Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 27 October 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?

Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected

I have just full-protected the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely (no expiration set). I wanted to notify other administrators and explain this action, for community review.

This article subject has been the subject of a long-running sustained edit war, and three completed Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others) and one pending (WP:RFAR#Cberlet and Dking) Arbitration Committee cases. An extremely persistent LaRouche supporter User:Herschelkrustofsky has been banned and returned repeatedly (most recent sockpuppet Gelsomina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked last night based on CU and editing; had been a participant on the article but not the primary one).

The specific case findings I believe apply to this action include:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

Normal policy allows administrators to protect pages to end particularly tedentious edit wars. This edit war has been actively ongoing since 2004.

Under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Enforcement 3 administrators are allowed to protect articles on other topics in a version without LaRouche content added. I am going to trivially extend that ruling and protected the article in a version which was not the last, but the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version. I believe this action is in accord with the spirit of the Arbcom ruling.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views. These activities have been persistent. They have broken WP policy to the extent of four separate arbcom cases in 3 years. They have utilized sockpuppets to an extent which is at best difficult to follow and monitor.

The common hope that two opposing camps on an article will over time come to an agreeable middle solution which is NPOV (and so forth) appears to be false related to articles on this topic.

I have left advice on the article Talk page for editors who want changes in the article to leave a talk page note detailing the change desired and discuss there; changes which appear consistent with Misplaced Pages policy can then be made by administrators watching the talk page. I will continue to watch the talk page to monitor for such requests, and I hope other admins will do likewise.

It may be appropriate to apply this solution to other related articles on the same topic. At this point I have no firm intention to do so but I am going to review them in more detail.

As always, I am open to input from other administrators and editors on any of my admin actions, either here on ANI or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded your WikiEN-L message to the arbcom list. I find this initiative against dedicated COI POV-pushers and their sock drawer most heartening - David Gerard 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He's going to "trivially extend" the arbcom ruling? He's rewriting it altogether! --Marvin Diode 14:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of El C. Three cheers, stopping a massive edit war, showing initiative, and an action that shows exactly why IAR is policy. My mood has been lifted. It's Oktoberfest, Bratwurst and beer for all! -M 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Tenacious POV-pushers give us much bigger headaches than simple vandals and trolls. And they strike at the heart of the project by consciously making our content unreliable. Raymond Arritt 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The nice thing too is that "indefinite" here does not mean "forever" - the FlaggedRevisions extension, should it prove fit for purpose, will serve nicely to keep pages like this under control - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An elegant, innovative, and bold solution fitting neatly with Arbcom rulings and the current situation. I'm taking notes. Pig 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a new and innovative approach that renders Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution obsolete. Where there is a protracted content dispute, an admin may simply decide that he prefers one gang of POV pushers over the other, then join the gang that is to his liking and enforce its version of the article. No need for consensus, either. And what is more, there is no further need for the arbcom, now that User:Georgewilliamherbert has ignored all rules, stepped up to the plate, and simply done their job for them. --Marvin Diode 20:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That you have been a pro-LaRouche POV pusher on this article has no bearing on your opinion, of course - David Gerard 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some evidence to substantiate this personal attack? --Marvin Diode 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

your removal of critical information and removal of his anti-semitism from the article linked here would seem to make it less of an attack and more a statement of fact. -M 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In your first example, I hid a twenty year old comment by the Post which might belong in the article but not in the lead, since I doubt that it is still accurate today. In the second example, I removed OR by Dking, which puts words in LaRouche's mouth in a defamatory way. Any responsible editor would do that. NOR and BLP are core policies. --Marvin Diode 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of page protection policy

Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Content disputes says that:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

User: Georgewilliamherbert has been a participant in a recent content dispute at Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Today he reverted to his preferred version of the article, then protected it, in violation of policy. --Marvin Diode 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Except he's ignoring all rules to end a pernicious edit war on this page. It makes sense in this context, and is buttressed by the ArbCom rulings on the topic. See the above section — the pernicious LaRouche edit-wars have already led to special provisions against pro-LaRouche versions of articles, against regular policy. This is a logical extension thereof. --Haemo 06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom decisions don't say anything of the sort. They say that if someone adds references to LaRouche to an article where it is inappropriate, then admins may protect the version that doesn't mention LaRouche. This is an article about LaRouche, and it appears to me that GWH is protecting a BLP violation (which is never supposed to happen.) --Marvin Diode 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to enter the BLP discussion on the article talk page. If a reasonable case is made to that effect then I or another administrator can fix the article text. Protected articles are not frozen; they are just not currently world-editable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Georgewilliamherbert in this. (If you would really prefer, I'll go unprotect it and protect it myself, since I've not been involved.) POV pushes need stopping, period. Seraphimblade 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It's not an IAR, it's entirely per the spirit of the arbcom ruling. - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Three cheers for User: Georgewilliamherbert and common sense. WAS 4.250 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is full protection required? What's wrong with semi-protection and liberal blocking of edit warriors? --Tango 00:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edit warriors here have long-standing accounts. --Carnildo 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the blocks are for. If certain people are persistently edit warring on an article, it is generally best to block them, rather than protect the article - protecting is good for forcing discussion and resolving the war, it doesn't sound like this war is ever going to be resolved, the people involved just need to be stopped. If you are worried about them just logging out or creating new accounts and carrying on, then you can semi-protect. --Tango 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's page protection was an appropriate way to deal with an increasingly difficult situation, and might make some progress possible. Tom Harrison 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What the arbcom decision actually says, versus User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension"

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche. (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) The essential thrust of this decision was to prevent User:Herschelkrustofsky from adding references to LaRouche to a variety of articles where LaRouche or his opinions were not notable. What User:Georgewilliamherbert is attempting to do, is to write his own arbcom decision, which says that if an article about Lyndon LaRouche or his views is protected due to edit wars over the removal of material which is alleged to violate WP:BLP, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which is the "the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version." A "LaRouche supporter" is defined as anyone who disputes the edits of User:Cberlet or User:Dking, who habitually violate WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI, and WP:BLP on a broad range of articles, not just the LaRouche articles. I have added little or nothing about LaRouche, either positive or negative, to the LaRouche articles, or any others -- my role has been to object to policy violations by Cberlet and Dking. In the course of doing so, I have become quite familiar with the LaRouche arbcom decisions, and User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension" of them is in fact an entirely new policy which should not be represented as in any way related to what the arbcom decided. --Marvin Diode 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You may notice the lack of interest and support for your wikilawyering on this point. I wonder why that is. - David Gerard 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No one cares and we're all to happy that someone got out the clue-by-four to solve a legitimate problem in a unique, innovative, and emminently reasonable manner? Oh silly me, you were being rhetorical and I should have avoided using this moment to bask in the glow of a confidence-inspiring action that lets me know the project is in good hands. Whoops, there I go again. -M 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem to be belaboring the obvious, but I get the feeling that there are one or two admins here who are either oblivious, or indifferent, to the core policies that they are supposed to be implementing. --Marvin Diode 00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The other admins seem to be supporting Georgewilliamherbert's actions though. Fram 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh! El_C 09:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the decision by Georgewilliamherbert to protect Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely. He is correct that it has been the subject of tendentious edit warring since 2004 The latest round has been particularly unproductive. An alternative solution would have been using Enforcement provision #1 of the first LaRouche ArbCom case, which would have resulted in the banning of Marvin Diode and others. However that probably would have been more disruptive and time consuming. The page protection is a reasonable and necessary step to bring stability to a contentious topic. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a neutral encyclopedia and all of its rules exist only to further that goal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've contributed to Misplaced Pages for a day short of five years now, & of all of the nasty, prolonged "we're bringing machine guns to this knife fight" edit wars on Misplaced Pages I've seen, the LaRouche-related one has been the worst. Worse than dealing with Scientologists, Neo-nazis, circumcision, or even the proper name of Danzig Gdańsk that port city on the Baltic sea. If his action ends this dispute, then GWH deserves all of our thanks. -- llywrch 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for Herschelkrustofsky

The main LaRouche editor has been Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently a moderator at Misplaced Pages Review. HK has been the subject of three ArbCom cases resulting in various short bans and probations, and finally a one year ban. In the course of those investigations it was found that he'd been using sock puppets from the start of his editing career. Desptire his ban, he's never stopped using them. The non-stop sock puppetry has resulted in the ban being reset several times, most recently this month, and has become a de-facto indefinite ban. I propose that we end the charade and make the indefinite ban official. It won't stop him from using more socks but it would make the situation clearer. Any thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we haven't formally banned him yet. Would very much support a ban. JoshuaZ 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to place the ban? That would be helpful since you're uninvolved in the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot

Sub page at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot. Perhaps as this subpage develops, any new sections can be noted here. (Just a New section created with title "TITLE" ~~~~). At time of archiving 102 kb long. —— Eagle101

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested to reduce size of page.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed to reduce size of page. -- FayssalF -

POINTy revert warring by MONGO

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

MONGO is not going to be blocked for this action. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Closed per WP:DUCK and WP:DFTT. Durova 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks page is currently fully page protected. This is directly and deliberately caused by MONGO's revert warring behavior on it. Over four days, MONGO has reverted the page ten times with useless name-calling edit summaries. It is a textbook example of gaming.

I put this on the 3RR noticeboard as it involves MONGO walking up to the 3RR electric fence and pissing on it for multiple days but never crossing it. El C closed it as non-actionable because gaming 3RR isn't 3RR

So ANI, what is it then? 10 reverts over the span of a few days, often three reverts in the span of an hour, than waiting a day and doing it again. This policy page has been protected 7 times this year because of this crap.

Action, or another free pass for MONGO? SchmuckyTheCat

To be fair to El_C, he didn't say that "gaming 3RR isn't 3RR". He just opined that such cases are better dealt with here rather than on WP:AN3. As far as blocking MONGO, it's pretty straightforward. The page in question is already fully protected, so the edit war is over. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking someone for edit-warring after the page in question has been protected (and the edit war thus ended) would be punitive. I doubt you'll find an admin willing to do it. MastCell 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The full protection has to end sometime. Do we have any assurances from MONGO that he won't continue this edit war as soon as it does? Why should he stop when he knows that he can get away with it? -Chunky Rice 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruption caused by his unprovoked personal crusading needs to stop as well as the edit warring; protecting won't solve that. Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that citing edit warring as 3rr violation on an3, when one knows that, technically, there hasn't been a 3rr violation, is problematic, and unnecessary. We don't need the 3rr for that. One can be blocked for edit warring, wp:point, or gaming the system (including 3rr) violations without 3rr being cited in the block, or an3 being used. Leave an3 for 3rr violations which are, in fact, 3rr violations. El_C 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

El C's non-action is neither here nor there, I'm just pointing out why this is being posted here instead of there, and there has a diff history for anyone that wants to look. 3RR gaming should be actionable on the 3RR noticeboard, but that's a general admin discretion issue, nothing with any individual.

Full protection for a page isn't appropriate when it is primarily one contributor making it into an edit war. MONGO's actions have caused that page to be under PP multiple times this year. When does it end? SchmuckyTheCat

To be honest, I think it was a kneejerk reaction because you and Miltopia are ED editors, and he's already got enough reason to hate ED. Still, I'd block for 3RR. Will 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it against WP:NPA to use outside affiliations, "mainstream or extreme", to dismiss any editor's views? *Dan T.* 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but commenting on the contributor vs the content they add is. MONGO violated that quite awhile ago with edit summaries like , , and are. Spryde 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes explicitly. It's been (sensibly) a consideration for a while. The language comes right from the page. And for good reason, as you can see by this situation... Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is dismissing Mr. Cat's views by noting that he is an adminstrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. We're just putting it in context. MOASPN 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is what intent seems to be. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it in edit summaries, the talk page, etc at every moment possible?

Can you read minds? I'd like that power. Are you an adminstrator of ED also? MOASPN 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I give up.

On second thought. No, I am not giving up. I can't read minds. But I can take what appears to me to the be the intent (and it is fully my opinion) for bringing it up. To disparage the contributor instead of his or her argument itself. You are doing the same thing, in my opinion, here by explaining what ED is and what role that person may or may not have had. Accusing me of being an editor there is the same action as above. What part of my argument is faulty? Did my diffs not show that the person was reverting based on who the person is and not what the argument was? Did my diffs attempt to disparage the person by commenting on the person rather than their argument? I don't think so. If I might have missed it, please show it to me. Spryde 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm asking you if you are an editor there. You seem to think I'm attributing motives to people by noting they are adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. Since they are, in fact, adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website, it seems that you are able to draw connections between their being adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website and their actions with respect to external links and MONGO. Why would you do that? I'm shocked, shocked that you would violate WP:NPA by assuming that adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website would be harassing and hounding MONGO. MOASPN 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Nope, been there, read a few pages, did not like it have not been back. Let me ask you a question, what is the point of repeating the same phrase over and over except to make a point? And to comment, the recent edits by the ED people have been mostly constructive in my opinion. Their recent contributions may have not been to MONGO's liking but IN MY OPINION, he is quick to react and has a temper which got him into trouble in the first place. He contributes quite a bit towards the project but he also grates on many people's nerves with the "fuck off" edit summaries, accusations, and basic way he steamrolls people which he suspects of being someone else. This causes valuable editors to leave/be banned/etc. Spryde 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance. please produce evidence that I have steamrolled a single "valuable" editor off of this website...on the contrary...I have seen a lot of valuable editors steamrolled off this website by ED supportors...I can name a half dozen that have left due to the harassment that has been written on that website about them. If you are going to make accusations, then you best gather your facts to substantiate them.--MONGO 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

MOASPN, I don't edit stuff about Misplaced Pages on ED. I've been editing Misplaced Pages going on several years now. You're not contributing to the discussion by maligning my intentions. The issue is whether MONGO's daily edit warring is disruptive. Is it? SchmuckyTheCat

Please can we not argue over who edits ED on this noticeboard. It's not relevant to anything, ever. Take it to user talk or something. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the edit warring, not the name calling, please.

It's been shown for two years that MONGO has carte blanche to be incivil and call names. Nobody cares anymore. It's me he's calling names and I'm asking everyone to please focus this only on the edit warring behavior. SchmuckyTheCat

Who is he edit warring with? Tom Harrison 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on who's online when he signs on. Last night it was myself, Privatemusings, and Schmucky. Meanwhile his only input at the talk page was the sort of insults that have disrupted the page for a while now. I'm not making an issue now of the name-calling, only that his lack of meaningful input on talk makes it clear he won't stop this warring. Milto LOL pia 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it worse for him to revert than for you to revert? Tom Harrison 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems to me at least that there is a burgeoning consensus building and he opposes it. Spryde 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, as I've said before, because of his lack of discussion on the talk page. His only input there is to sidetrack others with personal remarks. Milto LOL pia 18:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave MONGO a polite final warning on his long, continuous pattern of incivility and personal attacks the other day; he rebuked my warning and continued as usual, so I blocked him. The block was overturned within minutes, and he's only continued the same behavior. It seems clear at this point that the community has basically given MONGO a free pass to be as disruptive as he pleases. --krimpet⟲ 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebuking an administrator is not grounds for a block. Though if that ever changes, I'll be all over it. Tom Harrison 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. You blocked me because I removed your warning with the comment "Bye"...that was an abuse of your admin tools, period. Furthermore, Schmucky reverted my change back to the older version which used wording directly from an arbcom case which states that ED is not to be linked to. Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia...so there is a definite COI when these two are removing information to the NPA policy which details that we don't link to that website. Schmucky's revert also seemed, at least at first, to be random as I had not seen him making any effort to participate in the ongoing discussion on that policy talk page. Lastly, Schmucky seems to be forum shopping at this point...not getting a block for 3RR (which I have not violated), he then marches here to complain further...Nevertheless, I will self impose a 1RR restiction on myself on that policy henceforth.--MONGO 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. I'll add it to my watchlist and help out when I can. Tom Harrison 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh whatever, Tom, you're proxy reverting for him and all you ever bothered to do on the talk was "vote" on the poorly-attended RfC that was made obsolete by my rewrite oft eh section. Milto LOL pia 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, it's not forum shopping when the closing admin says it belongs in a different forum. kthx. SchmuckyTheCat

Let's remember-- these edits happened at WP:NPA. It isn't an article-- it's a policy. Regardless of what you think the policy SHOULD be, it is NEVER okay to knowingly take some highly contentious proposal text and just edit it into a policy page. If you know it hasn't gotten consensus, you should NEVER put it into policy. You just shouldn't do it-- not even once. Policies reflect consensus-- if you take a rejected proposal and even ONCE add it into a policy page-- you're being disruptive-- and I've seen people blocked for less.

Now, by my count-- MONGO has taken highly-disputed text, text he KNOWS is highly disputed, and he has added it into policy TWELVE times. Not once, not twice-- TWELVE times.

How many times are we gonna let him do this before we stop treating this as if it were "just another article content dispute" and start seeing it as a disruptive editor trying to edit-war a rejected proposal into becoming policy in order to circumvent consensus? --Alecmconroy 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that MONGO has pledged to abide by 1RR in the future. This is very encouraging. But the point my comment stands-- even 1 revert is too many if you're using that revert to re-add highly disputed text into a policy. --Alecmconroy 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to claim to only do 1RR yourself once you've organized your posse to join in. SchmuckyTheCat

Schmucky, press the extra tilde and help us all out. As far as MONGO's editing of this page goes, yesterday I asked him why he chose to revert an IP's good faith edits (), and his reasons were that in his view, IP editors should not be allowed to edit policy pages (). This is also a concern. As best I can see, MONGO is loath to allow this policy to exist in any form which does not include the link to his ArbCom case, I think because it expressly forbade ED linkage. This, despite it now being made defunct by the more recent and general ArbCom attack sites ruling (and the meta blacklist). The majority of editors participating see having both as pointless and potentially confusing, MONGO wants it there and thus far he has reverted 2 or 3 times a day every day using various edit summaries, but all with the same end result. Neil ☎ 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky and Miltopia joining up to complain about MONGO? Is this the right Wiki for this crap? Close down this thread and stop whining. --DHeyward 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just not helpful. As I've said before elsewhere-- MONGO needs help from his friend to DISCOURAGE bad behavior, not to egg him on. With feedback from those he respects, MONGO could spend 100% of his time helping the encyclopedia-- instead of the case now, where despite incredibly positive contributions, a fraction of his behavior is highly disruptive. Help him to see this and you help him to become a better editor, and one day again, an admin. Egg him on, dismiss complaints like these as the `whinings of trolls` and you only make the problems worse for Mongo in the end. --Alecmconroy 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, DHeyward, I feel the wikilove. My three years of contributions here are meaningless because I've dared to call MONGO on his disruptions? I can see my presence is appreciated. SchmuckyTheCat

We just had an ArbComm case in part because of edit warring on WP:NPA, and now we have more edit warring about WP:NPA. Something needs to be done to put an end to this, and I am starting as an admin to believe that the right solution is to invite certain participants to go away and not return. MONGO's reported behaviour in this matter is not acceptable. GRBerry 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The bad behavior is that of ED and WR partisans who have tried to get the NPA policy altered so that they can link to their capricous websites and not be blocked doing so. Did everyone miss the part that Miltopia reverted three times as well, or is that not a big deal? This is the same song and dance I have had from this crowd for some time now...they contiue to mischaracterize my efforts and comments when I have repeatedly shown that they have a serious conflict of interest when they remove prohibitions about linking to malicious sites and they are active participants in these very same sites. In article space, we block or end up doing topic bans for COI...why is this any different? I recommend a topic ban on the partisans of these websites. In addition, the external links policy proposal so many are boasting about is still a proposal so there is no reason to remove current arbcom case of from an existing policy until (if) that external links proposal passes.--MONGO 06:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well that you can't refrain from slinging insults even in a thread discussion the disruption you've caused by slinging insults.

Here's the facts-- I'm not an ED member, I'm not a WR partisan, and I have no interest in promoting ASM. The same holds for almost everyone else involved in this debate. And it's my feeling that you have tried very very hard to spread lies suggesting that I am affiliated with those psychos-- and I'm pretty damn sick of it.

• At the arbcom case, we were all having a very civil discussion about the many important issues raised. You chose to present "evidence" that said nothing of the actual issues, but just instead accused me of being part of a campaign of harassment.

• I raised concerns on the WP:NPA talk page. I politely explained my point of view, in great detail, and explained why the BADSITES text was disputed. Many valued community members expressed similar points of view. You reinserted the disputed text explaining "the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR"

• GTBacchus, a very valuable and respected member of the community, joins the discussion. You dismiss him by saying "GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks!"

• When your disruption and personal attacks are reported to ANI, your justification for the disruption you've caused is simple: "Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia".

• Your actions are criticized, and you are given several warnings to cease making personal attacks. Your response is to declare the entire dispute to be the work of ED partisans. Think about that just for a second. When we take time to ask you to stop slinging personal attacks, you dismiss the whole lot of us with another vile personal attack????

How DARE you try to justify your own misbehavior by fabricating some link between me and ED just because I disagree with you about a content policy. How DARE you take an important discussion over the fundamental nature of this project, in which practically everyone on all sides is acting out of sincerity, and try to pass it off as just a trollish campaign to promote some hate sites.

It seems you will justify any actions whatsoever merely by alleging that one of your opponents is affiliated with ED. And if that behavior is so ingrained in you that you can't cease it even for five minutes, in the midst of a discussion about how you need to cease it-- I truly fear that in the end, you're gonna have to go.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this little tactic of dragging people's names through the mud every time you get into a content dispute-- it's gotten real old, and I'm quite sick of it. Stop it. Stop it right now. Don't do it again. Seriously....

The sad fact is, however, I don't think that you can stop. I bet dimes to doughnuts, even after I've warned you, even after I've asked nicely, even after I've told you I think you're unable to stop attacking people-- I bet you your response, and the responses of your allies, will still be to imply, allege, or accuse people of being trolls, ED partisans, WR loons, or ASM stalkers. --Alecmconroy 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I have nothing whatsoever to do with ED, Misplaced Pages Review, or any other of these sites, and to be characterised as an "ED and WR partisan" and my comments dismissed is insulting. Right now the "ED and WR partisans", or as I like to call them, all the Misplaced Pages editors who disagree with MONGO, are coming out of this a whol;e lot better than MONGO. Neil ☎ 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I guess since Alecmconroy feels that I "have to go", I might as well.--MONGO 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. While I have no wish for MONGO to leave, the lies about other editors' motives and offsite activities must cease. Milto LOL pia 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies?--MONGO 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies about myself and Schmucky being active ED contributors. Lies about me and several others advocating support for ED. Lies about me or GTBacchus or several others being "ED partisans". Lies about me wanting to allow links to ED. So yes, I'd say lies. Milto LOL pia 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked ED...you still contribute there. Inactive to me at least means no edits, nada, zero...not occasional = inactive...whats this...was this true?...I'm inclined to believe it was trolling. I think we're done here.--MONGO 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you perhaps notice that both of those diffs were from april? Viridae 09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes I did...but was he a newbie then?...he started editing in Ocotber 2006...oh darn, I can't complain about other editors...this is actually the AN/M (Administrators noticeboard/MONGO)...but wait, I already have a board of my own...and no one wants to play there lately, even though I have promised barnstars that are really nifty!--MONGO 09:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point MONGO has once again receded into incoherent rambling about me. That or he is just blatantly trolling, but I'm inclined against believing that. This is pretty much how every dispute MONGO has thrown himself into with me has gone. Milto LOL pia 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, during either the most recent, or next most recent, previous MONGO thread on AN/I, he accused me of being a WR/ED troller as well. It really is becoming his standard reply. And, in the interest of full disclosure, After being attacked like that, and after he refused to take it back, I went and looked. I've never registered as a member of either, and only started reading ASM last night, in regards to another thread on AN/I. So now, MONGO's made someone else into a reader of his most hated sites by accusing them. It's only a matter of time til he's a one man membership drive. MONGO needs to see the substance of their complaints, not be dismissive of them using personal attacks on them. ThuranX 11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The accusations don't matter in any case. Let MONGO throw out his accusations. They are meaningless. Offsite actions aren't important to Misplaced Pages. Which, fwiw, was another ArbCom finding in a MONGO case that he chooses to ignore so he can continue to sling the accusation around. SchmuckyTheCat

Here is an interesting comment on a very similar issue from one of our most experienced and influential editors. I completely agree with the sentiment expressed; civility is non-negotiable here as without it the entire community becomes unworkable and the project fails. On the plus side I see good signs of progress here and here and MONGO's statement that he will adhere to 1RR on the policy page in future. --John 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear harrasment sites will not be tolerated. Nor will restoring deleted links to harrassment sites be tolerated and the solution is indefinite ban. It seems the policy ought to reflect this since unsuspecting editors might find themselves on the wrong end of the ban hammer after reverting harassment link deletions. Misinterpreting BADSITES Arbcom or misinterpreting rejected BADSITES policy or WP:NPA will not save them so it's a service to include this in the policy so no one is confused. Hopefully this will end the discussion on MONGO's reverts since if User:Ombudsman read MONGO's version, he would probably be an editor today. --DHeyward 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the thrust of my message then. Jimbo Wales reduced Om's block to a week; but he also laid down a clear marker that incivility will not be tolerated, even from experienced editors, a message I heartily applaud. --John 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood where you were coming from but I thought you missed the forest for the trees. Schmucky and Miltopia are generally upset that MONGO doesn't want to soften the WP:NPA policy and limit it's extent to badsites and offsite harassment. You could argue that is why Miltopia took up Ombudmsan's cause on Jimbos talk page. Schmucky claims that off-site contributions have no bearing on Misplaced Pages but it's clear that if it creates a hostile editing environment on wikipedia, that editor should find another hobby. Jimbo went out of his way to ban him when he restored links to harassing sites. MONGO is simply trying to reflect this reality in our written policy so editors understand what harassment is and what will get them blocked. --DHeyward 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the others dissatisfied with MONGO's gaming and personal attacks have equally nefarious motives. Let's hope they at least understood my comments about Ombudsman better than you did. Milto LOL pia 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I did't even talk about motives of Ombudsman and certainly never mentioned any nefarious motives. The truth is I don't care what his motives are. I don't really care what your motives are. I only know it's disruptive and time wasting to hear you constantly complain about MONGO. It's an extension of your "todo" list on ED and it's tiresomely predictable. --DHeyward 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for editing ease

If the revert warring and incivil edit summary problem with WP:NPA is still ongoing with the same offending party(s), I would say that you've exhausted this, ANI, as the first step in the conflict resolution process. I would suggest, then, that the aggrieved editors, and there appears to be more than two of you, go ahead and co-sign an RfC on the offending parties' behavior and leave that open for a week or so. If that doesn't take care of problem, then take it to the next level- RfAr. It's a long and frustrating process, but that's how the "system" works and it has worked before which is one of the reasons why one of the offending editors mentioned above is no longer an admin. Cla68 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The system doesn't work, though. Not matter how many WP:CIVIL policies, statements, decisions, redactions, RfC's, RfAr's, AN/I's, AN's, and so on MONGO goes through, no one's got the balls to give him any amount of blocking that sticks. Instead, admins engage a series of delaying tactics until things cool off on the relevant pages, cite 'blocks are preventative not punative, and it's been too long', and MONGO walks off to do it all again. There's a pattern here of disruptive editing and incivility, and he never ever gets blocked for it. Not really. All those blockings that get undone in 2 minutes don't count, they aren't supported blocks. I'm not on ED, ASM, or WR, though I admit to HAVING READ them. I'm just a wikieditor who thinks that it's not fair that most editors get blocked far faster for far less, far more often, than MONGO. MONGO does get special treatment here. It's pretty undeniable at this point. Some editors love him so much they bend policy and procedure with big piles of bureaucracy, and it's incredibly frustrating. I'm sorry MONGO can't talk his issues out, but maybe he needs to leave to get help. My attitude twaors him is well known, and after this, it's a damn guarantee that he'll trot out my last screed against him as 'proof' of my WR/ED alliance and my membership in the great conspiracy against him. No, I'm just one more editor tired of a double standard. He needs a blocking. It's been promised for 'the next time'. Never happens. Not fair. frustrated. ThuranX 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If the system did work, you would have been blocked for your comments

Called it, didn't I? Every time I speak out against MONGO, he brings this up. Ironically, while I've learned from that, and my warnings, he has not. it's enough to start insulting him all over again. Hell, I'd take a 24 hour block for that in exchange for never having it brought up against me again, and a 48 hour block in exchange for that AND the full block Viridae would have hit MONGO with. However, none of those things can come to pass. Even if I did get a block for it, MONGO will still drag it up as proof that rather than being a WP editor dsigruntled by his 'special' treatment, and I've have to counter with my block log, and then it'd be a bigger disruption. Further, go digging, you'll see that before that, I'd spoken out civilly over, and over, and over against his getting off the hook. He'd been condescending to myself and many, many others. It's not coincidence that fewer and fewer editors speak out against it, most have realized that speaking out makes you MONGO's target, and speaking out does no good.ThuranX 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are others, but that one was so outrageous, I was really taken aback by it. You seem to constantly yell "block" all over the noticeboards about numerous editors...so I guess we can all be grateful you don't have that capability.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That was sad Thuran and a huge mischaracterisation. You presume he is guilty of all these transgressions yet the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, the lo9ng list of accusations without consensus of wrongdoing speaks more to MONGO being harassed than it does about him getting away with anything. This is just you repeating a bunch of stuff that has already been adjudicated. Wh ydo you keep bringing it up? Here I'll call it: there is a particular list of editors that will bring MONGO to ANI for every content dispute and you will show up with your "MONGO is above the system because one time in bandcamp they didn't block him like I wanted them to" bullshit. I'm sorry you didn't like the consensus of the community but give it a rest. --04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god MONGO - that was July - this is late october, live in the present. Viridae 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, it's really hard to live in the present when responding to the comments that is about the past. Maybe Thuran could talk about the present instead of the past. Thruan complaining about how MONGO didn't blocked for all his past transgressions is kind of pointless. --DHeyward 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I experienced this sort of "impeccable memory for past slights" also. Mongo got very very angry with me once for asking too many clarifications about the MONGO case. I was a relatively young wikipedian at the time, I was acting in 100% good faith in that discussion, but I did acknowledge I should have had that discussion in a different venue and with people who hadn't been so personally attacked. I very quickly and very sincerely apologized for accidentally upsetting him and not picking up on his stress level.

Naively perhaps, I assumed that with my apologies, the matter was settled, and that was the end of that. To the best of my knowledge, I didn't say another word to Mongo or interact with him for the next year-- perhaps I did, but i didn't have any interaction that was sufficient for me to remember it now as I type.

But when I decided to contribute to the Attack Sites arbitration, Mongo quickly showed up and started screaming about this once isolated incident, a year old, in which I did nothing but act in good faith, and in which I had profusely and sincerely apologized for inadvertently upsetting him.

It would seem that MONGO has mentally compiled an "enemies list" of sorts, and that I was still on it, and at the first sign of a dispute, Mongo was eager to unload personal attacks on me with both barrels, as the saying goes. --Alecmconroy 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone isn't interested in letting go of past disputes, it seems to be you, not me.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you sincerely feel that, but I promise you MONGO, it's really not true. I've never held the 2006 incident against you-- it's clear you'd been through a lot, and when I complained about it, it wasn't because I wanted you destroyed, it really was because I wanted you helped. You basically snapped in the middle of an otherwise civil conversation, and it was clear to me that we didn't do something to help you, you couldn't continue to function as an admin. I still wish there has been something I could have said that might have been able to reach out to you and help you see, and helped you avoided the consequences that ultimately befell you.

When I, a year later, participated in the Attack Sites case-- it wasn't out of any desire to 'get back at you', it was out of a sincere concern for the integrity of the project. If I had been motivated by some desire to attack you, I could have easily done so in that forum-- you would have made an easy candidate, having been de-admined for bad behavior, but I never crossed that line, I never made it personal, and I kept my remarks as focused as I could on principle, not people. To the extent I even mentioned you, it was almost exclusively in rebuttal to your attacks on me-- and even then, I didn't harshly attack you.

You've been a real puzzle for me. I've sincerely wanted to try to find some way to help you out of habitual assumption of bad faith that I assume was created by the harassment you were subjected to. I don't think you're a bad person, I don't think you're a mean or cruel or suffering from character flaws on anything like that. GTBacchus has talked about "considering everyone children of God, and therefore aspects of God", which is why he's someone I look up to, and that very very vaguely approximates what I feel towards you. You're not a bad person-- you're a good person who just has a problem, and it saddens me to no end that I can seem to help you.

I know you probably are convinced otherwise, but I've never for a second been "out to get you" or anything like that. Even here when I speak harshly too you, I have to confess, I'm not really experiencing anger-- my heart doesn't pound, my blood doesn't boil-- I just figure maybe speaking directly and imperatively will let you hear me in a way that you haven't been able to hear me when I was peaceful and philosophical.

I know it's probably futile for me to say this, because I'm sure you think I'm trying to scam you, or project false compassion or something-- but I'm really not. --Alecmconroy 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well had I noticed that it had been 12 reverts in 4 days he would have had a lengthy 3RR block - but as it happens I had just seen a lot of watchlist so I had a brief look at the history and protected the page. The irritating thing is I had hope the people involved would have taken the chance to engage in discussion on the talk page, but very little has taken place. I feel that once the protection is lifted the cycle will start again - and should i see any more than two reverts in a short amount of time I will once again protect the page. Viridae 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy? You can only block for 3RR for 24 hours. Furthermore, if you were to block me after the disagreements we have had, would be a really bad abuse of your admin tools.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not in disagreement with you over this matter, it was a clear cut case of gaming 3RR. Call abuse all you like but no reasonable person is going to look at that evidence and see anything but gaming 3rr. Furthermore, an admin can block for a length of time they feel appropriate. If it was straight up 3rr and your first offence then it would have been 24 hours - but because this was 12 reverts over four days it would have been a minimum of 48 hours. No block length is set in stone, they are all subject to the blocking admins discretion. You can call admin abuse all you like, but as long as I am not directly involved in that dispute then I see no problem with blocking an editor who clearly deserves it. Viridae 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful, no doubt, your protection of the NPA policy was on a version you have argued in favor of on the policy discussion page. I would have sent a request to WP:PP even if I was an admin. Furtherore, since I have been on the opposite side of the dispute in that matter from you, any block you were to do on me in the near future would be a violation of the block policy.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Viridae has just given a clear shot across the bow that anymore of the type of disruptive behavior being discussed here in the WP:NPA debate won't be tolerated. If it continues, however, I repeat that you should use the escalating conflict resolution system to try to correct the behavior of the offending editors. It's not true that the system doesn't work if you utilize it correctly. If you look at some of these cases here you can see that the ArbCom has given plenty of editors enforced wiki-breaks to reconsider their behavior or to help them break their addiction to drama or dissembly. Cla68 03:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I doubt you are in a position to talk at this point...you seem to have been an advocate for banned editor Wordbomb for some time now and your ongoing accusations regarding SlimVirgin have been pretty bad. I really would give it a rest since you have just emerged from a block on this matter.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Give your threats a rest Viridae. You're an involved editor and since your last block warning against MONGO was wholly inappropriate I don't see how this one is suddenly above board. Put the admin tools down and step away. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Mongo again falsely accuses me or any other good-faith editor of being affiliated with harassers or of being a participant in a campaign of harassment, I'm gonna take whatever steps necessary to get the behavior stopped. Falsely accusing good-faith editors of engaging in nearly-criminal behavior is just not acceptable. For a long time, I'd hoped that unflappable peacefulness towards Mongo would convince him of our good-faith, but that didn't bear out. Now I hope that a little bit of tough talk and some clear warnings will stop the behavior. Hopefully it will stop and that will be the end of it, and, speaking for myself, all will be forgiven. If the behavior doesn't stop, it seems we'll have to turn to methods of last resort. --Alecmconroy 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually of the people who commented on that block warning, only yourself and MONGO found it to be inappropriate - everyone else thought it was justified. Whats more it wasn't a block warning, it was a NPA warning. Viridae 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WR, ASM and ED are compaigns of harassment. I am not sure what peacefulness you speak of nor do I know who continues to participate in those campaigns on those websites. However, I do know that trying to relax policy to allow links to those site has the de facto result of continuing harassment whether or not it's intentional. opposing harassmnet and opposing policy changes may increase harassment is not the same as accusing the editors of engaging in that harassment. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SO, given the multiple responses here, to many editors who oppose special rules for MONGO, you're in fact saying he shouldn't be blocked for 3RR violations, gaming 3RR, or incivility. Right. No special MONGO rules, except for the special MONGO rules.ThuranX 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected so there is no edit war, whence no need to block. Blocks are not punitive so once the edit war is stopped there is no blocking. I have not seen incivility that was worth blocking. So I don't support a block on you or MONGO though the constant rehashing of previously adjudicated incidents is bordering on disruption. If you believe there is a pattern of misconduct, bring it up on an RfC and stop bringing it up every time MONGO is mentioned on any noticeboard or talk page. It serves no purpose and doesn't shed any light on the current situation. It's just whining. --DHeyward 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to DHeyward) No, no-- let me apologize for miscommunicating. The edit warring and personal attacks exhibited by MONGO is completely completely unrelated to any opposition to linking to some sites. Many, many good faith editors have very valid concerns about links like that-- I think we all do, really. Supporting a BADSITES-esque policy is NOT a problem, it's a valid opinion, and one we should all take seriously. I have no problem whatsoever with MONGO or others supporting BADSITES-- I think BADSITES has been motivated by compassion.

The behavior problems I'm discussion here are Mongo's edit warring, his inserting rejected proposals into policy pages without consensus, his incivility/personal attacks, and his falsely implying or stating that other good-faith editors are linked to harassment campaigns. Mongos support for a BADSITES policy is most certainly NOT a behavior problem-- it's an opinion, and one that should be taken seriously. --Alecmconroy 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...I find your threats made a few posts above to be alarming and unwikipedian. Telling me to not DARE and other threats like that are unacceptable. I find that you have also edit warred on the NPA policy pages, so acting as if I am the only guilty party is hypocritical. The facts of the case are that many excellent contributors have been driven away from the NPA discussions by editors who seem to have a single mission, and are not on this website for the purposes of ehancning encyclopedic content. A lack of mainspace contributions by SOME (that is SOME, not all) editors is worrisome...furthermore, the fact that SOME (that is SOME, not all) who have been arguing against strong wording prohibiting attacking our contributors via external linking to malicious sites are also either present or past contributors to these very websites is a definite COI. Soon as one of the "silent persons" makes a comment on the NPA policy stating they are against linking to websites such as ASM or WR, a post shows up, usually on WR, condemning that person. So they have instead decided to give up, and let editors that have what appears to be an agenda at times determine and make our policies. I find this situation unacceptable. Some may think I have an agenda...well they are correct...my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder when someone wants to barge onto their talkpage and say...hey, did you see you're article on ED, or what they said about you over at WR...as if what is said on a silly blog dominated by mostly banned editors matters one iota..it doesn't.--MONGO 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after ec's)For something that matters so little... we sure let it get to us a lot. If it's trivial and boring, then why are we up in arms to write special policies about it? There's no problem removing the links you want to remove, because they lack any possible encyclopedic value. That's sufficient. Let's not give them any more significance than that. Let's not reward trolling behavior with emotional reactions; that's the very definition of feeding. It's just another site we don't link to, like all the porn and online pharmacies and random blogs and.... the part of the Internet that sucks. -GTBacchus 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder"

Do you like to go to the beach and pound the sand for not resisting the tides as well? You can't control what people do on external websites. Our issue is to decide on a policy that makes sense on how to react to these sites. Pounding your preferred opinion into the page with an edit war is not going to accomplish your goal. SchmuckyTheCat

On incivility/personal attacks, frankly I think a lot of people are simply taking MONGO's comments much too personally and confusing them with a WP:PA. Take for example this comment:

"GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks He is simply pointing out that GTBaccus may have a conflict of interest based on observed behavior. This is not in my opinion a PA, if it was, WP:COI should be deleted because to say someone has a COI is automatically a PA which initself is forbidden. Anynobody 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anynobody, please note how the screen name is spelled; thanks. I'm not offended at this point by anything MONGO has said about me; I believe we understand each other to an extent. I don't blame him for not trusting me implicitly, knowing all of the history. Whether or not one thinks I'm editing with a conflict of interest, I think my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. I'm concerned with MONGO that he's largely disengaged from the conversation, participating more in policy page reverts than in talk page discussion. On the other hand, he's been through the same thousands of words as the rest of us, and if I were he I'd be sick to death of it.

What I would most like for MONGO to believe is that he can get the protection he desires for our editors without the paragraph of policy to which he seems attached. That paragraph is not the protection; it's an empty symbol of it. The actual protection is in our core, core policy WP:ENC. There's no encyclopedic value in linking to the harassment that you want to legislate against, and it can therefore always be removed as simple encyclopedic work. It won't suddenly become worthwhile and relevant just because we don't draft a rule targeting it. In fact, such a rule would make it more relevant, because here we are, discussing it in our policies.

We really can trust the boring procedures of encyclopedia-writing to protect us better than all the policies we can write. Those policies... they're attempts at word-magic; they tend to backfire. Think about WP:DENY.

Check it out: if a link has no encyclopedic value, then it may be removed at any time, because it makes no contribution to the project. If someone persists in adding material of no value, they may be blocked, as a common vandal, and that's just normal and undramatic. Removing the link and blocking them "per BADSITES" is terribly misguided when we could just do it "per sweeping the floor".

MONGO, I entreat you to consider - where in that process is a special policy required or desirable? I'd like to hear an answer from anybody on that point - on my own, I can't imagine how a special policy would do anything but raise the heat, increase the drama level, feed any and every troll....

If you'd like to think that I'm only arguing this point because I have a conflict of interest, then my question to you is: why would I work to undermine a project, Misplaced Pages, that I have poured so many hours and months of my life into improving. Why did I sit there today, reading comments of contributors, and weeping at the sheer beauty of it, if I want to support harassment of our contributors. I love this website, and I'm confident that MONGO knows that. What I'm asking him to do is to trust me a little further on this point - we can get what we need without that paragraph - this is not a about paragraphs. It's about trusting each other because we care A LOT about what we're working on here. Will you join me, MONGO? -GTBacchus 06:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't it work in reverse? Just leave MONGO's version of words in the policy if it's not going to change anything in practice. Since he's been a prominent victim of off site abuse, I would think helping victims by not symbolically stripping them of protection would be of paramount concern. It's like a court order of pretection: it doesn't stop abusive husbands from hitting their wives, but it certainly makes their wife fell safer. Why not just go with it since, as you say, it doesn't make a difference? --DHeyward 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm saying it "doesn't make a difference". I'm saying that having a special policy raises the heat, creates conditions for drama, encourages useless ad hominem arguing, and empowers ("feeds") those who would harass and troll by rewarding their behavior with defensive action. How exactly did you get "doesn't make a difference" out of that?

I'd still like to know what concrete good this proposal would do that makes up for these disadvantages, especially when we would be so much better to prosecute these cases as simple content disputes and not as part of some kind of internet war. That's a terrible idea; this is an encyclopedia, not a soap opera. This is not the wiki for drama - you know where to find that one. -GTBacchus 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I paraphrased your comments that his protection is in WP:ENC. If all the protection is there and the policy MONGO wants is just redundant, then it doesn't make a difference whether it's duplicated or not. There's not a lot of drama over "revert, block, ignore." The drama is added when three months from now an editor claims that ED is encyclopedic and should have an article. The drama starts when an editor thinks an article inside of ED become encyclopedic as some sort of notable internet meme. Or when an editor thinks that Blu Aardvark is a notable person and deserves a biographical stub with links to ED and WR. Why not give the "block, revert, ignore" guy as big an arsenal as we can so we don't have to fight this silly drama. Today it's this silly policy section which whether it stays or goes doesn't change anything about the project. No article will be improved or created tomorrow no matter which way the policy goes. So the choice give me is a) make a longstanding prolific editor happy or b) try to reduce drama by changing link deletion edit summaries from WP:NPA to WP:ENC. I don't really see b) working and I think making the editing environment more comfortable for valuable contributors as paramount. This seems like a no brainer. --DHeyward 07:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not a "no-brainer". I see your choice (a) as misguided and likely to create more trouble. I see your characterization of (b) as missing my fundamental point. We don't enforce encyclopedic standards because we want to reduce drama; we do it because we're an encyclopedia. The fact that trying to add the quest for justice to our project here creates volatile situations is taken into consideration as part of that project. Please note as well that my suggestion also amounts to "block, revert, ignore". I'm just suggesting we do it because the links have no encyclopedic value, and not because they're determined to come from some kind of bogey-site. I would see it as a no-brainer, except there are clearly intelligent and rational people on both sides, so I can't call it that in fairness. -GTBacchus 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an attack because of intent to discredit. Being called an "ED contributor" on Misplaced Pages is an attempt to discredit the other person, and not engage in the issues at hand. That's why it is incivil and an attack. It doesn't address the issues, it addresses the person. SchmuckyTheCat

A COI violation is always ad hominem. The person's arguments are at fault because the person making them has a COI. The merits of the argument are secondary to COI. If that's incivil or a personal attack, then you should address it on the WP:COI policy page and change the policy. --DHeyward 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see the point in exposing COIs, although I'm happy enough to acknowledge my associations. Why talk about the person's COI when you could just talk about verifiable material in reliable sources? In the case of a policy discussion, why discuss COI when you could just discuss the arguments being advanced based on their merits, and not on who makes them? Seems kind of... off topic, to start talking about whose idea we agree or disagree with. -GTBacchus 06:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Couching Mongo's habitual personal attacks as merely "speculating about COI" is all well and good, but we may well remember that some of the most vile personal attacks we've seen here have also been couched in terms of "speculating about Conficts of Interests". If MONGO had politely commented, once or twice, on potential COI concerns, we would all be fine with that. In reality, he has brought up speculation of bad faith in practically every discussion on this subject. He has gone far beyond merely point out potential COI, he's crossed the line into persistent namecalling. Worst of all, he's made accusations that were utterly false, made speculations based on little-to-no evidence, and has cast aspersions at every turn. --Alecmconroy 06:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that your constant insinuations that I am incivil smack of incivility as well. The ongoing character assassinations you seem to enagage in are not helpful either. I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI. If an editor is a participant in a malicious website and has made efforts to minimize policy which bans linking to these websites, then that is indeed a COI.--MONGO 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm being incivil in expressing my concerns about your behavior, but I don't know how else to solve the problem except to raise them here, and to try to convince you to stop attacking others. I might point out, for example, that even the very post I'm responding to is another instance of the problem-- you invariably respond to good-faith disagreement by attacking the character of others-- accusing me of performing an incivl "character assassination". That's kinda what we're trying to get at here, and find a way to stop. --Alecmconroy 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your other statement: "I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI." If you accuse 100 people of being communists, and only 2 of them are-- you've been making some false accusations. You've often implied that EVERYONE who opposes you has a COI, ED affiliation, and bad-faith. ED is like any open forum-- there are some very bad apples and some fine people. Absent evidence that they were involved in harassment, merely having once edited ED is not, in my eyes, a scarlet letter that classifies a person as worthless or immoral.

The clear truth is that vast majority of participants in the BADSITES discussion have no COI when it comes to ED-- but that's a truth you either don't see or that you try to bury. Furthermore, COIs don't justify not listening to people's comments, or responding rudely, or inserting policy texts that have consensus. Even if a few of the people who opposed BADSITES have a conflict of interest, that just means you should scrutinize their arguments more closely-- not that you should ignore them, revert them on site, or use it as a tool to attack them at every turn. You may want to make people aware of it, if they're not already-- but a COI is NOT a community ban, as you seem to wish it were.

Even someone with a COI deserves to have their opinions judged on merit. I might add, Mongo, that I practice what I preach. There is not a single person on this encyclopedia who has bigger conflict of interest in regard to ED and BADSITES than you, Mongo. You have been vilely attacked by ED, and as such, you have a vested interest in prohibiting links to ED (and promoting BADSITES). If I were really as "out to get you" as you think I am, I could easily allege that your only interest is in preventing people from seeing the attacks that have been made on you, and that as someone who is so utterly conflicted, you should have no input whatsoever into ED or BADSITES, because you have such a strong personal interest in minimizing ED's traffic. But I've never tried to do that, and I'm not trying to do it now. Your views on BADSITES and ED aren't self-serving, and they're not for yourself, they're for the next person who might be their victim. --Alecmconroy 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be a COI, but that does not mean that the editor's arguments should not be considered on merits. I'm frustrated by a refusal to engage what I see as my substantial arguments by some on the pro-BADSITES "side". The fact that I may have a conflict of interest does not automatically make me wrong. That applies to everyone here, right?

For the record, I have no desire to "minimize policy which bans linking to these websites", I have a desire to avoid destructive and redundant policy which hurts our project in a real and concrete way. My way involves all the same links being removed, but for the right reasons, and minus the disadvantages. -GTBacchus 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not an issue here. It's just another red herring meant to discreit those MONGO disagrees with. Having told MONGO directly on multiple pages now, explicitly, that I don't want to see links to ED anywhere, I think I can safely conclude that this assertion is no longer being made with anything that could be confused with good faith. Milto LOL pia 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about MONGO's good faith. He's at least as frustrated with the situation as you are. While I agree that conflict of interest is not an issue, I don't mind answering those who ask about it. -GTBacchus 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions about it either but this is not MONGO asking us if we have a conflict of interest, or even asking us to be sure that we're not motivated at all by wanting to link to that other website. I'll leave it at that before I rescind into whining, but MONGO if you're reading this then I'm more than willing to take it on faith that you're making this claim sincerely if you're willing to ask me to examine my own motives and then take my honest answer about it on faith as well. But one way or another the issue needs to be settled. If you're not willing to take me up on my offer please post to WP:COIN, get some administrator input, and then drop it. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that old article?

For a few more months, some of us guarded the deleted-again, back-again talk page, and make sure that it was always explained to inquirers that the page was deleted for lack of sourcing, and not because those racist, homophobic, baby-eating, so-and-sos appall us so much. It can't have anything to do with being "appalled".

Now, it appears that people are arguing that we not learn from history. Shall we conduct ourselves as we did at the 17 unsuccessful AfDs? Why not give the encyclopedia a chance; what's going to happen? Will Misplaced Pages Review suddenly become a reliable source, linked at the bottom of every article like the IMDb? Look at Talk:Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Link to WR?. That's the idea. I got a bit frustrated in that case, but I hope you can see what I was pointing towards, and that it worked, and will continue to work. Let's try it. Let's learn from the past.

DHeyward, thanks for putting a succinct phrase to "symbolically stripping protection". That helps me understand the perception that I don't want to project, because that's not remotely my idea. -GTBacchus 07:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the attention it got from when I was being harassed by the contributors there ensured that the article was deleted...beforehand, whenever the article was nominated for deletion, ED partisans showed up in enough numbers to keep it from being deleted. In the end, their tactics worked against them, and this website finally enforced guidelines on the matter via relaible sources, and there were none. It failed notability.--MONGO 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It failed notability, not on some moral or defensive grounds. It failed for the right reason. -GTBacchus 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Like inditing Al Capone for tax evasion.—AL 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't (in my opinion) need to have a special policy against linking certain sites; as GTBacchus points out we already have sufficient means in policy to remove any links which are unencyclopedic, and without creating the drama and free publicity for these sites that MONGO's course of action seems to have precipitated.

However, the origins of the frustration that led to the edit-warring and incivility are moot. It needs to be clearly understood that all users, especially experienced ones, are bound by our policies. Anyone unable or unwilling to conform to that needs to be blocked. I would hope we can all agree on that. --John 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new wikipedian - well, I say new, I've had this account since 2004, and I've been an avid reader, and only just recently decided to become a frequent editor. From a purely outside perspective it does seem that MONGO has, time and time again, pursued a relentless anti-*something* agenda, an agenda not unlike editors convicted by ArbCom or the community got slapped with an indefinite block because of. I do think it is a double standard. Again, I am a new editor here, and my opinion is not worth much. But I think someone objective needs to look at this situation - which will be hard cos nearly all of the community has been involved in this issue from the beginning - and decide whether to block MONGO or not. My opinion? A block is needed, and an indefinite one. But I am likely to be wrong. I just wish this issue would go away so we can concentrate on editing for once. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think MONGO may be headed for stronger sanctions, but I can't believe it would really take an indefinite block to stop his behavior. I hope, perhaps naively, that this discussion itself was all that it will take to get through to him. If not, stronger messages will be needed-- but an indefinitely block-- a wikideath penalty-- would be an incredible loss to the community, and I can't fathom it will truly have to come to that.

Without in any way calling MONGO immature, I'll use an analogy-- If an elementary school student insists on testing the limits of acceptable behavior, the solution is to provide clear limits and reliable consequences. Until you've done that, there's no reason whatsoever to contemplate expulsion. --Alecmconroy 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the same openness that lets me or Dan T contribute here also lets MONGO contribute here. Misplaced Pages would be a much less interesting project without him.—AL 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO does more good on Misplaced Pages than harm, far, far more. Milto LOL pia 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions contrary to apparant consensus

I thought it was an isolated incident when looking at this delete decision, but after looking at other discussions closed by this user, it appears he is using the same rationale on others as well - in short, "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", regardless of whether that action reflects any apparant consensus, policy, or anything else. I've been advised by another admin that this should be posted here for discussion, so here it is...

On the above cited discussion, there was only one delete argument - that of the nominator - and a relatively weak one as well (later stating that all categories used for collaboration should be replaced with userboxes!). The other "delete" vote was simply "Delete per nom" with no actual argument. There were five "keep" votes, all with well-reasoned arguments, including one pointing to all the past discussions for keeping the category, one stating how this category had greatly helped a user collaborate, etc., and generally completely outweighing the (single) delete argument, in terms of number, strength of argument, refutation of the single delete argument, and every other metric possibly used to determine consensus.

However, User:After Midnight closed it as "delete", providing the rationale that, in essence, he can chose to ignore any arguments he disagrees with. Since there was only one actual delete vote, this means he decided to simply ignore every keep argument, as no other action could have resulted in a delete decision.

Were this an isolated incident, it probably wouldn't belong here, but it appears to be a trend, and not isolated to this admin either. Other discussions ended in "delete" despite an apparant consensus to keep as well, and one that was kept despite an apparant consensus to delete, but the above-mentioned discussion is the most obvious example, so the one I chose to discuss here.

While we should appreciate that admins are tackling these often backlogged pages, the closer's job is to ensure the decision reflects community consensus, not to apply his or her personal opinions to determine the outcome. Regardless of these personal opinions on whether the categories mentioned should exist or not, something needs to be done about mis-closing dicussions based on them. DRVs have generally proved fruitless - no one bothers making arguments on whether the discussion was closed correctly, instead it just turns into a repeat discussion with content-based rather than process-based arguments - and the DRVs are then subject to the same mis-closings that happen with the original discussion.

For this example, the response seems pretty obvious (it was closed in error, reverse it; just need to find someone with a bot to repopulate the category, as it'll take a lot of edits!), but what should be done about this in the long term, and for other debates? Should other users make more of an effort to watch closings to ensure they reflect consensus? The one mentioned above is so blatant that I suspect someone could have immediately overturned it and discussed it later, regardless of their opinion on whether the category should exist or not. Perhaps some effort to make sure deletion reviews only discuss process-related arguments? As much as I'm not a fan of even more policies, should we create one on exactly what leeways a closing admin does and doesn't have when evaluating a discussion? Or maybe we need more guidelines on categories, rather than the-whims-of-any-discussion-and-its-closer, preventing so many extra debates? Thanks for reading (and your ideas), Bushytails 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

In this particular case, it appears that the closer reviewed the opinions and didn't find the argument of "building community" to be a compelling reason to keep based on the goal of building an encyclopedia. Given that XfD is not a numerical count or vote, Closers are usually give some level of leeway on closing provided they justify their decision. We have DRV explicitly so these decisions can be reviewed if someone feels they were not correct. Personally I don't think we need more "rules" on AFD closing... but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But the closer shouldn't be able to arbitarily decide to ignore all arguments on one side of the issue based on a personal opinion - doing so is no different than simply deciding the outcome based on ones opinion. Unless there is foundation policy or other strong reason to invalidate arguments, they can't simply be ignored. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But if the community consensus is that "buidling community" is a valid reason to keep, on what grounds can an admin over-ride it? Unless it is in direct opposition to policy, I think that an admin is bound to determine consensus, not to substitute their own judgment for that of the community. I don't think we need more rules, but I do think that admins need to keep their own opinions regarding an article in check when closing an AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think 7 participants in a CFD really adequately represent community consensus either way... Regardless, I still am strongly of the opinion that additional guidelines and policies concerning XfD closure are not demonstrably warranted off of one CFD close. This is a case for DRV if the participants feel the closer got it wrong.--Isotope23 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins need to be able to make judgment calls when, say, there is consensus to keep "Furry wikipedians" but also consensus to delete "identification categories". They also should take strength of argument into account: not all arguments are created equal. --Kbdank71 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to delete self-identification user categories? I can respect the decision (but think we need to visit the issue) if there's a strong policy against grouping wikipedias by personal attributes (gender, nationality, geography, birthplace, political party, occupation, etc). If there is such a policy, though, then unless the categorization causes some technical difficulties or grave disruption, I would find it rather autocratic and out of step with the rest of the world, at least America, in terms of self-expression and personal freedom. Further, the fact that furry or GLBT users wish to self-identify is evidence of a lack of such consensus. The outcome here is anti-gay and POV in practice, even if not by intention. If there is no such policy, it exceeds a closing administrator's discretion to decide that sexual orientation isn't as worthy as some other distinction. That kind of decision has to be made project-wide and not rest on the whims and prejudices of a single Wikipedian. But why not just nominate this and the LGBT category for deletion review? Presumably the reviewing admin will overturn if there is a consensus to do so and no policy otherwise, and this admin will start to notice if his/her decisions are frequently overturned that they need to pay more heed to the arguments made. If that fails, then it may be time to consider AN/I, mediation, or whatever the next step is. What is the process if one has a reasonable dispute over the outcome of a DRV? Wikidemo 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See the DRV's here and here. --Kbdank71 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It looks like we have a larger issue of people pushing an agenda against Wikipedias expressing their personal differences via categories, and possibly one of anti-gay bias. Still dangerous waters for admins to wade into, and a decision that should be made in a wider forum than a category deletion or deletion review, but not a clearly improper decision by the closing admin. This isn't my issue (nor, I assure you, do I feel so passionately about anything right now at the moment), but for people who do have a principled objection to the outcome of a DRV, what's the next step up the dispute resolution chain? Wikidemo 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I nominated Category:Furry Wikipedians for deletion review. It was closed out because a small group have successfully deleted a variety of identity-based categories, and have used this to suggest that there is a "general consensus" to delete such categories. The closing admin of the deletion review apparently agreed with this, despite the significant support for the category displayed in response to the nomination. I don't think there is such a consensus, and the responses in this deletion show that others are of the same opinion. I think some editors - often the ones who are most actively interested in trimming categories - have been looking over time at various sparsely-populated or "joke" categories and saying "yeah, that's not useful". In many cases, they might be right. In this particular case, I and others think they were wrong, as was shown in responses to the original nomination. That is why these nominations got "keep" as a response rather than "delete". I don't believe they're pushing any particular POV myself - nomination does not signify an "anti-furry" or "anti-gay" bias, any more than attempting to delete a religious identity category signifies an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Protestant" bias - but I do think that each category should be considered individually (I guess it is possible that they were attempting to implement this meta-policy in a roundabout way, but I doubt it). The assumption that they don't support collaboration is a little unconvincing, because where do you think WikiProjects come from? Successful projects are not started on a dime - they are at their root collections of users interested in a particular topic, and the easiest way to collect them in the first place and ongoing is to have an identity category. It is hard to show other tangible benefits to identity categories - just like it's hard to say why userboxes are worthwhile - but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Certainly where there is a demonstrated use for the category and no particular cost to the encyclopedia, they should be kept. Honestly, these I don't think the categories would cost anyone anything if they weren't constantly being nominated for deletion out of a sense of tidiness. The people who spent the time hunting them down and deleting them would undoubtedly like a simple rule such as "delete all identity categories", but I think an even better rule would be "don't bother nominating them unless a particular category does demonstrated harm." Then we could focus on the things that are actually causing a problem for editors - or, perhaps, on the people causing the problem ("categories don't start edit wars, people start edit wars"). GreenReaper 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that... when I started the metalworking wikiproject, I had to go through quite a bit of effort to find members to consult, by looking at page histories to see who had edit patterns that looked like they'd might want to contribute to a wikiproject, etc - if there were a "Wikipedian Metalworkers" category, it would have made it much easier! Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see: you (plural) didn't get the result you wanted in the UCFd discussion, So you posted a DRV. YOu didn't get the result you wanted there, so now you're posting here. At what point is this "asking the other parent"?

As far as I can tell, all the concerns illustrated above were discussed both in the UCfD and the DRV. And please remember that consensus, not voting, is how discussions are resolved.

That aside, I understand that identification can be considered a personal thing for some people. You shouldn't take the nomination personally, however. They were (and are) about cleaning up the Wikipedian category structure. If your concern is that you'd like a larger forum for the idea that "identification-based" Wikipedian categories should be kept, then please feel free to start a Village pump discussion concerning it. But please don't start attacking good faith editors because you didn't get your way. - jc37 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the result of the ucfd _was_ keep. Like everyone expected. The problem is that decision was ignored by the closing admin - "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." This is not the proper way for a wikipedia administrator to act - except for foundation issues, consensus trumps just about everything, especially one person's opinions. That one category is but a drop in the lake of admin actions not agreeing with consensus or policy, and just serves as a good example. The DRV serves as another example - most of the "endorse" votes were about the content of the category, rather than the process of deletion - exactly NOT what DRV is for. Of the three remaining endorse votes, two of them were "because it's a sexuality category, and we just deleted those" - wrong because it's not a sexuality category, and wrong because having just deleted something else (in a controversial and abuse-prone decision) does not automatically make policy. That leaves only ONE actual endorse vote... the original closer defending his right to ignore all who disagree with his opinions. And he lumped it in with the unrelated sexuality categories as well. There wasn't actually ANY argument for endorsing the deletion made there other than the category-lumping one by the original closer, and several for its undeletion ("I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. ... Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)", etc, indicating significant concern for consensus not being reflection in the decision) yet it was closed as "endorsed".

Your opinion is the category shouldn't exist. Fine, you are allowed to have that opinion. But you must keep in mind that the obvious result of the discussion was that it should - you were the only person to make an argument as to why it shouldn't, while every other person who made an argument said it should. As to good faith... while I try to assume it of everyone, I am forced to conclude otherwise in this case. Someone can not simply ignore one side of the debate and be assumed to be acting to benefit the community they just ignored.

This discussion isn't about a category, it's about the ability for an admin to say "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". As soon as that is acceptable, we might as well toss the concept of consensus out the window - something I hope no one here agrees with. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Busytails, you provided a link to the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Furry Wikipedians. In it User:After Midnight says "Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated." However, you have stated that they said "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." and "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". Could you please provide links to where After Midnight said that he would ignore them? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Bushytails was offering his own paraphrasing of what After Midnight was saying rather than providing direct quotes. However, that has been the effect - the consensus of the people who actually showed up at this particular UCfD was dismissed, due to prior deletions of different user categories. I was honestly surprised when I saw that closure, because it didn't seem to make sense. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How can what After Midnight said be turned into "ignore"? His statement is quite clear and in no way dismisses the other arguments. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As there was only one argument to delete (and a weak one based entirely on the nominator's personal opinion), the only way the decision could have been "delete" is if the five keep arguments, summed together, were given less weight than a single weak delete argument. I believe this would fit the defintion of "ignore". Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

jc37, since when did being tidy become a reason to delete things that have shown themselves to be useful? Try to understand: You have deleted a whole lot of categories that nobody really cared about. This has been generally regarded as a good thing. You are now getting more people saying "keep" rather than "delete". This is the point at which to stop, and say "Mission accomplished", rather than start deleting things people have actually been using to build user communities on Misplaced Pages. The creation of a general rule for user identification categories to override such discussions is not required, nor desirable. These decisions should be made by individual consensus in UCfD, just like articles.

If you want a guide for nominations, consider "categories covering a topic smaller or larger than that which could reasonably be covered by a single WikiProject." This would exclude both the "silly small" categories such as "Wikipedians who are fans of Ozy and Millie" or "Wikipedians who like Amnesiac" (but not "Furry Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are fans of Radiohead") as well as the silly large ones, like "Wikipedians who read books" or "Wikipedians who like food". Basically, if you can't ever imagine having an "Infobox X", it's probably too small, and if that infobox would be a whole page by itself, it's possibly too big. In between that, it's the right size to start gathering a community of editors. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best answer to this "cause" of "IWANTIT" is to remind you all that the place to contest the closure of User:After Midnight was DRV. And DRV endorsed the closure. That pretty much puts a terminus on all your arguements about him. (And personally, I think you owe him an apology.)

But, to continue this "crusade" is risking becoming disruptive.

If you consider a "crusade" for getting admins to follow consensus, it might make a bit more sense to you. I believe "crusading" for proper admin actions to be far more useful than, say, crusading to break up all informal collaborative groups on wikipedia. (please note again that you were the _only_ person to provide an argument on the ucfd as to why they should be deleted... "IDONTWANTIT"?) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before: If you want to start a discussion about the relevance of idetification categories in general, please feel free to start a talk page discussion somewhere. The Village Pump is an excellent place, for example. - jc37 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. At Misplaced Pages talk:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians by interest, well before the category in question was deleted. It was not significantly replied to, even though I pointed people to it in the discussion about LGBT Wikipedians. If I have to take it to the pump, I'll take it there. But I think you should ask yourself the same question about disruptive crusades. Nobody asked you to go around nominating these user categories for deletion. You thought it was a good idea, and you did it. And that's how wikis work, so I have no problem with that. But it's come to the point where what you are nominating them, and people are coming up and saying "hey, we were using that" - and actually telling you how, and have others come in without being asked and agree with that - and they're being deleted anyway. That's not good, not when there's no compelling reason for deletion but a sense of tidyness. GreenReaper 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is starting to border on being disruptive - DRV is the place to contest the closure of an XfD, and when DRV does not get you the result you want, that does not mean the appropriate "next step" is to seek out yet another forum of complaint in hopes of getting the result one wants. There is no process of endless appeals here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I discussed the DRV above - other than After Midnight's vote for proper colsure, there weren't any good arguments for why it should have been delete - the other "endorse" votes were all about content, and didn't mention the process of closure. Since the point of DRV is to discuss the process of the deletion, not to re-argue for/against the content, DRV failed at its purpose, so, as I was advised, I picked a better forum where the actual process of the deletion may be discussed. Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bushytails, before I answer your questions here, could you please answer these for me? After I deleted the category, and my bot removed it from your user page, you made this edit with an edit summary of "go fuck yourselves. you know who you are. people who do nothing buy try to destroy wikipedia do not deserve the right to live." In the edit, you state "This user only has a userbox because certain fuckwits decided that categories, even for the purpose of helping to find users for collaboration, should be replaced by userboxes. If you see one of these fuckwits, please shoot them for the benefit of the encyclopedia, as they seem to go out of their way to try to destroy it, and ridding the planet of ilk like them can only help our goal of encyclopedia creation.". I would like to know, am I one of the fuckwits that you would wish for someone to please kill? And whether this refers to me or not, why should you be allowed to continue to edit on this site, where death threats are not permitted? --After Midnight 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you claim that an admin directed you to bring this discussion here, can you please link to this recommendation, since I see nothing in your edit history regarding any such conversation. Also, did this admin not also mention to you that "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so)."? --After Midnight 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I re-worded that a bit less harshly, deciding threats might not be the best way to get the point across that certain users do not benefit the environment they're in, and thus shouldn't be in it. It doesn't change my opinion, however, that admins who ignore consensus are a major problem for wikipedia, and should be dealt with appropriately, as should users taking other actions that damage the ability to create an encyclopedia or the community that creates it. Don't forget we're here to create an encyclopedia, after all. Doing things that hurt the encyclopedia is contrary to creating an encyclopedia, and users doing such actions should not be here. (A single rogue admin action is _far_ more damaging than random vandalism, something that routinely results in long-term removal from the site.) And as I was advised on IRC, there will be no link (and, no, I was not advised of that. I also figured that as an active admin, you'd notice soon enough! :) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you were less harsh because "threats might not be the best way to get the point across"? I would have hoped that you withdrew the threat because it was immoral, illegal and uncivil, but it appears you withdrew it only because you were getting reverted on your edit or because you think it didn't help your argument. Either way, your credibility here is shot and at this time, you don't deserve further discussion from me. --After Midnight 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try responding to arguments people have made. Attacking me won't change the issue. Bushytails 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try to apologize for suggesting that someone should kill me. --After Midnight 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the strength of the statement made, but not for the message I was trying to convey. That I would do shortly after I see an apology (and not to me personally; I'm just one user of many) from the various users involved for their efforts to damage our great encyclopedia and the community that creates it... However, as I said before, this is the place for a debate, not for attacks. If you don't plan on responding to the actual arguments, one must assume you don't have a case. Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I missed that. Is a permaban the correct response for a death threat? --Kbdank71 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While village pump may be a better location to discuss the usefulness of user categories in general, this isn't about user categories; it's about admins ignoring apparant consensus when making closing decisions. Hardly appropriate for village pump... Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Key phrase : apparent consensus. Consensus is not vote counting and it is not uncommon to see cases closed where the consensus reached was not even a majority opinion. It is not only a right but a duty of administrators to interpret a debate based on the strengths of the arguments therein, not just the numbers. In any case, After Midnight is an administrator because at one point the community deemed him fluent enough in policy to decide these matters and trustworthy enough to close such discussions. That you do not agree with his closure is painfully evident, and thus the problem was brought up at DRV. The discussion at DRV reinforced the fact that his interpretation of the debate was correct. You still disagree. Tough. That an admin "ignored" your chosen interpretation of "consensus" is not a reason to file a greivance on AN/I. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the DRV didn't reinforce the fact at all - the _only_ person to say process was followed properly was After Midnight himself! Perhaps you should actually check the DRV is question? Contrary to what DRV is for, all the other endorse comments were about the content of the item, not the process that was followed. Multiple undelete comments saying process was not followed, however. Hence why it's here, where a proper discussion on the process of closing might be possible.

"Not a majority opinion" would be an understatement, and "strength of arguments" does not include "assigning zero strength to arguments I disagree with". All of the keep votes had relatively strong arguments, while the single delete vote had a relatively weak argument, so any application of unbiased strength-based weighting would still have ended in keep. Again, did you actually read it? Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I participated in the DRV in question, which is why I am here at all. I did read the UCFD. The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD and endorsed the result. Endlessly railing on against the administrator who closed the argument and making thinly veiled accusations of impropriety is not going to help your cause any. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should read it again; "The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD" - actually, at least three people _did_ find something improper with the UCFD. Other than After Midnight's own response, _no one_ said anything positive about the process by which consensus was determined. The only endorse votes were "I don't like it"s about user categories, and made no comment on the closing process at all. Since some of the users pasted the same comment in every drv, I suspect most didn't even read the ucfd. Bushytails 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Look - sometimes you just lose an argument. You didn't like the deletion of the category and you did the proper thing in bringing it up on DRV. When you don't like the outcome of a DRV, however, it's not proper to come running to AN/I to try and get your way. In any case it should be clear that this filing is not going to result in a reversal of that decision, nor is it going to result in any actions against the admin. It should be pretty evident by this juncture that what you are doing here is chasing windmills; but if that is what makes you happy, be my guest. I don't want to go blue in the face, however, so I'm going to move on. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to elaborate in the core Misplaced Pages principles, "Consensus means that community input is solicited, then the admin does what he wants"? Seriously, having a call for discussion where half a dozen people look at whether a category is needed or not only to be ignored wastes more time than thirty vandalism edits. If the admin did no wrong then the DRV process is defective. 70.15.116.59 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about merging without concensus

I cannot find all the relevant diffs. However the issue is the following. I suddenly found one day than an article I was working on, zaojing, had been redirected to another article name Caisson (Asian architecture), without any warning or discussion. The editor had copied material and its associated references from zaojing to Caisson (Asian architecture) which he had been working on and redirected zaojing to his. I inquired on ANI, asking what do to.

• Orignial ANI complaint:. An admin posted on User:PalaceGuard008 talk page that a MERGE process was the method if informal discussion did not reach agreement. He has removed this message from his talk page so I cannot give a diff.

A third party I contacted said that each article name was equally valid and he could not recommend one over the other. He suggested involving other opinions or drawing straws. That message is also removed from PalaceGuard008's talk page so I cannot give a diff. The zaojing article information is focused on a much earlier time frame. Meanwhile, both the other editor and I have been working on our articles, his with the material and references copied from the one I am working on. I researched the article name question and suggested a merge of his article with Coffer as being more appropriate.

Meanwhile, I was distracted by User:Cyborg Ninja who stalked me to the article talk page and entered into the discussion. Cyborg Ninja has since been warned for stalking and personal attacks regarding me, including these posting on the talk page of Caisson (Asian architecture):

Now I find that PalaceGuard008 seems to have responded to Cyborg Ninja's advice and has kept the material and associated references from zaojing incorporated in the article he is working on and removed the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 responded by saying I said the issue was closed. I did not. I was referring to the advice from ANI to use a MERGE, so that issue was closed as the merge templates were in place:

So despite my arguments to the contrary on the article talk page including the suggested merge of his article with Coffer, the material and references copied from zaojing remain where palaceGuard008 copied them. I have asked the Architectural portal for advice on correct terminology. The article I was working on zaojing is actually part of a larger article on Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. Not only is the material copied from this article and placed into the one he is working on, but the references he copied are incorrect for the purpose and time frame he is using them for. I reverted the page back to the original status before the incorporation of zaojing material and references and including the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 has reverted to the version including material and references copied from zaojing.

Please advise on how to handle this situation. I would like to get the Architecture portals input as coffer, cupola and other terms are very similar and we need a common understanding. The Wiki Commons also uses the term "round ceiling" and "caisson" interchangeably.

Hope I am stating the situation clearly. Thanks! --Mattisse 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have notified PalaceGuard008 of this ANI posting on his talk page. --Mattisse 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anothr forum I should take this problem to? I don't care anymore about the redirect. I just don't want the copied text and references there. Mattisse 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merges (or unmerges) are best discussed on the talk page of the destination article. If the content should come out because it doesn't make the destination article a better article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article it is in. If you want it removed because you were the original author, you should read the GFDL and realize that it ceased being solely yours the instant you pressed the "save" button; see also WP:OWN, and what is needed is 1) in the history of the merged to article an edit summary indicating that material was merged from the original source and 2) {{R from merge}} on the redirect. If you just need a third opinion, use the WP:3O or WP:RFC processes to gain ourside comment. GRBerry 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse seems to be forum shopping. I'm waiting for fuller input on policy at Village Pump (policy). As I have exhaustively listed the issues in this and related disputes on the same article here on AN/I and elsewhere, I won't repeat myself.

Suffice to say that I think Mattisse does not understand the collaborationist nature of Misplaced Pages and the GFDL licence.

One specific point: he says I removed the 3rd party user's comment in support of my view that the two articles are identical in subject matter - I did no such thing, and why would I? It's right there on my talk page, and if Mattisse can't find it, it is only because he insists on opening multiple threads on my talk page (and elsewhere) every time he posts a message, cluttering up these talk pages.

I am still waiting for Mattisse to return to the content discussion on the article talk page. No luck so far after asking him about 5 times to respond to my comments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Please take a look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. Editor Eleemosynary continues to remove information just because he disagrees with it. There are cited United States Army memos, in PDF format, being cited. These are RS and perfectly valid. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Content issue. Please discuss on the talk page or pursue a content RFC or third opinion. (However, one might wish to take a lesson from the Killian documents fiasco and wait to see if these pdf's from the drudge report ever get authenticated. ) Thatcher131 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than a content issue. Eleemosynary has continued to lob personal attacks at User:Bluemarine (a.k.a. Matt Sanchez) long after that user stopped contributing to the article. These are homophobic attacks designed at discrediting the Bluemarine through Bluemarine's past experience in the gay porn industry. Eleemosynary has engaged in these personal attacks in edit summaries . I gave a polite warning to Eleemosynary regarding the homophobic violations of WP:NPA, but Eleemosynary called this "nonsense" and "trolling," and instead decided to use even harsher and more homophobic language. (A prior warning was given in the context of a debate, and this not as polite: .)

In the past few hours, Eleemosynary has twice called Sanchez "Dirty Sanchez," a homophobic slur, one made to associate Mr. Sanchez with homosexuality and certain sexual acts that some people find rather disgusting and/or laughable. Contrary to Eleemosynary's claims, it is not a nickname given to Sanchez in the porn industry, where he did not use his own name, according to the article at Matt Sanchez. It was instead given to him by those who wished to defame him. Eleemosynary feigns ignorance of what "Dirty Sanchez" means, but one look at his history reveals his true nature. I have been very patient with his homophobia, but how many times must he be warned and his attacks tolerated before action is taken? Calbaer 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to clarify my final comment, no one's "taken action" in the past on this because it hasn't been reported, not because it's been reported and ignored. Actions have been taken against the user for other things, but not for this. Calbaer 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's more than a content dispute, it was brought up as a content dispute. Throwing the book at Eleem for the current personal attacks is perfectly fine by me, but it's a separate issue to the content dispute. Chris Cunningham 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He says he'll stop, so I guess I'll give him a sixth chance, but, if there are any more homophobic slurs in the future, I'll bring them up here myself. Calbaer 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee (From COI/N & BLP/N)

Copied as posted to BLP/N, where it was referred from COI/N.

Yesterday, new editor User:Shogun108 arrived, stating his declaritive intent to clean up the article. I tried to clarify things about how we work via citation and consensus, but he was adamant that most o the stuff should be folded into 'political positions' or lost because it was negative about HuckabeeTalk:Mike_Huckabee#New_Editor_on_a_mission.. This AM, I found the following section, Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Regarding_new_editors, which explains that Shogun108 is one of a group now actively campaigning to 'fix' the article. They were solicited to fix it. One editor actively solicits peopel to become editors to game consensus: "Better yet, since edits run by consensus at Misplaced Pages, the best case scenario is for SEVERAL editors to keep the Huckabee entries honest. If only ONE editor from "here" changes things, the trolls will gather support and beat the one editor down. The rules are very loosey goosey over there. I've fought the good fight on several issues, and unless I get support, the lefties will gang up on you. " That editor's comment match this edit by User:Mactogrpaher right down to the rationale and comments on the message board. Although Shogun108's comments seem less absolutist, he is still here as an SPA whose only edits are about Huckabee, and who came here specifically to 'clean up' the Huckabee page after solicitation off-wiki. Further, mactographer's comments indicate a generally dismissive tone about WIkipedia, so it is unlikely he will actively work to conform to our standards, and again, a solicited editor. I further wonder if Mactographer's open call to flood the page doesn't count as recruiting Meat Puppets. Thanks for reviewing this. Additionally, two editors at COI/N found this report credible, as seen here Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Specific_off-wiki_campaign_to_purge_Mike_Huckabee_of_criticism.. Shogun108 is proving to be a SPA as well, please see his contribs: Special:Contributions/Shogun108. // ThuranX 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Further still, there is an IP into the mix now who seems to self-identify as Mactographer, but who can sometimes be bothered to sign in, and other times not. I'm Assuming AGF, and posting this here for ease of reading the releveant sections. I don't hink he's seriously trying any SOCK-ing with that, but that 24.6 IP is his.

I brign this here because although it got reviewing support at COI/N, BLP/N has been silent, and I'd like to cut this off fast. Extortionistic behvaiors like 'you better keep that other page the way I say, or I'll do what I want here' is NOT how we do things. Beyond that, I think the evidence above is quite clear. ThuranX 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had some good discussions with ThuranX and I seem to get along fine with him/her. However, I think the statements suggested here and the organized cabal is a bit of a stretch at this time. I was part of the discussion and I read the "extortionistic" behavior completely different and did not take it that way at all. I'm not saying that ThuranX is wrong, perhaps (s)he's had more experience with picking out such behavior but I'm just not seeing it yet. Morphh 2:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Active CANVASsing off-wiki to force POV edits into an article by getting new editors to constitute a new consensus is a problem. Demanding that I personally assure the state of another article, or else he'll do stuff to the Huckabee article? That reads like an extortion attempt to me. It's a stupid and crass attempt, one without teeth or credibility, but all the same, nothing like that should be alloweed to stand, and no editor should take it, nor any article be vulnerable to it.

More to the point, this campaign will continue, and Admins need to jump in now to help protect articles from such POV warriors. ThuranX 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any force POV edits and I haven't seen any force for a new consensus. I see a blog that is concerned about the neutrality of the article and discussing it, with a couple of editors working to address what they believe is bias. This is how many contributors start in Misplaced Pages, via articles of interest. I don't see any extortion. He didn't demand the article stay any particular way or that ThuranX keep it that way. He only stated that if a justification was used to remove an image on several articles, that if that justification was invalid on the other article, he would revert the removal on the discussed article. I'm wondering who the POV warriors really are... Morphh 3:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Huckabee08 was banned today for blanking parts of the article and general pro-huckabee vandalism to it, and negative vandalism to those of other candidates. Maybe it's amazing coincidence, or part of the same campaign. Either way, review of this would be good. ThuranX 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote

In a sweeping nomination at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), the Ashkenazi intelligence article was not listed as part of an original group in the AfD until a later user mentioned the article and then the nominator decided to add it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are still coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what the serious tinkering additions by the nominator were all about, or if he was even right to do so. Futhermore, being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. For the sake of clarity the Ashkenazi intelligence should be removed from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which it was included. The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If anyone wishs to have a new nomination, they can go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Your input and intervention is requested. Thank you, IZAK 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ANI is the place to discuss this. I think, however, I will give my comment and let someone else moive this discussion to the proper location.

I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met:

1. There is a single place to discuss all the pages.
2. It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages.
3. They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created.

As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Mishehu: Thanks for the feedback. Please post your decision at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence before the vote concludes. (P.S. Since this seemed a clear violation of protocal I was not sure where else to look for help.) Thanks so much, IZAK 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I just split this article off to a seperate AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you indeed. IZAK 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

help please--unwarranted

Dear administrators, The entry for Michael Talbot contains a very discouraging and unwarranted red box about "notability." This seems like a very overbearing use of administration powers. Please see discussion. Thanks very much for your kind attention. 98.207.21.3 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I've checked and confirmed notability of this author. His book is published by Harper and has a respectable sales ranking on Amazon. I've removed the notability template on the article. It's still a stub and needs work but there's no need for that particular template. --Parsifal _Hello 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with admins? The user who put the notability tag on the page, User:bsnowball, isn't an admin, and there was nothing that needed to be done by an admin. Corvus cornix 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much Parsifal. sorry for bothering you with this issue, I'm very new to wiki 98.207.21.3 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible serious irregularities in the closer of deletion discussion

The issue I am herby requesting a review of was a proposed deletion of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and nearly all child categories contained in that parent category. The discussion can be found here. Several dozen user categories were nominated for deletion or rename (as subsections of the main deletion) by User: jc37 (an administrator).

A clear KEEP consensus was established on all categories, with the possible exceptions of Category:Realist Wikipedians, Category:Mystic Wikipedians, Category:Trystero Wikipedians, and Category:Surrealist Wikipedians, and Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians. However, on 24 October User:jc37 closed the deletion discussion him/her self with an outcome of Closed to be relisted. Since he was the one who originally nominated for deletion, and since he was a major participant in the discussion, I feel this shows a clear conflict of interest. In closing the discussion jc37 sites “extensive canvassing” and “personal attacks” as reason for this surprising outcome. When I asked for justification of these statements, jc37 refused. In spite of extinctive searching I find no evidence to back up these claims. Furthermore he has expressed the determination to immediately re-nominate for deletion. I believe this would simply be re-nomination in hopes of achieving a different consensus.

During the discussion a number of users also objected to the moving and merging of their comments by User: jc37 without there permission. There was also a widespread feeling that no clear reason was ever offered for the nomination despite repeated requests.

I strongly believe that this discussion should have been closed as KEEP or left for further comment because of the overwhelming positive consensus, the lack of a clear reason for nomination, the pattern of evasive action shown by some users, and because of the clear conflict of interests involved in the closer. --S.dedalus 06:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jc37 seems out to eliminate all signs of a wikipedia community by any means necessary; just about everything he's ever listed should be re-considered, imho. Bushytails 07:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware that you're not happy with the DRV results of "Furry Wikipedians". - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I find this a valid application of IAR since the UCFD was a trainwreck. Speedy closing your own nominations, especially when there are conflicting votes, is generally a bad idea but in this case I actually think it improves the process rather than disrupt it so IAR applies. EconomicsGuy 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And my not so extensive searching did find good signs of mild canvassing by User:BD2412, i.e. notifying people who were in one of these categories of the discussion. While no "voting advice" was given, such posts are bound to bring in mostly those who have a noted interest in the category and will skew the discussion in favour of keeping. Over 100 editors were thus notified. Fram 08:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Though I was attempting to not "call on the carpet" another editor, since it seemed to me it would only further the disruption. - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I wish jc37 would have told me on my talk page when I asked however, as it would have saved BD2412 from being publicly “called on the carpet.” I see little evidence that the canvassing had a significant effect on the discussion however. --S.dedalus 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with S. Dedalus. JC37 removed user comments from the discussion, too, which likewise does not seem to be the right behaviour for an admin to be taking. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I merged the duplicative sopy/pasted comments to the umbrella nomination. I've also decided to wait to nominate the umbrella portion of the nom for a few days so as to also reduce that confusion as well. (Since some editors seemed confused about it.) - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest if you disagree with this result take it to deletion review. JoshuaZ 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to review since they weren't deleted. The nominator relisted them to be dealt with on their own merits. This is a storm in a very small glass of water. EconomicsGuy 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV could just as well DRV it arguing that the relisting was unacceptable and that they should have been closed by another admin. JoshuaZ 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose a deletion review request. Though, as I mentioned on the user's talk page (The diff to the full discussion is here), I wonder at the concern about further discussion. - jc37 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And as I pointed out then, I feel the discussion needs to focus on irregularities in how that discussion was closed. --S.dedalus 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with S.dedalus. I was shocked to see that the discussion had been closed by the nominating editor when there was a clear keep consensus for the majority of the categories. The canvassing is only relevant idf there is evidence that the editors solicited by User:BD4212 actually had an influebnce on the discussion. I don't think there is any evidence of that when comparing the users canvassed to the users who actually commented during the discussion. — DIEGO 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV is that way. JoshuaZ 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ, there is an 'exceptional case' stipulation at DRV (#4 link here) which states that posting at ANI may be more appropriate. I think that is the case here and it would be overly cumbersome to redo this thread at DRV.. When I first noticed it, this closure struck me as inappropriate because it was made by the nominating admin . The discussion at the point of closure was running at least (from memory here) 14 to 3 opinions in favor of keeping the categories. That is clearly a consensus 'keep' with no official basis in policy supporting the delete !votes, which would be needed in order to override the overwhelming consensus. Overall, it gives the impression of wanting a 2nd bite at the apple. . . so to speak. The closure was inappropriate, and a 2nd admin should probably re-close as 'consensus keep' or in the alternative (though I favor this option less) re-open the discussion. R. Baley 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of "keep"s have been being closed as deletes lately, and things have been being listed repeatedly until they get deleted. Since this is a wider issue than any one category or closing, I agree here is a good place for it. Bushytails 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

14-3 certainly would be consensus, if consensus meant counting votes. Which it doesn't. --Kbdank71 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus also doesn't mean "whatever the admin wants". Bushytails 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is quite evident that consensus was established in favor of keep regardless of the number of votes (although keep did have a huge majority). The only reason for deletion offered was that the categories are “not useful.” Editors favoring keep pointed out extensive reasons why the categories ARE useful: fostering constructive collaboration, discussion, etc. A cursory examination should make this clear. --S.dedalus 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My cursory examination revealed the following two gems: "Why should we delete them? They are some way against encyclopedic content in wikipedia? If yes then let's delete all userboxes/categories then..." and "No grounds for deletion." How are those two non-reasons useful in any way? And if you think the only reason for deletion given was "not useful", maybe you should give it more than just a cursory examination.--Kbdank71 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Any deletion discussion, especially a heated one, is bound include some dumb comments. I trust you will now take the time to do more than a “cursory examination.” In my opinion this is consensus in favor of keep. Beyond that, the closer of this discussion by jc37 clearly violates WP:DGFA, specifically number three on this list. --S.dedalus 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User Rogerfgay

• Rogerfgay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has two highly POV articles up for AfD and has now removed the AfD tag from both articles several times. He is also leaving inappropriate vandalism warnings for editors who restore the AfD tags and delete his other POV edits. . I've already reverted him twice today so I'd appreciate some intervention.DanielEng 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the two articles in dispute on my watchlist now, and am keeping an eye on his contributions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it's appreciated. He's now making claims that I've been "reported for vandalism" for reverting his AfD tags. I'm not concerned about it because I know I did nothing wrong here, but it's pretty ironic.DanielEng 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a warning and good advice. Hopefully an outside perspective will help them realize that they need to stop. - Jehochman 13:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. He doesn't seem to be listening (I'm back to being a vandal, LOL) but I really appreciate the assistance here. He doesn't seem to register what is being said to him here or elsewhere. Best, DanielEng 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found this conversation now. I blocked Rogerfgay last night for a number of reasons last night. POV-pushing / edit warring / 3RR violations, etc, etc. His subsequent unblock request was declined. This came to my notice through a request on WP:RFPP - Alison 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pusher who is suspected sock puppet of banned neo-Nazi

On October 7, 2007 I requested an IP check for User:Sviatoslav86, a suspected sock puppet of a permanently-banned individual. My request was dismissed out of hand because a particular administrator didn't want to make the effort. Subsequently on the administrator's talk page, that person was very unhelpful and wouldn't tell me what actions I should take. Sviatoslav86 is a disruptive editor who adds uncited and factually inaccurate content to articles related to skinheads and the far right racist movement. His edits are almost identical to those of the permanently-banned sock puppet accounts User:Laderov, User:ProudAryan, User:AryeitskiySaldat and User:EuropeanLynx (as well as several sock puppet IPs). Please take the appropriate actions to prevent Sviatoslav86 from adding false claims to articles and damaging the integrity of Misplaced Pages.Spylab 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Deskana did say what actions you should take, which is: to link to the diffs on your RFCU request. Since there's only a handful of users who can run checkusers, and that page is heavily backlogged right now, it helps them out tremendously if you do the legwork of getting all the evidence in one place. Then they just examine your evidence and act accordingly. Deskana's comment about "no time" was not meant to be dismissive IMHO, but a factual statement of the state of their situation. Arakunem 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana said I posted in the "wrong section" but did not tell me what the right section is. If administrators are too busy to fulfill requests and give concrete advice, they should leave those requests for other administrators instead of throwing them out. I have requested many IP checks before, and all of them have been fulfilled within days without any roadblocks. I am not sure why this case is any different. Pretty much every single edit in the edit histories of the above suspected sock puppets are very similar, in that they post uncited opinions posing as fact, and in that they promote a neo-Nazi agenda. With very little effort, one can click on any random edits in their edit histories to see that.Spylab 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sviatoslav86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left the building. – Steel 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anstatt (talk · contribs)

Another suspected sock of Laderov (talk · contribs) is Anstatt (talk · contribs) who continues to harrass and disrupt the talk page on British National Party. If anyone wants diffs then pick any random edit by Anstatt on that talk page and compare them to the reason Laderov was banned. Anstatt appeared on that talk page immediately after Sviatoslav86 was blocked. Since Anstatt is an obvious POV pushing SPA (he only edits that talk page) and stepped right into a heated debate with full knowledge of how things work on Misplaced Pages I honestly don't think we even need a checkuser to deal with this. Deskana may be busy and need more obvious evidence than what was presented but this needs to be dealt with. EconomicsGuy 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also left the building. – Steel 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The reason why admins are so busy, is because they are working on civility issues, 3RR, and yes I know, its one of the core policies, but it pales in comparason to this type of problem that needs more attention. So what that someone was called an idiot, or rude. Yes, it's not nice, but these types of editors and editing is the bigger problem, as it breaks all the core policies and is difficult for others to assume good faith, and much more unpleasant atmosphere than calling someone a silly name. "sticks and stones". Jeeny 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE on the Ref Desk

Could someone have a word with DirkvdM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about not biting the newbies on the Reference Desk In response to a question posted in ALL CAPS by an anonymous IP () – which I fully agree is an annoying practice and worth discouraging – Dirk responded with the comment

Don't shout. Shouting is rude. You are rude. I refuse to read your question. DirkvdM 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)(diff)

I left a note on Dirk's talk page asking him to try a little more explanation and a little less bite (), as such an approach would be a bit more likely to produce the desired change in behaviour. I also added a comment of explanation to the Ref Desk to try to soften his comment: . In response, Dirk decided that he would leave some additional stabs for the newbie on the Desk: "rude", "total lack of common sense" (, ). The full thread on the Reference Desk is Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science#TERRESTRIAL PLANT GROWING COMPLETELY IN WATER; the thread on Dirk's talk page is User talk:DirkvdM#SHOUTING on the Ref Desk.

Normally I wouldn't bring a little matter like this to AN/I, but I've had previous...discussions with Dirk that raise a couple of flags for me. For one, I don't want to issue warnings to an editor where I might have a conflict of interest, and for another, I'm concerned that he's being obstinate just because it is me who brought the problem to his attention. I'd appreciate it if a neutral third party could have a look over this situation and tell me if I'm completely off base here or not; if not, then perhaps some kind and constructive advice could be given to Dirk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that responses like this are totally unnecessary; people type in all caps often on the help desk simply because they don't know better. His response was quite WP:BITEy and assumed bad faith (assumed that the user was trying to be rude), however, unless this is a chronic problem, there is really nothing for admins to do here. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick check shows that the user is from New Dehli, India. They are likely not accustomed to writing in English, or may have different standards when communicating with other Indians in English. Some understanding would be appropriate. Leebo /C 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is writing in all caps really that harsh on the eyes? Equating all caps writing to verbal shouting is a bit ridiculous. This isn't a chat room. Also, for many people familiar with a non-latin alphabet, reading and writing in all caps is easier to undertstand. — DIEGO 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not, it is widely accepted that typing in full caps is the online equivalent of shouting. _TheIslander 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with TheIslander here, for people who spend a lot of time on the internet using English this is the convention, and they will often react emotionally as if someone had shouted. In any event, there are more polite ways of explaining this to people. Something like "Please be aware that using ALL CAPS is frequently considered to be shouting on the internet. Please use lowercase lettering."JoshuaZ 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add that, quite stupidly really, I didn't read the rest of the thread. I would certainly agree that Dirk's comment was overly bite-y, and that in this case wasn't warrented. _TheIslander 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is "widely accepted that typing in full caps is the online equivalent of shouting". My point is that Misplaced Pages is global and a) it is sometimes a mistake to assume that our accepted conventions are accepted by everyone else, and b) we have an obligation to assume good faith and not react to something as inconsequential as all caps by biting another editor. It was obvious from the context of the question that this editor was not using all caps to indicate SHOUTING. A gentle instruction/reminder that the use of all-caps is generally frowned upon would have sufficed. — DIEGO 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it has nothing to do with TenOfAllTrades. I make it a habit to point out to people who write in all caps that that is rude and that therefore I did not read the question. (One might as well argue that Ten reacted because it was me who made the comment, but I won't utter such accusations.)

As I pointed out on the ref desk, if someone manages to figure out how to post a question on the ref desk, then one can assume they know enough about computers and the Internet to know the difference between normal typing and all caps. It's also a matter of common sense. I cannot imagine someone so accustomed to computers to not notice they have caps lock on. The fact that he is from India and therefore may not be accustomed to English doesn't make any sense either because he asked the question in near perfect English. Just one typo and some bad punctuation. Hell, he even used the word 'adventitious', which I had to look up, despite the fact that my English is pretty good.

The only thing I can think of is that keyboards in India are different in some manner that makes this mistake likely. But that would mean he didn't check the result of his typing on his monitor. Or am I missing something here?

'SHOUTING' WAS INDEED NOT EXACTLY THE RIGHT TERM. MORE PRECISE WOULD BE 'DRAWING UNDUE ATTENTION'. ALL CAPS STANDS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. ONE HAS TO ASSUME THAT PEOPLE HAVE ENOUGH SENSE TO SEE THAT. NOW TELL ME, WHEN YOU STARTED READING THIS POST , OR EVEN THIS THREAD, WERE YOUR EYES DRAWN TO THESE LINES? CHANCES ARE THEY WERE AND THAT IS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH ANY COMMON SENSE. ALL CAPS IS NOT THE STANDARD WAY TO TYPE. NOT HERE AND NOT IN INDIA. JUST GOOGLE SOMETHING ON INDIAN SITES (like here). HOW MUCH ALL CAPS DO YOU SEE THERE? NEXT TO NOTHING, SO THE FACT THAT HE IS FROM INDIA IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Instead off telling me off, you should go tell that rude guy to never do that again. DirkvdM 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith when dealing with new users. Its one thing to point out that it is discouraged, but saying "You are rