad articles, and should not be merged. The whole policy thing has become a red herring. It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy, put Merge tags on the articles and discuss on the talk pages as they are required to do if they want to push a merge against opposition. But I am not opposing because the policy was not being followed. I understand that I may not have communicated that effectively last night. I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge. If it was unclear previously it should have been clear since then. Please knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's important because Apostrophe is disruptively refusing to follow the policy — Once again: Apostrophe was not disruptive, and was not "refusing to follow the policy". Your continued mis-characterization of the other editor in your dispute, over and over again here, is part of the problem. And yes, you were objecting solely because the process was not followed. You said exactly that, several times over.

        And I see that you are still, despite what we've told you here, mis-characterizing this as Apostrophe not discussing this, when (see diffs above) xe did discuss this with you, on your talk page, explaining why you are wrong — the very same explanation that you've had here from me and others. If the "policy thing" is a red herring, it is one that is entirely of your own making, when you resorted to wikilawyering. Yet, despite your assertion that it is a red herring, you are still beating the editor over the head with assertions of "improper process" and failure to follow policy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it here. You don't get to claim that it's a red herring that is irrelevant to the discussion, whilst you are still using it as a club to beat the editor with. Please stop beating the editor over the head. Xe isn't the one who is in the wrong here. The person who needs to knock things off is you.

        I do not understand why you are disregarding my clear statements today (4 hours ago now) that stated that yes, I do have a content objection to the merge. — Because they aren't clear statements of a concrete objection. You simply said that you objected to the merger, because it was "bad", as if that were enough. We already knew that you objected, and that the reason that you thought that it was "bad" was because xe, in your own words, "merged a bunch of POTC ship articles in to a single "minor characters" article without any discussion on the article talk pages". Saying "I object because the merges are bad" does not magically turn your prior objection into a concrete one. It doesn't clarify a thing. What you have just written is the first time in any discussion, on your talk page, on Apostrophe's talk page, on either of the places on the Administrators' noticeboard that you've brought this up, and on the talk page of WP:MERGE, that you have actually articulated anything like a concrete objection.

        As for your objection, quite what makes you think that Endeavour (Pirates of the Caribbean), an article with zero citations and that had been marked as lacking cited sources since April 2007, is "referenced", or that the "large" articles were turned into "small" sections, when List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean#Endeavour is word-for-word identical with the prior content of the merged article and contains everything that the article did (and even a few things extra), is mystifying. Uncle G 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

        • Endeavour is the weakest of the articles, arguably. The strongest that s/he zapped was Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean), which is a much bigger and better article, and is also the one that another editor has undone the last redirect on. If you think that the weaker ones should get merged, then argue it on the talk pages. When Apostrophe merged the Interceptor article, less than half the content ended up on the merged article . This is the strongest case for not merging. I objected to the whole series of merges, but perhaps some will stand up on community review. Cherry-picking the weakest of the merges objected to, as opposed to reviewing all of them and noting which one someone else had also reverted and restored, is not being helpful.
        • In circular logic, what goes around comes around. Your own arguments turned circular a while ago. I've been attempting to clarify that I have content objections to the merges, and separate policy objections to the procedure followed in response to those objections. Whether I communicated well last night / this morning or not, I think that the cards have all been on the table for some time. It is factually true that I object to the content of the merges - the Interceptor article at least should be separate, and probably the others, from a content point of view. It is factually true that WP:MERGE says that if a merge is opposed, the merge proposer is to place the tags and talk about it on the talk pages. It is factually true that Apostrophe refused to believe that there was a WP:MERGE policy when initially confronted, re-merged several times after objectiosn and reverts, and has not placed merge proposal tags on articles or started discussions on article talk pages.
        • Regardless of earlier communications difficulties, which may well be my fault, Apostrophe has not followed policies s/he is now aware of, regarding objections s/he is now aware of. Assuming good faith, the communications failure earlier can explain their initial actions. They have not fixed what they did, however. Per policy, the burden of initiating merge discussions was theirs, and they didn't do that to date.
        • Another editor has un-merged the Interceptor article. Tomorrow midday, I am going to unmerge the other two if Apostrophe or someone else doesn't first, apply the MERGETO / MERGEFROM tags as appropriate, and initiate talk page discussions. I have no objection to anyone else going first; I'm going to wait well past 24 hrs from the start of all this to avoid 3RR technical objections if I have to be the one to do it. The community can consensus on whatever result it ends up with on the article talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Uncle G has it right. There is no such thing as a "merge out of process". I would suggest you take a step down from this bureaucratic approach. >Radiant< 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Uncle G is correct in every count, and articulates it better than I did. If you had simply provided reasoning beyond "this is out of process" (which is nonexistent), as you finally did today, I would have left the matter alone. I'm male, by the way. =) ' 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Harassment Charge By Bishonen Against Ferrylodge

I had not intended to visit ANI prior to pursuing dispute resolution, but now think it might be a good idea, and I look forward to any advice people can offer here, prior to dispute resolution.

I was recently blocked by Bishonen (an administrator), after she accused me of harassment and gave me a block warning. Allegedly, I was harassing another administrator, KillerChihuahua ("KC"). The incident I am reporting here is action by Bishonen, and not action by KillerChihuahua; KillerChihuahua did not make the accusation of harassment, and did not give me a block warning.

The unblock request, which is here, was denied not because of harassment, but rather "for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." I disagreed with that unblock decision (because I had already promised to disengage from KillerChihuahua before the block), but this ANI incident report is not about the block or the unblock request. This incident report is mainly about Bishonen's preceding accusation of harassment. I deny the harassment accusation, and want it resolved. Unfortunately, the background is a bit complicated, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

Here's what happened, pretty much chronologically, and with as little excruciating detail as possible. This whole controversy began regarding an organization called the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ("RCOG"). On May 23, an editor who I do not know (and never communicated with) wrote in Misplaced Pages's fetal pain article that RCOG is "pro-choice". Another editor (not I) installed a "citation needed" tag. I then did some research and provided a citation, since that was the only "citation needed" tag in the whole article (an article to which I had contributed substantially). KC then reverted, saying in the edit summary: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice." Also in the discussion thread at fetal pain, KC said:

So, KC distinguished a "pro-choice group" from a group that has a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue. I researched some more about RCOG (see above where KC said "please provide a source") and I learned that RCOG is not a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be at the article on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

At that RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info unrelated to abortion. Plus, I wrote: "RCOG takes a pro-choice position that abortion 'is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.'" This was reverted a couple times by another editor (not KC), without any discussion at the talk page. Ultimately, I concluded that I needed to quote an even more unambiguous expression of pro-choice sentiment from RCOG, in order to satisfy everyone that RCOG has in fact taken a pro-choice position on an issue.

So, I edited the RCOG article to say: "In the United Kingdom, RCOG takes a pro-choice position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'" Then things started getting nasty (or nastier). KC showed up at the RCOG article, reverted this edit, and accused me of being disruptive, et cetera. I left it reverted. I figured that this was becoming interpersonal, so the place to take this kind of thing is to the user's talk page. So I went to KC's talk page, where I asked her to assume good faith. Instead I got further accusations: edit warring and bad faith.

Ultimately, I said to KC: "Show me once other than here where I edited any Misplaced Pages article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a 'pro-choice position.'" KC replied that "the contested edit is characterizing RCOG as 'pro-choice'", and she cited a bunch of diffs. And she said: "If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands." But that was obviously incorrect, because KC had already emphasized (see blockquote above) that saying RCOG is a "pro-choice group" is entirely different from saying that it takes a "pro-choice" position on a particular issue. The edit we were arguing about (i.e. a sentence saying that RCOG opposes reduction in the time limits for abortion) was a position about a particular issue, and indeed a political issue about what the governing laws should be. So I quoted the blockquote above back to KC, and I said as clearly as I know how: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice." I also gave her some of her own medicine: "I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again," and my edit summary said "let us not engage in smear jobs."

At this point, Bishonen jumped in. KC had never asked me to leave, much less to tone down what I was saying. But Bishonen says at KC's talk page: "That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment." Needless to say, I was surprised. I felt that I was being harassed by KC. I've never been charged with "harassment" before. I felt like this was all a big trap (and it still seems to have been a trap); after all, KC had told me that being a pro-choice group is different from taking a pro-choice position, and I then edited accordingly, only to be accused of edit-warring, disruption, and bad faith for making the very distinction that KC had explicitly urged. After the harassment accusation, I left a message at Bishonen's talk page saying I thought that KC was the one being malicious here.

So those are the basic facts. I will not describe here the subsequent block; that block was upheld on other grounds which I find very unpersuausive, but that is a somewhat separate matter from the harassment accusation. I very much believe that I was not harassing anyone, and therefore the harassment accusation was false. Do you agree or disagree? What sort of dispute resolution would you recommend? Bishonen has already rejected mediation. I feel very strongly that the harassment allegation was unfounded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs)

Some kind of mediation is needed. In the UK the term "pro choice" is loaded, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry about RCOG, which is a medical body. You've said lots of stuff about RCOG which doesn't agree with their webpage. One example would be about membership -- they've been very clear about who can be a member, and what type of member they can be, and what the requirments for that type of membership are. The term "Pro choice" does nothing to add any useful content to the article. Why is it there? It's obvious that a group of obgyns will include many people who do not disagree with abortion. Allow the term "pro choice" to be taken out, find a suitable alternative, and let people make up their own minds. Dan Beale 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to this specific point, I'd agree with that - "pro choice" is an american term and is biased towards american thinking and it's use would indicated an unbalanced articel as it tries to impose an americian context on external agencies, social and political systems such as the RCOG. --Fredrick day 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I appreciate your comment, but this Incident Report is not about whether the word "pro-choice" should be taken out or not. You say,"Allow the term 'pro choice' to be taken out." It already has been taken out. Whether it should be reinserted is a different question. The question here is: is Bishonen correct that I harassed KC?Ferrylodge 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I appreciate the info about the use of the term "pro-choice" in England, I really do. But no one made that point during the controversy at issue. You may be right, and I would be interested in looking into the different usages of the word "pro-choice" in the UK versus the US, but that is just not relevant to whether I harassed KC. And, Dan, every fact I stated about RCOG was fully cited by references and footnotes at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists article; if you think there are mistakes in the RCOG article, please point them out at the RCOG article. Thanks.Ferrylodge 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the accusation of "harassment" is correct. You posted controversial material on a page against concensus, you then travelled to another page to make a similar point, you then posted on a talk page, and then you posted after reading this -"Now I'm done. If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands. This is enough for an Rfc right here. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)" message. In my opinion it'd be interesting to see an RfC. Dan Beale 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan, your edit summary says that you think the harassment was perhaps "mild." I don't think there is such a thing. It's kind of like saying a "genial" case of murder. If it weren't a very serious charge, I wouldn't be here discussing it.

Anyway, I don't think you've correctly described what happened. I added a LOT of info about RCOG at the RCOG article, in addition to info about their abortion stance. The diffs are in my initial post above. A fetal pain article was not the appropriate place to get into such detail about RCOG. Moreover, when I was at the fetal pain article and decided to get the RCOG article involved, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion.

Instead of focusing on various other edits, please focus on the edit that prompted this whole thing. This edit was not against consensus, because this edit had never before been made at any article; there were not even any comments at the RCOG talk page when I made this edit to the RCOG article.

Anyway, regarding an RfC, the guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. Therefore an RfC does not seem to be possible, unless someone volunteers to join me. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to endorse the complaint; i.e. to agree that it has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC, even though this whole thing is extremely time-consuming and costly for me.Ferrylodge 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let's have some definitions. From Misplaced Pages:Harassment, harassment is defined as "Stopping other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." Is the second part of that the problem here? No views as yet either way, I'm just providing the definition of what is not allowed. Moreschi 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi. The second diff in my initial post here indicates that Bishonen was particularly accusing me of "user space harassment." Here's the definition, in case it might be helpful:

Incidentally, I also quoted this definition in my unblock request.Ferrylodge 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Would someone please help me with an RfC? The guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to agree that the RfC has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC.Ferrylodge 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Ferrylodge is stating his block was unfair, as he'd only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on my talk page. He is leaving out a few details. After I said "I'm done", Ferrylodge posted twice morestill arguing the RCOG edit and accusing me of disruptive editing. Bishonen posted her "that's enough" message, then Ferrylodge posted "I most certainly am done here", then linked it to another post he'd made on Bishonen's page, where he stated "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her blatantly false and malicious accusations of disruption, bad faith, and edit warring". I removed that, as it constituted a back-door method of getting one last attack against me on my talk page, and he replaced the content, expanding slightly, but not the link. This constitutes edit warring on my talk page, to the tune of five edits, including a link to an attack and reverting me on my talk page, after being told the conversation was over. Oddly enough, he has mistaken five for once before, see my talk page for details (see the part of the section User talk:KillerChihuahua#Please Assume Good Faith concerning the diffs he'd asked for.) KillerChihuahua 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if KillerChihuahua would please use quotes instead of misdescribing what she thinks I stated. I never said that I only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on your talk page, KC. So, please don’t claim otherwise. What you say is false.

My initial post above focuses on what happened up until the harassment charge and block warning. For details about what happened after the harassment charge and block warning, people can see my unblock request, to which I linked in my initial post above. The issue here is whether the harassment accusation (accompanying the block warning) was appropriate, not whether the block was appropriate (I don’t think it was, but that matter is distinctly dealt with in my unblock request).

I do not think it would be helpful to get into an argument here about what I did or did not do after the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning. Things are complicated enough already. Suffice it to say that I believe a person charged with harassment should be entitled to at least make a brief and polite denial of the charge, at the place the charge was made. That is why the following statement by me occurs at KC's talk page after the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment." As I have said elsewhere, I am grateful to KC for not deleting this denial of the harassment charge. And yes, KC, I think your behavior toward me was malicious; I said so when the harassment accusation was made, I said so in my unblock request, I said so in my initial post above, and I'm saying so again now. Saying so is the plain truth, and is not harassment.Ferrylodge 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected: you claimed to have made two posts, not one, according to your talk page: "I posted a brief goodbye which was deleted, and an hour later I posted the following at KC's talk page: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment" (emphasis added). This was brief, polite, and cooperative. However, Bishonen tells me that this denial was "the last straw" that caused her to block me.". You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done, and the edit in which you linked to your post on Bishonen's page - which she linked to as "the last straw", not your third edit after Bishonen's warning as you state on your talk page. Its still five edits, not two, and you left out, not only here but so far as I can tell, everywhere you've protested this block, the link you made to your post on Bishonen's talk page which was the reason Bishonen clearly linked to in her block statement to you. And if the issue is Bishonen's block, which you have stated is the case (unless I am somehow misunderstanding you) then what happened after the warning is highly germane. KillerChihuahua 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, you are misdescribing what I said, yet again. This statement of yours is simply false: "You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done." When you said "I'm done," you in no way suggested that I should not respond, and I immediately responded twice. The bulk of my two responses to your "I'm done" remark is quoted in my initial post above, as well as in my unblock request: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice."

I have to work at my job until the end of the day, and therefore must take a break.Ferrylodge 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua. Ferrylodge is told to stop. Ferrylodge does not. Bishonen blocks. Why are we talking about this? End of story. Can't we find better things to cry about, like GNAA, or dead babies on wikipedia? ⇒ SWATJester 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Swatjester. Let's move on and write some articles, shall we?. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that all the vapid people at Misplaced Pages would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester.Ferrylodge 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, give it a break. The more you type, the more any pretext to AGF in your case goes *poof* and the closer you get to being considered a troll. And see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, swatjester can call me a harasser without providing any explanation whatsoever, and imply that I am stupid to boot, but I must be polite and sweet. And you can suggest that I'm a troll, whereas I should be respectful and polite.Ferrylodge 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting this in context

This incident is the tip of an iceberg that is six months deep. Ferrylodge has been making tendentious edits throughout abortion-related articles since late Dec. 2006. If you want a full picture of the level of activity, see the the talk page of almost any abortion-related article (for example, Talk:Abortion (archives 26-27), Talk:Late-term abortion, Talk:History of abortion, Talk:Intact dilation and extraction, Talk:Fetal pain), or even the talk pages of some articles which are not inherently controversial and which are not natural extensions of the abortion topic (Talk:Stillbirth, Talk:Fetus, Talk:Pregnancy). Honestly, I don't know what Ferrylodge hopes to accomplish with this, because, frankly, it's beginning to look like the "campaign to drive away productive contributors" described in WP:DE. Whether it was inappropriate for Bishonen to intercede at KillerChihuahua's talk page, the posts Ferrylodge made on KC's page and on Bishonen's page subsequent to the warning were hardly constructive, and served little more than to have the last word after being told not to post there again. There are a thousand things Ferrylodge could have said which might have justified posting again after being requested to stop, if the intent was toward dispute resolution, but confrontational statements like "I most certainly am done here" and "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her..." aren't among them. This dispute arose when Ferrylodge did not observe consensus at Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, by adding the description "pro-choice" to the article, which had already been objected to by 3 editors at Talk:Fetal pain. I don't really see where Ferrylodge's complaint is coming from in light of this and in light of the history of his involvement in Misplaced Pages. -Severa (!!!) 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Severa, it always muddies the waters to bring in extraneous issues. That has been happening in this thread from the start (e.g. "pro-choice" means something different in the UK than it does in the US). My regard for you is I'm sure as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower. However, it does no good to get into a huge brawl about extraneous issues, without addressing the issues at hand. And you are dishonest and misleading, as usual. When I said those words you quote --- "I most certainly am done here" --- that was shortly after KC had said "I'm done" and Bishonen had said "you're done." And now you're using those words of mine as some kind of evidence against me. This is most insincere of you, as usual. And neither you nor KC, nor Bishonen has EVER addressed the blockquote in my original post above, where KC distinguished between saying a group is pro-choice and saying it takes a pro-choice position on an issue. Never. And doubtless you never will. What a fine bunch you people are.Ferrylodge 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Now I really must go for the day.Ferrylodge 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"My regard for you is as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower." Wow. Great way to prove you're a civil and cooperative editor. Next time, you might want to really impress people with your manners, and say, "dear nazi". Anyways, this is veeery simple. If bishonen had posted no warning at all, you might have a point. If she'd blocked you indefinitely, you'd probably have a point. But, when an administrator feels the need to get involved, and tell you, "Look. This is harassment. You're done.", and you follow that by posting, anything... um... no. Sorry, but just accept the block. It was just 24 hours, for the sake of stopping a specific behaviour. And you really might want to just stop for a little while, and look at everything that led up to this, and then see if you really think you were so horribly wronged. Or not. Your decision. Bladestorm 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having more of an issue with his assertion that Severa is "dishonest and misleading, as usual" - excuse me? One, Severa is painstakingly honest and a role model for AGF, and Two, NPA anyone? I'm getting more or less accustomed to having trash heaped on my head, as virtually my entire watchlist is controversial subjects, where I attempt to guide editors to work with each other, work towards and within consensus, follow policies, and remember to comment on the content, not the contributor, so I of course have lots of bad-faith and confrontational editors making wild accusations against me. So far in this thread Ferrylodge has managed to insult Bishonen, Swatjester, myself, and Severa, and that's just today. I'm beginning to think an Rfc might not be a bad idea after all. KillerChihuahua 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Ferrylodge's last post) It is completely relevant to consider the RCOG incident from the context of being the most recent example in a long pattern of similar incidents, rather than as being an isolated, first-time occurrence. It's seeing the forest for the forest, and not just its constituent trees. To quote the relevant bit of WP:DE:

"Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Misplaced Pages:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Misplaced Pages by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity."

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester. If you have a specific concern, please put it forward, but vague accusations like "you are dishonest and misleading, as usual" are only a hair's breadth from being as completely unhelpful as personal attacks ("I wish that all the vapid people at Misplaced Pages would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester"). This is all starting to remind me of Cindery. -Severa (!!!) 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From my brief reading of this thread, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with how it's being handled. If there were personal attacks, then could someone simply post the diffs, and this can be over with? Otherwise, as it stands (and I'm not saying this is the case), it just looks like people are unhappy with Ferrylodge for his/her position in an edit war (which, BTW, doesn't look like disruption to me, at least from what I've seen). If people could simply give the diffs, and tell Ferrrylodge exactly where (s)he went wrong rather than simply stating you made personal attacks, you deserved it, this could be over. In any case, the comment toward Swatjester was uncalled for, though, like I said, Swatjester provided abosolutely no proof, so I can sort of understand why it was made. Guys, provide the diffs, and we can close this dumb thread. Otherwise, it will look like a personal block. The Evil Spartan 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri) You're kidding, right? Ferrylodge's personal attacks on this page alone should be sufficient evidence. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no diffs because there was no harassment before the harassment charge was made.Ferrylodge 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Severa, you say that I've been "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive". You cited a comment that I made ("I most certainly am done here"), but this was misleading and dishonest of you, because that quoted comment immediately followed the statement "I'm done" by KC, and "You're done" by Bishonen. Can't you see that the example you cite proves that I was merely echoing what had been said to me? Why should you be able to call me "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive" (and a million other disparaging words you have used for me), but I should never say anthing less than flattering to you? Do you deny that when I said "I most certainly am done here" it was immediately after almost identical statements by KC and Bishonen?

I feel that you are simply trying to distract from the issue here. There was no harassment by me to justify Bishonen's accusation of harassment. No one has cited ANY diff of me harassing KC prior to when Bishonen uttered the word "harassment." No one here at this ANI page has bothered to consider the facts of this edit dispute. You can bring in extraneous accusations if you like, and maybe you have found some Misplaced Pages guideline to justify trying to bring in extraneous factors, but I know this for certain: there is no Misplaced Pages guideline to justify ignoring non-extraneous factors.Ferrylodge 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan, you obviously didn't take the time to look at Killer Chihuahua's talk page. You should go do that now. ⇒ SWATJester 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

When did it become the responsibility of the reader of AN/I to find the relevant examples of misbehavior? Telling us to "do your research" when someone asks for these diffs only makes your case look less persuasive. I'm with Evil Spartan here: you make your point more quickly & more effectively by furnishing diffs than all parties involved exchanging heated words with each other. And if you don't like that opinion, then don't complain when you fail to persuade the rest of us that something bad happened. -- llywrch 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on what this thread is: Ferrylodge started it to see if there was support for an Rfc against Bishonen's block of him (not an exact quote). Many diffs have been provided by several people posting here. The question at hand is not the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of; nor is it Ferrylodge's incivility (which comments about here concern almost exclusively his posts in this very thread, hence, no link necessary). The block was made, and reviewed by at least two administrators and unblock was delcined. Ferrylodge is seeking some kind of redress or acknowledgement that the block was inappropriate. Do you find grounds for this? Do you require diffs for his assertions? KillerChihuahua 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, KC, put yourself in my place. I don't spend an inordinate amount of each day on Misplaced Pages, but I have been around for a while. I don't like troublemakers, I don't like tendentious editors, & I don't like established editors who decide that they're special & the rules don't apply to them any more. So any time someone claims that they are the victim of one of these three, I'll start to read what they have to say.

However, too many effing times when a charge like this is raised, the discussion disintegrates into the equivalent of a bunch of 5-year-olds whining "he hit me first" -- "no he hit me first". In other words, the good guys are acting just like the bad guys & I can't tell the difference. I might have wanted to get involved, find out who did what & act on it. But like too many other threads in this forum, after a few minutes of reading, I end up wanting to just toss all parties involved into a windowless room, lock the door, & tell them only one person gets to leave the room alive.

I've been involved in a few disputes myself. So I know quite well that only a true saint could keep her/his temper in such a situation, & not start playing dirty because the other side has been. That is why I'm insisting that all parties actually try to fight this temptation, & just give us the diffs. Otherwise if I want to get involved, I have to choose my side based on which person is more familiar to me -- because I'm very much aware that I only have a small slice of time to decide & make a difference. The time I spend untangling a dispute is time I could have spent making edits -- & I'd rather make edits.

Yes, I am being lazy. Yes, this is unfair to everyone who is involved in the dispute. But I'm going to let you in on a secret: most people involved in Misplaced Pages think like me -- we're here to edit articles. We could care less about how X is being treated unfairly by Y. Why shouldn't we just give them heavy & sharp weapons, lock them both into a room, tell them only one gets to come out alive, & let the rest of us contribute to Misplaced Pages? If you want me to care, then do the work for me so I understand what the problem is & make me care.

So far I've spent an hour writing a response to you that I could have spent improving articles on Misplaced Pages -- well, I hope my edits improve them. I happen to know I'm a crappy writer, so it takes me probaly twice or three times as long to write a response that is as intelligible as anyone else. Asking me to defend my opinions steals far more time from my ability to edit than anyone else. If you want me to argue my point -- that people disputing behavior in this forum need to furnish ample facts & not just argue over who hit who first -- I'll argue them. But some articles I could be improving will continue to languish in their present state because I didn't have the time to work on them.

<A very naughty word or phrase>, maybe I ought to simply not care about who is screwing over whom on Misplaced Pages, trade my Admin bit for a gift certificate on Amazon, & stay in my forgotten corner of Misplaced Pages where I can edit undisturbed. Some days, I think that would be a better use of my time. -- llywrch 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, you say, "The question at hand is not the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of...." It's not surprising to me that you would want people to look the other way, and ignore the description of administrator misconduct that I gave above. You certainly have ignored the blockquote. No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation. You are doing your best to direct people away from that edit dispute, and quite understandably so, given what the facts show.

The question at hand is whether I harassed you during the edit dispute, i.e. before the harassment accusation was made. Yes, I reacted imperfectly after the harassment accusation, and I even got blocked, but all that happened after the harassment accusation was made. Will you ever address the blockquote in my initial post above? Will anyone? Is there anyone here who has bothered to consider the implications of that blockquote? Or is everyone at Misplaced Pages too busy to consider details? That's where the devil is, in the details.

The whole matter leading up to the harassment accusation was one long personal attack on me.

Now, I am not being soft-spoken here. I know that. Swatjester calls this whole thing "stupid" and says I'm a harasser without saying why. So I'll call him vapid. It was a vapid comment he made. "I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester." What I hope to do is convey my disrespect for people who are not considering, much less addressing, the facts.

I'm sorry this is coming across negatively. But I feel that KC is urging people to ignore my initial post (especially the blockquote), just like she has been consistently doing. I feel like KC, and by extension Bishonen, are just having whatever they did rubberstamped here, without any serious consideration of the edit dispute.Ferrylodge 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am the person who brought up the initial concerns at Fetal pain that lead to the content dispute. I've been following this quietly, and felt like I can try to address this concern of Ferrylodge: the blockquote. I think the most important part of the blockquote is It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. Note may and I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. So KC posted something that MAY have been sympathetic to the content Ferrylodge wanted to include concerning the RCOG. However, KC clearly stated that she needed time to think that one over. Was KC given that time? The comment was made 22:58, 24 May 2007 but the phrase "pro-choice position" which was still under dispute at Talk:Fetal pain was added to Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists at 13:26, 25 May 2007. 24 hours later, this addition was reverted by Severa, and in an edit summary Ferrylodge acknowledged the KC stated that she needed to think things over.

What is clear to me is that KC's biggest concern was that associating the word "Pro-choice" with the RCOG would paint them as some sort of political activist group, when they are a reputable medical organization. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's rewording did not alleviate these concerns; that saying the RCOG held a pro-choice position was still connoting that they were an activist group. Ferrylodge has tried to paint KC as having flip-flopped on this issue, but I only see consistency. The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text.

I believe that in this content dispute Ferrylodge was a little premature in the editing, and it would have helped to discuss things out further on talk, and perhaps make proposals before editing the article. I also admit that because this conflict dealt with 2 different articles (some perhaps not on the watchlist of those editors involved in the dispute), things were not always cut and dry (I was not involved at RCOG, but I was involved at Fetal pain). I also that KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were "disruptive" was accurate. Editors should know better than to re-insert a disputed wording right in the middle of a content dispute. Someone doesn't get controversial content into an article by force, you get it in through consensus (well... if it's controversial enough, it won't get in at all). After that, happened, Ferrylodge went to an admin's page (KC) and told her to assume good faith, trying to defend his edit warring as non-disruptive. It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with "Please Assume Good Faith". The fact of the matter is, we had been discussing the "pro-choice" label in regards to the RCOG on the fetal pain talk page. That spilled over to the RCOG page. The content was removed from the fetal pain article while discussion was on going. Then the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice, with no editors supporting the changes (yet 3 showing concern over them). Just because Ferrylodge posted a justification for the edit on talk does not give him a free pass to edit war. The proper process would have been to post on talk first, see what other editors felt, and once reached a consensus, then edit the article. Not the other way around. So when KC wrote, in reply to the AGF claim Ferrylodge threw at her on her talk page, edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. I agree 100% with that sentiment.

The discourse went downhill from there. Uninvolved editors and admin got involved, siding with KC, and it got to the point where Ferrylodge was warned by an admin. Ferrylodge readily admits that he ignored the admin and was banned for doing that. That ban was uphealed by other uninvolved admins. I just wanted to post my perspective above, and say that I support the admins actions thus far and do not feel that any action or sanction against Bishonen is appropriate. Trying to get the last word in, and defending his pride, even when told to back down is what got Ferrylodge blocked. It seems like this block has only made the sentiment stronger (I was hoping for the opposite result). I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on.-Andrew c 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I would like to respond. You say that the most important part of the blockquote is "It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over." But you have grabbed that sentence completely out of context, without either the preceding or following sentence. The full blockquote is:

"The way you have it phrased, they are a 'pro-choice group' - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group."

The sentence before and the sentence after make it crystal clear that she was 100% certain that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group." There is no ambiguity there. Zero. Yet when I later made a single edit that said RCOG had a pro-choice position on the issue of reducing abortion time limits, she cited diffs that had absolutely nothing to do with that being a pro-choice position. And she cited those diffs as evidence of me being (A) disruptive, (B) edit-warring, (C) having bad faith. And merely for arguing to the contrary I was charged with harassment. There is not one single diff of one single harassing thing I said to KC prior to or leading up to the harassment charge. This has been one long personal attack against me, and I do not find your plucking a sentence out of context to show anything relevant.

You emphasize that "The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it." There were ambiguous aspects of the blockquote, but KC was completely unambiguous that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group."

You are correct that "KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text." So she reverted my edit at the RCOG article. However, she also accused me at that same instant of being disruptive and editing against consensus, at which point I took the discussion to her talk page and politely asked her to assume good faith. She refused, accused me of edit warring and bad faith, cited irrelevant diffs, and then Bishonen accused me of harassment. The whole thing was a set-up as far as I can tell. There has been a history of friction between myself on the one hand, and KC/Severa/Andrew c on the other hand, and this incident followed directly therefrom, IMHO.

Andrew c, you say that, "KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were 'disruptive' was accurate." It's very difficult for me to know which reverts you are speaking of. I made an edit at the RCOG article saying that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. KC reverted it. I never reverted it back. It remains as KC left it. So I do not know what two reverts you are speaking of.

You say, "It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with 'Please Assume Good Faith.'" She had just called me disruptive, and I wanted her to assume that I was not being disruptive. What was I supposed to say, "Please Assume Bad Faith"?

You say, "the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice." Andrew c, the edit that led to this whole dispute was an edit where I wrote that RCOG took a pro-choice position on abortion time limits. I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement. KC reverted it, and I never reverted it back. Is there now a zero-revert-rule for Ferrylodge (0RR), where Ferrylodge gets into deep doo-doo whenever he reverts zero times in a row? When KC wrote, edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. I also agree 100% with that sentiment. However I was not edit-warring against consensus. Multiple editors had not informed me that it would be inappropriate to characterize as pro-choice RCOG's position against reducing abortion time limits.

And Andrew c, I do not readily admit that I "ignored the admin and was banned for doing that." What I admit is that I wanted to deny the harassment charge before leaving KC's page, and I ultimately did post that denial under threat of a block ("I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment"). All of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality.

You are correct that the block was upheld by uninvolved admins, but not because of any harassment. Go look at the unblock request at my user talk page. It was upheld merely to disengage the dispute. And again, all of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality.

You say, "I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on." I would like to oblige, but I feel that the edit dispute here was outrageous leading up to a bogus harassment charge, and I have been unfairly branded a harasser, an edit-warrior, a disrupter, and a person of bad faith. I will continue to make every effort to get an acknowledgment that I am none of those things. And then I will decide whether to stay or leave Misplaced Pages.Ferrylodge 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to address the edit warring issue. KC posted the 3 diffs on her talk page regarding the RCOG article. Here they are: (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007, (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007, and (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007. You said above I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement However, the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition, it's over the "pro-choice" label. Look at the diffs. You added "RCOG takes a pro-choice position" to the article 3 times. The first 2 times you were reverted by Severa, the last time by KC. The content dispute that started on Talk:Fetal pain and spilled over at the RCOG talk page dealt specifically with the label "pro-choice" and how and if it applied to RCOG. There clearly was no consensus yet on this topic when you added the content. Severa removed the controversial content while the content dispute was ongoing. You re-inserted it twice after this which eventually resulted in KC's revert where she said you were being disruptive (which lead to you going to her talk page and the rest is history). As I stated above, there is no reason to insert controversial content into an article during an edit dispute. This does not necessarily make you an "edit-warrior", but it does demonstrate that you were edit warring at this particular article. And by association, edit in this manner is disruptive. 3 times you added content which labeled RCOG as "pro-choice" even though multiple other editors had previously shown concern over this and no consensus had been reached yet on the matter. I'm not saying this in order to brand you as negative label, mind you, but I am saying that KC's initial concerns that sparked your comments to her are not simply 'bogus'.-Andrew c 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I do not see that you are saying anything relevant here.

First of all, regarding the three diffs you cite, none of them happened at KC’s talk page. Bishonen charged me with user space harassment, so I don’t see how those three diffs establish anything regarding the harassment charge. Perhaps I misunderstand, and Bishonen meant to charge me with harassment at the RCOG article. But the only type of harassment she mentioned to me was user space harassment.

Regarding what happened in the RCOG article, perhaps a brief analogy will help. Suppose you make edits at some article to say that Venezuelans have a pro-US position about American music and culture, an anti-US position about American politics, and a pro-US position on oil sales. These are three different issues. If you get reverted on the first one twice, it’s not any offense at all for you to write the last one once. That’s basically what happened to me at the RCOG article. I wrote that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits only once, and then I was reverted with the accusation that I was disruptive, which soon escalated to accusations of edit-warring, bad faith, and harassment.

You and KC cited three diffs from the RCOG article. How they relate to user space harassment is beyond my understanding. But let’s consider those three diffs: (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007, (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007, and (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007.

Only in the last one did I assert that RCOG takes a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits, and that's what got me in trouble here. Andrew c, you say “the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition.” But then why is your third diff about the time limit addition? KC was very clear that the edit-warring accusation was indeed about the time limit addition. See here.

KC was wrong. I never wrote at any other article that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. It simply never happened, and therefore KC’s accusation of edit-warring is simply false.

KC wrote that my characterization of the time limit addition was “virtually the same contested assertion” as assertions I made elsewhere, and therefore amounted to edit-warring. But the blockquote in my initial post above shows KC saying that merely using the word “pro-choice” twice in connection with RCOG does not create two assertions that are virtually the same. RCOG’s position on reduction of abortion time limits deals with a political question about what the governing law should be. It is very different from an RCOG statement about what should happen under existing law. I was trying to address KC’s assertion that RCOG was merely trying to follow the law --- she had said that “abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice.”

Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges. The third of your three diffs is nothing like the first two. And of course NONE of them occurred at KC’s talk page, and thus they do not help to establish user space harassment.Ferrylodge 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for being totally confused. When KC above suggested "Please focus on what this thread is" regarding your initial concerns with Bishonen's harrassment ban, you said No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation.. How can you say that the original edit dispute is so important, yet when I address the original edit dispute, you say that it is off topic? That I am comparing apples to orenges? You disputed that you were an edit-warrior and a disruptor (in addition to disputing that you were a harrasser). Above, I was addressing the former claims. The latter claim was addressed in my post below this. I'm perfectly fine with not addressing the content dispute again. I guess I mistakenly thought you wanted to discuss it when you claimed KC wanted "people to look the other way".-Andrew c 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, at 14:40 on 31 May, I wrote in this thread, "I agree with you that the propriety of my conduct at KC's talk page is somewhat related to what happened at the RCOG page...." No dispute there. I just don't see how your previous comment says anything relevant to establishing harassment or edit-warring or disruption or bad faith on my part. As far as "comparing apples and oranges", I already explained: "The third of your three diffs is nothing like the first two." The third of your three diffs involves a position of RCOG about one thing, and the first two involve a position of RCOG about another very different thing. So I don't see how you can cite the last diff as evidence that I was edit-warring or being disruptive or having bad faith. It's only one crummy diff, after all.Ferrylodge 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset)Since there is this big issue about "post the diff of harrassment", I felt I'd give it a shot. I'd first ask editors to simply read Talk:Fetal pain, Talk:Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and User talk:KillerChihuahua and look at the article diffs. FL and KC were involved in an edit dispute. FL was edit warring at RCOG, and KC reverted the controversial edits and said Reverting disruptive edit. You do not have consensus, and indeed have considerable opposition for this OR edit. The consensus and OR remarks reference previous talk page discussions, and the "disruptive" remark references the "RCOG takes a pro-choice position" disputed text that was twice added to the article after it was removed once due to talk page concerns (by Severa). So in defense (or retaliation) to having been called a disruptive editor:

• FL goes to KC's talk page and posts this. Asking an established editor to "Please Assume Good Faith" may be baiting, or it may be a gentle reminder that we are all human and fallible. The post starts off polite. It digresses into accusations against two editors, claiming that they needed to address the topic to FL's standards in order to remove disputed content. Nothing completely unreasonable at face value, mind you, but still on the offense and maybe even antagonistic. Bold and brash.

However, KC and FL have a history, look at User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive09#Moving Stuff to Talk Page. It's almost deja vu. Back and forth between the two. With this taken into consideration, the initial "Please Assume Good Faith" post by FL is a round about way of saying "I'm in the right, you are in the wrong, explain your actions to my satisfaction". In a very succinct manner, KC replied to this, stating clearly "edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive." This explains how FL's behavior can be classified as "disruptive". While perhaps these points could be disputed (I personally agree with them), FL does not respond by saying "how was I edit warring?" or "where is the consensus?":

• FL replies with this, accusing KC of edit-warring, and ignoring the previous comment. This sort of accusation and tone can be seen as harassment. The conversation is no longer a dialog about wikipedia policy and past actions, its about who is in the wrong.

At this point, and uninvolved editor comes along and says "Nope, don't see any edit-warring on KC's part. Sorry."

• FL replies asking if the user feels he had participated in edit warring, and if he agrees that KC ignored the initial post. This is another snide comment regarding KC's reading comprehension.

Then an involved editor comes along and tries to explain further how FL was edit warring but KC was not.

• FL replies by saying the accusations against him are "totally ridiculous" and that everyone is lacking even an "ounce of objectivity". But somehow saying that is ok because he used an emoticon.

KC replies that FL has misrepresented the situation and explained how this was about more than a single edit by FL.

• FL replies, implying KC is lying or being deceptive, and demands that evidence is supplied up to his standards.

KC does so, but not without saying the task was tedious and not necessary unless for the purposes of a RfC.

• FL replies that KC is "very much mistaken", and tries to claim that KC said something that FL believes to support the controversial edits that started this mess, while neglecting to comment on the the diffs KC provided that he had previously demanded be shown.
• He then posts a post script where he says and I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again. Again this comment is only reactionary and antagonistic towards KC, accusing her of disruptive editing again, using a snide tone.

Sure KC had ended her previous post by expressing that she was fed up with trying to meet the demands FL had placed on her. KC wasn't entirely calm and sweet through the conflict. There was some back-and-forth going on, but KC stuck on point and avoided unfounded claims. At this point, the uninvolved admin came along and warned Ferrylodge to stop posting on KC's talk page. He had demanded that KC explain her revert up to his standards. Demanded an explanation on how his edits were disruptive, demanded an explanation on how he had edit warred, demanded diffs for his edit warring, and then once all that was meet, replied by saying KC was very mistaken and accused her of being a disruptive editor. All of this was because Ferrylodge edited the same controversial content multiple times during a content dispute, was reverted, and told those sorts of edits are disruptive. Read the conversation for yourself and judge whether it is harassment or not. Regardless of whatever label you want to use for the situation, the warning and subsequent ban were necessary at the time to deter the provocation and escalation of the situation. Unfortunately, as shown by the continuation of this discussion, the ban did not serve the intended purpose but itself acted to escalate matters (but at least the personal talk page conflict for KC has ended). That is how I see things. If other users (especially those asking for diffs) now want to examine the situation themselves and comment on FL and KC's actions, on the appropriateness of the ban, or anything else, please do so.-Andrew c 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly. Andrew c, your comment begins by saying "FL was edit warring at RCOG." That's what you argued in your previous comment, and I've already responded to it as well as I can in my previous comment. So I will not now repeat what I said in my previous comment. However, I agree with you that the propriety of my conduct at KC's talk page is somewhat related to what happened at the RCOG page, so I would urge anyone who may still be around to please read my previous comment rebutting Andrew c.

Andrew c, to your credit you are now citing what happened at KC's talk page. However, you have cited about seven diffs of my statements at KC's talk page without indicating which ones you think establish user space harassment. For example, you cited my initial comment at KC's talk page, and I do not understand how it in any way helps to establish harassment. It was completely polite. Just citing a bunch of diffs without saying which ones you think establish harassment is kind of vague.

Moreover, Misplaced Pages has a specific definition of harassment: "Stopping other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." But I did not notice where you pointed to any nitpicking I did of any good-faith edits, or where I made repeated personal attacks (certainly none that were any more personal than what KC was saying to me), or posted any personal information. And you have not specified which diffs (if any) suggest comparable stuff on my part. You can't.

Misplaced Pages also has a particular definition of user space harassment: "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment." But I do not notice where you pointed to any warnings I made at KC's talk page, or used sockpuppets or tags, or posted embarassing info, or anything like that. I do concede that I may be annoying to KC, and she is certainly annoying to me, but I suspect that the "material" referred to in the guidelines refers to "material" other than mere conversational statements.

Anyway, I've responded this morning as best I can to your two long comments here, Andrew c. I don't think Bishonen had any legitimate grounds for accusing me of harassment. Again, I've got to be unavailable for the rest of the day, due to employment. Thanks for hearing me out.Ferrylodge 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It also might be helpful to look at things the following way. Suppose you presume that all my conduct in the RCOG article was completely legitimate (i.e. no edit-warring, no disruption, no bad faith), and that KC was mistaken about that. Using that presumption, was there anything remotely approaching harassment at KC's talk page? I think not.Ferrylodge 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Even if one outright ignores that the RCOG article even exists(and this is easy for me to do, because I'd never heard of it before this incident, and never went back since), this was arguably somewhat harassing. (Little 'PSs' are almost always asking for troubles. Especially when they're phrased in the style of, "I know you are, but what am I?")

And, when you saw this, and you thus absolutely and definitively knew that another single post on KC's talkpage would be considered harassment, and get you blocked, you still did it anyways. You knew that'd be considered harassment, and yet you did it anyways. And yet, KC simply removed it. But, if nothing else, you now knew for certain that your comments were not desired. At all. Not even to say "I'm done". And yet you still did it again! By then, there was no way to take it as being anything but harassment. Because you knew for certain that it wouldn't be welcome, and yet you added it anyways. And you tried to use it to get the last word in. And you implicitly acknowledged that it was unwanted harassment when you asked him not to delete the comment (it perfectly illustrated that you knew he didn't want it there, but still expected him to keep it anyways). That is, even if you are given the heaviest of bias in regards to the RCOG article itself, there was absolutely no excuse for that last addition. And no way to take it as anything but harassment. I don't care about RCOG. I don't even remember what it stands for. This wasn't about someone unfairly taking sides. Nor was it based on personal opinions on a content dispute in some article. It was about clear and easily identified misconduct. My only suggestion is that you simply drop it and move on. There's no reason you can't contribute a lot; but that'll require assuming a bit of good faith in people. Bladestorm 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, okay, let’s presume that everything I did at the RCOG article was perfectly appropriate, so we would have to also presume that KC was the one who erred at the RCOG article. And we would also have to presume that when KC kept saying at her talk page that I had been disruptive, and that I had behaved in bad faith, and that I had been edit-warring, that KC was completely wrong to say all that, and was falsely accusing me of some pretty serious stuff. Okay, so there I was at KC’s talk page, and presumably she was wrongly accusing me of all these things after wrongly reverting me at the RCOG article, and you say it was arguably harassment on my part to merely say, “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” You’re seriously suggesting that it would be okay for KC to falsely accuse me of being disruptive, but not okay for me to accurately accuse her of being disruptive? That’s just not plausible.

Here’s the harassment accusation. I want an acknowledgment that it was heinously unjustified. Yes, I could have behaved better after that harassment accusation (though I do not think it was unreasonable for me to want to deny that charge at the page where it was made). But the point here is not what happened after. The point is that the charge was unfounded. Bogus. Trumped up. Rude. Your only diffs are from after the charge was made.Ferrylodge 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Point of this thread

Let's get to the point. The further I look into this edit war, the clearer it becomes to me that this is just an edit war, and that light incivility occurred on both sides (accusing others of being disruptive is light incivility, and occurs often in disputes; personal attacks, like f* you, are heavy incivility). I could provide diffs to back up my notion, but I prefer to forgive and forget, just as Ferrylodge said at the begining of the thread.

Now, the point: Ferrylodge, can you briefly sum up why you think Bishonen was out of line by blocking you (see the bold message at the top of the page: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes), diffs included. And if anyone could briefly respond to Ferrylodge, point by point, with diffs, as to why it's not a good argument, that would be appreciated. As it stands, I've sat here reading forever, and it's still way too much for me. If Bishonen had been involved in this edit war and then blocked Ferrylodge, I could see an RFC being valid - nothing is worse than personal blocks, IMHO. What I'm getting at is: was there a conflict of interest in the blocking? However, there is a good chance this will be ignored, and it might just be easier to let it pass by, unless there is a history of such problems with Bishonen, or she does it again.

In any case, please respond below. The Evil Spartan 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? You seem to travel an awfully long way on a single banana peel there. Unless I do what again? Bishonen | talk 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Improperly blocking again. However, if you read the statement, that was under the theoretical possibility that you did anything wrong to begin with. Which is what Ferrylodge will briefly prove here. The Evil Spartan 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Will he, now. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, why are you assuming bad faith on my part? I'm completely uninvolved in this. Is there a reason you're looking to misuse my words? Please read my statement again. The Evil Spartan 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spartan, perhaps you should re-read this thread. All of it. Including what you wrote. And possibly apologise to Bishonen. Just a thought. I could be in error. Anything is possible. KillerChihuahua 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

that was under the theoretical possibility that you - bold added to show how I'm reading Evil Spartan's words. Dan Beale 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The part which concerns me is "why are you assuming bad faith on my part?... Is there a reason you're looking to misuse my words" and I imagine Bishonen is having trouble swallowing "Ferrylodge will briefly prove here" - neither of which admit any possibility whatsover other than that Ferrylodge is completely in the right and can prove it; and Bishonen is failing to AGF and "looking" to "misuse" Spartan's words. Perhaps you would care to reconsider and rephrase, Spartan? KillerChihuahua 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Spartan, you and I must be reading different ANI's. FL has shown himself to be petulant, angry, disruptive, and, let's be frank, childish (OK, I'm repeating petulant). This diff alone indicates a certain lack of maturity. KC and Bishonen have shown remarkable levels of patience with FL, whose edits on these topics go way over what I would personally tolerate as disruptive. Do not interpret this as an attack Spartan, but if you're going to defend FL, please show us where he's acted in good faith and maturely. I'm not seeing it. Orangemarlin 22:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The point of this thread" is indeed the point. In his statement of his complaint, a long, long, long, long statement of why he has the right version. In his statement of the dispute, another argument about why he's right. AN/I is not for content disputes. If we can possibly strip the content dispute (which is going on by both sides in this thread), what do we have? "I was blocked when I hadn't been disruptive" or "I was blocked when I wasn't being very disruptive?" No one here is going to rule on the content dispute. The only thing we can do is try to counsel (rather than rule) about whether the block was justified by the behavior, not by the truthfulness of either point of view. From what I can tell, the block wasn't effective (preventing further disruption and poisoning of the atmosphere), but it does seem to be warranted (an escalating anger and desire to be proven right). Geogre 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The block was righteous, and there's no need for thousands more words of discussion on the matter. Jayjg 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For present purposes, I don't care if the block was righteous. The issue (in my mind) is whether this harassment accusation accompanied by block threat was righteous. I’m not talking about the subsequent block, or anything else that happened after the harassment accusation accompanied by block threat.

Harassment is a serious charge, and of course it’s even more serious to say, basically, “go away harasser and say not another word here, not even to deny that you’re a harasser, or else you’ll be blocked.” Which is what Bishonen did to me. I didn’t react as well as I could have afterward, but all of that is subsequent fallout.

Misplaced Pages has a definition of harassment here. I’ve quoted it several times at this ANI. But no one supporting Bishonen’s decision has quoted it or even linked to it. No one has cited a particular diff from KC’s talk page (where the harassment allegedly occurred), and said that it violates a particular aspect of the Misplaced Pages harassment policy. The way to avoid bullying and name-calling is to stick to the facts and the guidelines.

Perhaps the most confusing thing about this whole situation is the extent to which the legitimacy of Bishonen’s accusation of harassment at KC’s talk page depends on whether or not I had been bad at the RCOG article. After all, that’s what KC and I were arguing about at her talk page. Even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article, I still don’t think that anything said at KC’s talk page amounted to harassment on my part, under Misplaced Pages’s definition. I was not angelic at KC’s talk page, and neither was she. But harassment? Come on. So far, the worst example that anyone has cited of my alleged “harassment” of KC prior to the harassment charge was when I said this: “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” It was not an angelic thing to say, but KC had just accused me of being disruptive and worse (bad faith as well as edit-warring). Can anyone show that I said anything worse than this at KC’s talk page prior to the harassment charge? Evidently not.

So, there was no harassment by me, even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article. And I can prove that I was good at the RCOG article! The edit that I made at the RCOG article that started this whole thing is here. KC says I was being disruptive, but I was not. The edit merely said that RCOG took a pro-choice position about what the law should be. I had never before made such an edit, and I have never made such and edit since, so it’s not possible to accurately say that that edit exemplifies disruption or edit-warring or bad faith.

I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I bite back when bitten. But I edit in good faith, I am honest, I do not engage in harassment, and I should not have to deal with such incredibly nebulous, vague accusations.Ferrylodge 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please limit comments to one paragraph or less?--Popeye Doyle 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure.Ferrylodge 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well...? Can you summarize it for those of us who don't feel like reading it all? Aeon Flux 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New block for Hayden5650

This user well known for disrupting behavior just came back for a blocking (more info at User talk:Hayden5650 and User_talk:125.237.116.59), but it seems he did not corrected the demeanour (just to quote yesterday's "euthanasia of Jews"). Personally, I gave him some time ago an initial advice, then I made a presentation of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased (just to mention Romani issues), or repeated abusing words like Gypsies, Negroes and so on. Now he is following me in my edits, opposing me, in all kind of fields he has no knowledge about, deleting my talk , . and abusing me racially , .

What do you think about considering this case for a permanent community ban? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given my opinion here. --Kuaichik 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll exercise my right of reply after work, but after my block all I have done is revert a few of Desiphral's edits, (her edits were simply the deletion of information), while a discussion can take place to reach a consensus on the matter. --Hayden5650 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that other users are taking the same action in reverting her edits, whilst the topic is up for discussion. --Hayden5650 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am "him", not "her" (this is just part of this user's disruptive behavior). The edit war concerns a category listed for deletion Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28#Category:Population_groups_of_mixed_ancestry, that is irrelevant for the article Romani people, only used by racist users for Romani bashing. Anyway, this is diversion from the main reason of the presentation of this incident, concerning repeated disrupting behavior in many other contexts (almost all of this users's edits are looking for controversion) Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your point. But I just don't know. I think only an admin can really decide whether a ban should be issued, and if so, what kind.

Last time we had a vandalism issue, I recommended an admin I know. Should I ask him to take a look at the Romani people talk page again, also asking him to look at this page? Or what? --Kuaichik 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, I almost forgot. He's on a short wikibreak. But maybe I can ask him after he comes back if you'd like. --Kuaichik 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may be appropriate, thanks. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of RS sources

After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Misplaced Pages article to an admin (see here) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see here), (see here), (see here), (See here), (see here)

There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Misplaced Pages. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of Tamilnet.

Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source see here

When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks Taprobanus 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet reports that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- FayssalF - 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:)

Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see here). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Misplaced Pages. His point of view is just one point of view.See here for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past.

User:RGTraynor another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source. So we have diverse opinion here about this source.

Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the French colonials were very fond of the game of Cricket in Vietnam:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in Dravidian and Tamil related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned User:WikiRaja. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become reliable sources. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past WP:RS. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide reliable sources like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is absolutely no dearth of reliable sources(and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape.

And what do you mean by - "...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."? Are you suggesting that you have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations.

And please read WP:RS, WP:EL and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about Tamilnet then. Thanks

Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are divided with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like 213.181.56.12 (talk · contribs) who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.Bakaman 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like TamilNet reports that.... -- FayssalF - 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing 'notability' and 'reliability'. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a TamilNet on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them 'RS'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. Sarvagnya 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an editor with rather impeccable professional credentials who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is their POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. Sarvagnya 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just WP:SOAP. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a qualified source (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS?

Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- FayssalF - 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been any consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. Sarvagnya 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- FayssalF - 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like Sydney Morning Herald and the tabloid Adelaide Advertiser say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- FayssalF - 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about Sarathambal case Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. Watchdogb 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", still there are articles which have been sourced using anti-rebel sources as WP:RS. Those who are willing to remove Tamil-Centric souces using as WP:RS for the events purported by the State Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the Tamil areas where the International Press is in total isolation, are keeping silent to the usage of anti-rebel sources as WP:RS in various articles. Whether Blnguyen has failed to see those articles or he has biased view towards the persecution of the Tamil community in the Sri Lanka to be exposed to the world is not still clear. But his vesak wishes to his friends who are adamantly against the view there is a State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, is giving some view of his biased nature and will only lead to a RFC against him subsequently.Lustead 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet does not file false data, there are serious non Indian and Sri Lankan researchers such as from the United States and Australia who have studied this news site. For example for archived version of the research paper on this see this. Read it in full before making any comments. I can provide more such research papers. I am not arguing that Tamicanadian is a RS source, so let us not confuse the matter here. The discussion here is only about Tamilnet as I said I will take it all the way because I am sure we will prevail at the end when neutral uninvolved Wikipedians see the arguments on both sides not any one belonging to a cabal or faction with and axe to grind.

Tamilnet passes RS because

• 1. It has an editorial board
• 2. It has an editor
• 3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy
• 4. It is used as a primary source by notable media

organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.

5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)

To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Misplaced Pages. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all.

For example in the Sarathambal rape and murder case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article.

Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations.

I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks Taprobanus 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source to back up the allegation that Tamilnet is not a reliable source? Partisan view can never be a parameter in deciding RS. For example, there are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which uses *karnataka* web sites which present kannad-centric views and obviously very partisan. Let's not get into the quality of these websites. Anyways, a simple search in google provided me with these sources.

A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives.

"It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media. The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product." here is the link

Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in conference papers and other research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. Praveen 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that Kasun Ubayasiri is an Australian of Sri Lankan majority Sinhalese extraction which makes his point of view even more credible. His reaserch papers have appread in may scholarly jourmnals. Thanks 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>I can't believe that any editor would even suggest that Taminet is a reliable source. Plain and simple, every single news organization that refers to a report from Tamilnet, Reuters , AP , Xinhua , AFP etc etc all call Tamilnet a pro-LTTE website. So does even the BBC ("Tamilnet, the pro-Tamil Tiger website"). The only reason reports from Tamilnet are quoted in international media is that Tamilnet is considered the official news website of the LTTE, just like reports by Baghdad Bob were widely quoted by international media.

To give a few examples, Tamilnet sometimes reports incidents before they actually "happened" . Two weeks ago Tamilnet published a bogus news item containing material from an alleged "interview" with the Bishop of Jaffna, one of the highest ranking religious leaders in Sri Lanka. The Bishop later completely denied he even spoke to Tamilnet, saying "Hence I deny totally the report ascribed to me by the Tamil Net".

I simply don't see any reason for this argument to continue. No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency. Regarding it as a RS for Misplaced Pages articles would be simply ridiculous, and there should be no two ways about that. --snowolfD4 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency Admins please take note ofthe above WP:ATTACK on wikipedia editors who are trying resolve this matter by amicable discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because these news sites call Tamilnet a pro rebel website does not mean that the website fail RS. Also I can remember many protests against BBC for giving one sided information on the LTTE. So if you want to look at it that way then I guess that BBC also a unreliable source. For example- BBC reported that they had credible evidence that shows that the LTTE was running the credit card fraud in UK. However, they failed to show the "Credible" evidence. Furthermore the UK police them self have said that they have NO evidence linking LTTE to these fraud. Does this mean the BBC is not to be used in the SL related articles ? Does that mean that BBC is not a RS ? This argument brings about 2 debates. 1) Since the BBC has made false news blaming LTTE then how can we take their word on Tamilnet being pro rebel. 2) Since BBC has done this sort of biased coverage they can be considred Biased against the LTTE. So does that mean that BBC should not be used as RS ? Also as I have said above other sources have been crammed into wikipedia which are considred Anti rebel. So if thats sites are allowed to be used then why not Tamilnet (playing the devil's advocate) even if its pro rebel ? - watchdogb

Also the story about Bishop of Jaffna is not exactly as Snowulf puts it. Their title was wrong but the story is right. A close associate of the bishop told Tamilnet these stories. Tamilnet went on to say that they made a mistake and that they will change the title. They even made a article on this.

Section break

I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:

• TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)
• Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced. Please read the next point.
• Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (source: RS/Examples).
• The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry..We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.
• I am a Moroccan and i use to edit Western Sahara related articles and i've never attempted to claim that the pro-Polisario (the Saharaoui separatist group)arso.org website is unreliable. We use it as a reference in many related articles. Is it biased? Have they lied? Yes, definetely but who and which is not? Many times and the lies have been mainly reported by foreign and NGO media. Has Moroccan newpapers lied? Yes, of course and in many occasions. THEY ALL LIE sometimes, if not all the time. Let me add this to you. Recently Morocco blocked access to YouTube. I was the one who first added the information to article. Why it has been blocked? Well, one of the speculations is that Morocco didn't want some videos about abusing rights of some Saharawi students. Ummm!!!! Than which side is unreliable here? The state owned media or the partisan media who could publish videos of the abuses on YouTube? I am sorry but in this case i SHOULD consider YouTube as reliable and kick the garbage of the other side out of my scope.
• I used also to work on the article about ETA, the Basque separatist group. Everyone knows about the group but only a few would know about Gara. Well, Gara in simple words is the loudly mouth of ETA. Gara newspaper has had the habitof publish/announcing terrorist attacks executed by ETA hours before they occur. It is not only considered biased but it considered to be part of ETA, and therefore a terrorist newspaper according to their opponents (mainly the Spanish gov't) though nothing is sure or otherwise it would have been shut down as they did w/ Egin. Still, we use it as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages as media outlets around the word do. Do we have any dispute tag on the ETA-related articles? No. Are they protected? No.
• NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. -- FayssalF - 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and other misconduct of User:Cleo123

There has recently been a rather heated conversation at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity regarding inclusion of a particular subject. I unfortunately was one such party. I full well volunteer to take any penalty any of you may seek to impose for my own actions. However, there is one other party involved who I believe well crossed the line, and seems to be hiding as a result. I am speaking of User:Cleo123. I am specifically speaking of that user's statement that his/her own actions were prompted by a wish to prevent a libel lawsuit arising, based on assumptions which are nowhere put forward in any policy or guideline. I am also speaking most directly about the thread at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity#Hypocrisy, which I believe is clearly and explicitly a violation of the rules regarding no personal attacks. The fact that this user has since on his/her own talk page stated that s/he saw no reason for admin involvement in this matter, and actually seemed to oppose involving any oversight here after making the accusations in the Hypocrisy thread makes it clear to me that this user may well have been engaged in the conversation from the beginning for, as another user has stated here and here, the purposes of intimidation and harrasment. I also note that since I first gave this party notice that I would be filing a complaint, partially to see if that party displayed any real interest in validly raising the complaints they made regarding me on the "Hypocrisy" charges above, that party has completely disappeared and had not a single edit. Frankly, that surprised me rather a lot, but it does seem to me to be possibly a tacit acknowledgement of wrongdoing. I would like to see this user receive some sort of penalty for the clear and I think egregious attempts at intimidation and harrasment, but also would like to see the editor be allowed to contribute productively elsewhere as well. Is there anyway to level a block as it were "pro-rated" to include the time the editor has voluntarily removed him/herself? If such is possible, I would think that such would be the most appropriate penalty. Also, I have no objections to keeping the "Hypocrisy" thread intact, as its presence, and the subsequent ability to point toward it, I think helps insure that such actions not happen again. Thank you for your attention in this rather odd matter. John Carter 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the last post to that thread was about 10 days ago and you are still here, I'd say if there was an intent to intimidate you, it didn't really work too well did it? While noting that there is clear incivility from multiple parties on that talkpage, I don't see much reason for admin action against specific editors at this time. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and it appears the behavior you are objecting to has ended at this point. On a side note, I protected the article because it appears the underlying edit war is still happening. Perhaps it is time for the parties who have taken an interest in this article to look into dispute resolution.--Isotope23 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the blocking policy, particularly the bit where it says that 'The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment'. Cleo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited Misplaced Pages for just over a week. In various places, by various editors, it has been sugggested to all of you involved in your little teapot tempest at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity to calm down, have a cup of tea, and relax. Cleo123 has apparently been willing to disengage for a while, despite you trying to goad her into filing some sort of complaint about you. Please follow her lead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(moving comment to chronological position, having been caught in apparent edit conflict) Mediation was actually tried before. Cleo actually told the major proponent for the non-inclusion of Bob Dylan, User:Bus stop, on his talk page, to not accept mediation when I and others had filed for mediation, and it was thus rejected. Whether that party would be any more willing to accept mediation since he has directly asked elsewhere what the "tendious" editing is he has been accused of is here, that party's actions seem to have been more limited. And my apologies for my earlier comments regarding your recent protection of the page. I hadn't looked at the page's recent activity to see the current dispute. I hope that the newly created discussion on where to include people who have converted to Christianity and subsequently to something else will resolve the existing dispute, but think that protection might be a good idea again in any event. My apologies again. John Carter 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter did not link to the entirety of that exchange, which was largely a joke, and unrelated to the subject at hand. Here is the link to the exchange in its entirety:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rogue_admin_blocks_me_for_2RR

It was just a joke. The joke is that no such word as "tendious" exists in the English language. Bus stop 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Prices and catalogs

Some feedback is requested on Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America), whether the list should include pricing information on individual video games, or whether these are considered trivia. >Radiant< 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky. I believe this should be discussed w/in a policy or a MoS scope. However, i'd say we are an encyclopedia where we gather as much information as we can, BUT pricing? Ummm, prices change every once and then and if we are going to include them we must be able to update them and i don't think we can manage that if we are going to include all prices for all products in wikipedia. Leave that job to the marketing guys working for their companies. They have their own websites (which can be reached from here by clicking on external links) where they can list and update their prices. We don't represent them. -- FayssalF - 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another article that falls under the price guide issue: Xbox_Live_Arcade#Xbox_Live_Arcade_games_for_the_Xbox_360. RobJ1981 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Really annoying and bothering as an issue. But is this the right place to discuss this? What about the village pump or wikiprojects? -- FayssalF - 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't ask people to discuss it here, I'm just notifying people here that we have a discussion on that talk page I mentioned. Please chime in there. >Radiant< 08:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, heck no! No prices. No, no, no, no, no, and more no. Nope. Not at all. It is crossing the very first line of Misplaced Pages: we are not a place where things are on sale, for sale, or promoted for sale. Listing prices is, first of all, instantly inaccurate, and, second of all, acting as handmaiden to retail. Not a chance, not a way, not at all. Geogre 02:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

When will South Philly stop harrassing me?

I have to question when South Philly (talk · contribs) is going to stop trying to harrass me. I thought with the cessation of Evrik's attempts to appoint himself coordinator of WikiProject Awards, South Philly's abusive messages would cease, but apparently not. Actually, that last one was an attack on Kathryn NicDhàna as well, who supported the removal of Evrik as coordinator and really was utterly non-confrontational throughout. South Philly is utterly loyal to Evrik, to the point of nominating an certified RfC against him for deletion last week claiming that the five pages of evidence was just spurious and should be deleted. If South Philly can combine defending Evrik and attacking me, all the better; thus he signed an outside statement on the RfC in which it was claimed the LGBT community, and more specifically, me and Jeffpw, were deliberately targetting Evrik, written by someone who we strongly believe is a sockpuppet of a user banned for disrupting LGBT articles. South Philly has now nominated WikiProject Awards for deletion, which, beyond being too ironic for words that his basis for doing so is "excessive bureaucracy", is simply an attempt, once again, to get at me - which is just bizarre given I don't really care and haven't posted there for weeks. However, it's kinda POINTy because with the demise of Barnstar proposals, the WikiProject is more necessary than ever for help with new awards, be it design, or wording or whatever.

I find it unlikely that South Philly is going to give up his disruptive habits (which he also appears to be pursuing with Radiant! as well, but I can't comment on that) or vendetta against me in the near future, and as my time on Misplaced Pages is very limited, restricted mainly to minor edits and comments, I thought I'd detail it here for the future reference of any admins who may wish to watch him. I am certainly getting very fed up with this snidely little comments appearing everywhere because South Philly didn't get his way that one time. DevAlt 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, which doesn't amount too much, but this all stems from the "necessary" WikiProject Awards. Anyone else see the irony in that? I was belittled at the MfD for calling the project disruptive and pointless. Not that any of this matters. Sorry if no one cares to hear my opinion. IvoShandor 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments Ivo is referring to were not from me, btw. However, the "disruption" was caused by Evrik and South Philly, ended some time ago as far as WP:AWARDS is concerned, and have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the project itself. Your reply was not the most edifying either, though, Ivo. DevAlt 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Having had no interactions (afaik) with South Philly for months now, and having barely interacted with him even during the WP:Awards situation (where SP and Evrik were trying to run the thing, and got very angry when other editors came in and made it democratic) I was very surprised at his odd post on my talk page today (linked above), and his screeds that some "gay cabal" is out to get him. It seems he cannot let go of what happened at WP:AWARDS. I looked at his recent contribs, and it appears to me that, rather than working on the encyclopedia, he is taking up lots of people's time with WP:POINT activities and subtle or not-so-subtle jabs and attacks on other editors. I think he needs to get constructive or take a time out. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize ANI was here to enlighten everyone. I was just pointing out that this all stemmed from the project. Sorry if you don't like that, that project has been nothing but a problem, but we are all entitled to our own opinions. Your response is, of course, your opinion too, and I didn't mean to imply that the comments were from you, just thought it was ironic that there is a report on ANI related to a project that I was told doesn't disrupt anything. I can't comment on the other stuff, for the record, however, I was one of the editors who came in and headed off evrik's attempts to declare himself coordinator. IvoShandor 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point, IvoShandor. SouthPhilly is insulting people. That's the problem. Raystorm 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Dulić

I'm fighting a sterile (and lame) edit war with 24.151.129.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) over the lead section of Oliver Dulić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I kindly tried to explain him why his persistent addition that the man is "of Yugoslav descent" is both nonsensical (in American terms, it would be comparable to "a man of Christian descent" for someone from mixed-religion marriage) and inappropriate for the lead section, and already in the appropriate place in the article, but he just keeps on re-adding it. Since I don't want to break 3RR, and I'm in an edit dispute with him, can someone explain it to him in more stern terms or semi-protect the article? Thanks. Duja►

Well, while I don't understand the specifics, I do understand that claiming a Serb is of Yugoslav descent is nonsense - it's like saying a Ukranian or Russian is of USSR descent. I've reverted, and will leave a clear message on the talk page to start communicating better on the talk page... or else. The Evil Spartan 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing of CfD by Mais Oui

The soon-to-close CfD for Category:Current British MPs and its sub-categories has been the subject of partisan canvassing by User:Mais oui! at Talk:Scottish National Party#SNP-related_category_has_been_nominated_for_deletion (see this edit).

The canvassing is both blatantly partisan and is directed at a targeted audience, thereby meeting two of the criteria for unacceptable votestacking set out at at WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing. It concludes with the sarcastic comment:

Please note that although the CFD terminology is "merge", de facto this means deletion. Lovely euphemism...

Several identifiably Scottish editors voters have since joined the CfD in explicit support of Mais Oui's position, altering the balance of votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me from commenting when I'm an identifiably Scottish voter myself, but so far as I can see there is nothing wrong with him contacting active members of a WikiProject with an interest in the discusion (the Scotland Project, in this case) and with taking the view that it is up to other related projects to sort themselves out. Blood Red Sandman 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blood Red Sandman, please read WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing. Mais Oui did not contact the "members of a WikiProject", he posted on the talk page of a particular political party, where he presumably hoped to reach editors with a particular viewpoint. Additionally, the message concerned was not neutral, as required by WP:CANVASS. --20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came to the discusion because he noted specifiacly on my talk page, and just assumed he had gone through the members of the Scotland Project. Very well, I will leave this to more capable hands if that is not the case. I have changed my attitude to no comment. Blood Red Sandman 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with unregistered user in the Any Dream Will Do article

An unregistered user persistently ignores reasoning and keeps reintroducing his changes to the criticism section, supposedly to remove bias but actually to add his own opinion. As the user won't register and the IP keeps changing (at least three different IP numbers are listed in the history) it's impossible to talk to this person and resolve the dispute. Constantly editing around won't do any good. I don't know how to solve this but I do feel that the edits that are being made aren't a merit to the article. How can this be resolved? A third opinion would also be appreciated on whether the edits made are actually useful. Little-quiqueg 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The page could be semi protected which will keep unregistered and newly register accounts at bay. Nick 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be good. But who can do that? I already feel accomplished just getting a semi-decent article format (I'm actually copying what you did to get the indent...). It would be preferable if this other person finally got an account so we could discuss this properly. Little-quiqueg 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The unregistered user keeps ignoring my attempt to open a discussion and keeps deleting information even though other editors have already said it's relevant and his comments arents.

• I've warned the IP editor about removing sourced material from the article.--Isotope23 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but now the user added completely biased information to the section to make it absurd. Little-quiqueg 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD in limbo

This AfD appears to be stuck in limbo - Tiswas 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that due to a technical error this was never listed on the main AfD page, which would explain the lack of participation in the AfD as well as the fact that no one noticed that it needed to be closed for over a month. It appears that someone is re-listing for a new debate. Comments on the original AfD should be incorporated in the new one, and/or the people who previously commented should be notified so they can do so again. Newyorkbrad 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it wasn't formatted correctly or listed in the logs. I tagged it with an afd2, and listed it. Makes sense to me to start the 5 days now, unless someone wants to make a "speedy" solution. --OnoremDil 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been speedied by User:^demon under CSD G11. WarpstarRider 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

...and then un-speedied later that day. -Hit bull, win steak 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Giano_II ignoring consensus

By unilaterally redirecting Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet (which recently survived afd as a keep). Doc_Glasgow has done the same thing. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Con doesn't trump V, and I note the only source is your personal website. KillerChihuahua 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support Giano's bold action. Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet as it stood was not remotely reliably sourced and there was simply nothing to support a standalone article there. An AFD closed Keep is not the be all end all that signifies an article should stay in a static state forever. All of these Arbuthnot articles that don't contain a distinct, sourced claim of notability per WP:BIO should be redirected. They can always be restored as standalone articles if verifiable sources are found. Of course this is all a content issue and I don't see any case for admin action against Giano for being bold.--Isotope23 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirection and merger can be implemented as editorial decisions outside the deletion process. Issues can be discussed on the talk of the articles in question. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Despite repeated requests on this page to desist from WP:COI edits to articles on members of his own family (see e.g. discussion above at #Vendetta), Kittybrewster has done it again, shortly after the expiry of a previous 48-hour block or the same problem. This is now clearly a form of disruptive editing, so I have imposed a fresh block, this time for 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to say that I am troubled by this block. I share the extreme concerns that have been expressed by many editors about the sourcing and reliability of some of the Arbuthnot articles and by Kittybrewster's handling of the controversies that have arisen surrounding them. However, his only substantive edit today was to correct a questioned date of birth while citing the Dictionary of National Biography, and I can't see that as warranting a block. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • He didn't simply correct a date, he removed the "notability" tag. IrishGuy 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I did miss that. Newyorkbrad 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The ongoing pattern of baiting and bullying that Kittybrewster has been subjected to is sad to see. Catchpole 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • • The ongoing pattern is more of a two way street, if anything. SirFozzie 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • While the edit in question wasn't a particularly good one (removing notability tag and then adding an inexplicable "reference" in the form of <ref>DNB</ref>... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), I think a 7 day block for that is a bit draconian. Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) has not made particularly helpful edits to these articles, but I just don't see this as blockable for that amount of time.--Isotope23 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There was a citation of the Dictionary of National Biography already present at the bottom of the article. "DNB" is a common abbreviation for that. Uncle G 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, I completely missed that it was supposed to be an abbreviation for that. Thanks for pointing that out. Personally I like to see references a bit clearer. The way it was done it was not clear.--Isotope23 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Brad; this particular action did not warrant a week's block. I do understand that it's cumulative, and I do understand the frustration with this editor's inability to understand why he cannot edit articles about himself and his family. Blocks, however, are intended to stop disruption; I frankly don't think that Kittybrewster's behavior is disruptive enough to warrant a one week block at this point, given how it is limited to one narrowly defined set of articles. Granted, it's pretty hard to follow the conversations on KB's talk page, since he keeps blanking it. --jpgordon 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I asked BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) to pop back over here to discuss the block. IMO, it should be refactored to something more along the lines of 24 hours if a block is going to be left on the account.--Isotope23 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Isotope23, for the note that this discussion was continuing. I will explain my reasons, but if there is a consensus for refactoring or lifting the block, that's fine by me: I won't object to any change which has consensus here.

My reasoning was that this COI editing is not something new, and that it has continued for a long time: KB refuses to acknowledge the existence of a COI, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly criticised both here at WP:ANI and on countless talk pages and AfDs. The product of all this COI editing has been a huge swathe of articles which are primarily dependant on sources owned by Kittybrewster himself (his website and a book to which he owns copyright), and efforts to delete or merge them in accordance with WP:N, WP:RS etc are hotly contested by Kittybrewster.

Debates over these articles have caused tempters to be raised on both sides, and Kittybewster's continued COI edits are only stoking the flames of a tense situation. After a previous block (which he did not contest), KB returned and set about COI editing straight away; that seems like to me to be clear indication that far from trying to help a calm resolution of the situation, he is happy to stoke the tensions. At this point, I think it's time to make it clear that such determined and persistent COI editing is unacceptable, so a further block was justified ... and 7 days seeems like the next logical increment after the previous 48-hour block.

AS above, if there is consensus here to lift or refactor the block, that's fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I actually did quite a bit of tidying this afternoon (for that is what it was) I made 4 baronets all non-notable with virtually zero information other than their wifes' and childrens' names and some trivial information not demonstrating notability (one was a JP, another a Master of Fox Hounds - all very commendable/enjoyable but hardly distinguished) into a redirect, and made the page known as Arbuthnot in to a redirect to Category: Arbuthnot family which is plain common sense.

This is the way forward with the Arbuthnot problem, tidy and sort. I have also discovered that some pages lead to the wider and more extended Arbuthnot family, some of these are not by the same author but that is neither here nor there as (despite his beliefs to the contrary) this problem is not about Kittybrewster and his friends personally but about the notability and often referencing of the Arbuthnot pages. Many of which he has not been the sole editor. We just need to apply some common sense and deal with this matter efficiently in a detached fashion - this is about the worth and standing of the encyclopedia nothing else. So far during this unseemly debacle I have been seen people being accused of supporting terrorist organizations, republicanism, "treating the British ascendency with disdain" and "opposing personal and political reasons", and of course David Lauder's latest accusation yesterday of a "vendetta". This is ludicrous and has to stop.

When by chance trawling Misplaced Pages for a stub to improve (as I often do) I initially came across the Arbuthnot pages I desperately tried to help Kittybrewster, but the more I researched and sourced the more errors I can across - I advised I tried to help, (God knows where I found the patience) on wiki and off - eventually I ran out of patience and told him why . Normally when I am a little abrupt with people I think afterwards - that was a little harsh. In this case I stand by every word. These people are not notable, the titles they hold may well be, so the title can have a page. Notable holders of that title can have a page. Non-notable holders of baronetcies do not need a page - especially when there is nothing to write about. At the end f the day the project is what is important, individual editors may have their problems (which of us do not?) but Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Regarding Kittybrewster's latest block - I could not care less about it. It makes no difference to the encyclopdia how long it lasts. Giano 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. This is a content dispute, with a user with a clear conflict of interests. The accusations are ridiculous and wild. I wrote an arbuthnot article, and the only one I recall redirecting I did so after no substantive arguments were offered against redirection on the talk page discussion. As for ignoring consensus on an AfD - check the afd on the article I redirected, there was 'no consensus'. Anyone who knows the fraught history between myself and Giano knows that we are the least likely two wikipedians to be in a conspiracy together. Yet, here we agree - could we possibly be right?--Doc 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I add my bungle of twigs to this bonfire?

• Redirecting non-notable Arbuthnots to an overarching article that is notable makes perfect sense.
• There is no vendetta, hounding, bullying or baiting of Kittybrewster, at least in so far as people like Giano are making a good-faith effort to deal with the many non-notable Arbuthnot articles (although there has been some of that in Kittybrewster's other interaction with other Wikipedians).
• In my opinion, Kittybrewster's most recent edit did not deserve a 7 day block - he added a reference to the DNB! If someone disputes his assertion (by deleting the "notability" tag) that the article is notable, take it to AFD. I would unblock immediately. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please just leave him where he is unable to edit! Giano 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: the title of this section, I don't think Giano was ignoring consensus at all he was following it as the majority of people seem in favour of not having articles about every Baronet just because they're a Baronet. I don't think it was necessary to block Kittybrewster for adding the DNB reference-if someone has a DNB article they are notable enough for an article here- I think a block would only be necessary if he started creating more family tree articles only sourced to that book. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustav, if KB thought that there was was extra information which could be added to the article, he could and should have followed the advice at WP:COI, and simply added a note to the talk page requesting that the information be added. And the most important point is that he should not' have unilaterally removed the {{notability}} tag from an article where there was a COI; in this case, I think that notability probably has been established, but that decision should not be made by an editor with a COI.

However, when checking the validity of the reference, I found that most of the article was a blatant copyvio of the subject's DNB entry at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/613 -- see Talk:Thomas Arbuthnot#Copyright_violation_from_DNB. The offending material was added by User:Frendraught, not by Kittybrewster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Giano acted properly. The block on Kittybrewster may be excessive but he doesn't appear to accept that there's any problem with his editing despite many complaints in different venues. Does anyone have a cluestick? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with Kitybrewster is that he does not accept anything he is told by anyone. He fails to appreciate that this is intended to be a serious project. He seems to have limited interests in the project other than attempting to turn it a record of his own family history. I have been saying now for some weeks that a panel of three of four highly reputable admins need be set up to review all his pages with delegated powers to delete or amend without further consultation or debate. They could check all sources and claims and email known editors who are experts in certain fields to verify claims - this would eliminate the need for the confrontational and often inaccurate claims and arguments taking place over each AFD. I would go as far as to suggest that Mackensen (who has a good working knowledge of the peerage and the subject, and a respected Arbcom member, be appointed chairman. I will go further and suggest that Kittybrewster is banned from editing all Arbuthbot and related pages until the panel has finished its work, after that any edits he makes thereafter to the pages have to be through an independent intermediary who screens for POV and conflict of interest. Giano 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck in finding your committee! But the second part (a community sanction preventing Kittybrewster from editing Arbuthnot articles directly) sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Presuambly we can impose such a sanction without bothering ArbCom? Power to the people, and all that. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock Kittybrewster as I think it is pretty clearly consensus that 1 week was excessive. At this point if someone wants to pursue a community solution feel free to do so.--Isotope23 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I said that I would leave it to a consensus to decide whether to refactor or lift the block, and I don't see such a consensus. But it's done, and I'm not going to wheelwar.

However, I woukd encourage anyone who doubted the merits of the block to take a look the discussion on KB's talk page: as Giano said earlier today "The problem with Kitybrewster is that he does not accept anything he is told by anyone".

Now that the block is lifted, I expect that Kittybrewster will soon be back editing Arbuthnot articles again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And I for one would support a week's block should KittyBrewster once again start the Arbuthnot nonsense. He's been told about COI and V and RS many, many times. I'm not going to wheel war, but I fail to see a clear consensus for unblock, and consider the unblocking precipitate. KillerChihuahua 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We serve Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not here to serve us. Our personal lives and heritage are personal, and writing up an article on one's ancestors because they're you're family is a violation of WP:VANITY. It is absolutely no different from writing up an article about your girlfriend because "shes so hot" or your boyfriend because "he's awsum." In other words, the fundamental intellectual mistake is in trying to use Misplaced Pages's servers and services to glorify and amplify oneself. I wrote an Arbuthnot, too, and kittybrewster had no interest in it until someone decided to change all the spellings to "British" (against MoS, folks), and then the same mentality came in: this must serve my glory. I support a prohibition against editing Arbuthnot family articles, but I fear that this particular user will simply pick up his mother's family next. He has had the rules against genealogy explained to him by a dozen people. He has been treated quite kindly in general. He has had the principles stated, restated, and restated again. Consensus has been demonstrated, and yet he believes this is worth fighting for. If he has a use for us other than attesting his family lore, that's good, but I would recommend that he be prohibited from writing articles on Scottish gentry. I know that's broad, but I'm getting quite convinced that the users understands the policies and simply plans to flaunt them. Geogre 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Returned Labrador Retriever vandal

7raptor7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Silverlabrador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come back once again to add incorrect information to article Labrador Retriever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). On May 22, they sent me an e-mail via Misplaced Pages containing fluff on how I am ruining Misplaced Pages and threatening to "monitor" me and then report me to some unnamed authority.

I had filed a complaint on the COI board in March, which can be found here. "Silverlabrador" was blocked indefinitely, as was I believe one or more of his IP addresses 65.73.71.*. For a time, the article itself was protected to keep them from editting. Sarrandúin 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you reverted the article and that is the end of it for now. My suggestion is to monitor the article and if these sorts of edits continue from IPs post here again if it is 1 IP or request semi-protection if it is multiple IPs. Since that IP only made the change once and you reverted it, I think a block is premature at this point. If it continues and becomes disruptive, I'd be happy to revisit the issue.--Isotope23 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted again- their IP address changes, but like I said, it's almost always a 65.73.71.*. I did add a mis-info warning template this time to their latest address. I've gone through the history and made note of the various addresses they've used on the Lab article (there were also edits to the talk page that I didn't bother with). I made this section between the last two May 30 edits. Sarrandúin 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• May 30- 65.73.71.124
• May 30- 65.73.71.113
• Feb 2-3- 65.73.71.87
• Dec 3, Jan 6- 65.73.71.41
• Jan 6- 65.73.71.19
• Jan 5- 65.73.70.182
• Jan 5- 65.73.71.116
• Jan 5- 65.73.71.33
• Jan 4- 65.73.71.47
• Jan 4- 65.73.71.49
• Jan 4- 65.73.71.123
• Jan 1- 65.73.71.97
• Dec 30- 65.73.70.146
• Dec 29- 65.73.71.95
• Dec 3- 65.73.71.118
• Dec 3- 65.73.71.107

• I semi-protected the page from IP edits.--Isotope23 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Long-term problematic IP

67.87.69.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): I wasn't aware it was possible to have this long a contribution list which consists almost entirely of vandalism (mostly falsely listing games for Virtual Console, in one case five different times) and not be indef-blocked. Nifboy 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, WP:AIV might be the place to go to here? For a nice, long block in case of more vandalism. Sandstein 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievably, I think nifboy may have a point. This user has been categorically been adding false information to Misplaced Pages for at least 5 or 6 months now. this type of vandalism is far worse than the "johnny is gay" vandalism because it makes Misplaced Pages untrue and brings it into disrepute. I suggest a very long block from any admin. Granted, IP's can change, but this is clearly a preventative block. The Evil Spartan 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are all the edits false? I wouldn't know, as I'm not playing video games. Sandstein 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear, from my quick research, that at least most are. At very best, they're based on WP:CRYSTAL information, but more likely, it's fraudulent. For example, in my quick perusal, I found this user add Bloodstorm to the list of Wii games , but there is no mention of this on the list standard list: . This is just one of many examples. This is very destructive. The Evil Spartan 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, blocked for a month as a vandalism-only IP. Sandstein 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Curiously, I did report it on AIV but it was removed without action because it had been more than a day since his last edit. So I came here instead. Nifboy 23:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:200.198.98.67

Would it be possible to get some sort of longer term block on this address? It appears to be the home addrss of a puppet master who has continually added hoax/nonsense about himself to WP. Please see warnings at User talk:200.198.98.67, User talk:Lauroroger, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lauro Roger. Help blocking the usernames and/or protecting the AFD article would be appreciated. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And now User:Heighallen has done it again, removing the AFD warnings. Would somebody please take a look at this? The Evil Spartan 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Heighallen (talk · contribs) for AFD disruption... On further reflection I closed the AFD and speedy deleted the article as page creation vandalism. We don't need to coddle self-promoters that fabricate sources.--Isotope23 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Tegner and Millbanks

In initally came upon Bill Tegner when I found him altering other people's comments on talk pages , . After a series of warning, he eventually stopped.

From that point, he started adding his own POV to articles such as:

Adding "Plastic Paddy" to the Ancient Order of Hibernians

Pushing his personal POV in the Peter O'Toole article

Adding "Plastic Paddy" to the Daniel Day-Lewis article

Starting a thread on the talk page of "Plastic Paddy" about people he personally deems non-plastic and goes on to call me a plastic paddy . This, after he had already made a rude remark about my being Irish

After creating a new account, Millbanks (which he admitted to me), he continued to troll. On May 10, he stated: "Look, it's easy. Call the English English, the Welsh Welsh, and the Scots Scots. OK?" but then 10 days later he says: "Even the word British causes problems there, with ill-educated people writing to the press objecting to Scots and Welsh being called "British"." Those two sentences so directly contradict each other that it is obvious he is doing nothing but trolling.

A look through his edits under both names will show that the majority of his edits are article talk pages. His only article edits are minor grammatical changes or introducing his own POV (like calling Daniel Day-Lewis a "plastic paddy"). When I first confronted him, he simply abandoned the original account and started anew under a new name. If someone else could explain to him that Misplaced Pages article talk pages aren't message forums it might get through to him...but frankly I am a little short of good faith for this user and I think he is intentially screwing around. IrishGuy 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also witnessed this guys edits - in my opinion he is a pure troll, he does all his work on talk pages and drags up old arguments for the sake of an argument.--Vintagekits 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is easier to call the English, English, etc., and that's my preference, and in most cases theirs too. But technically they, the Scots and Welsh are British, and that is a matter of FACT. Millbanks 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair. I think my problem is that I make points that you are uncomfortable with. Look, if you use the phrase "any scolar" about being Irish, do you really expect me to take that seriously?

My recent article edits include the Anglican viewpoint on the Blessed Virgin; the relationship of Pope Pius VI with the Anglican Church; and the religion of Modern Celts. None of those are at all frivolous. Millbanks 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ben-w

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

This matter is already as heated as it can be. With Ben unblocked and warned, let's all just try and remain cool - like Isotope wisely pointed out, we have several rough days ahead of us... Phaedriel - 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Ben-w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month per this on my talk page after this warning. If Phaedriel or someone wants to unblock him then fine, right now we don't need angry people with insufficient self-control. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – FayssalF - 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – FayssalF - 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – Joxerman blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – No admin intervention required. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved – ANI is not on the path to User talk:Betacommand. It is refreshing to not see someone bitching about Betacommand himself, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot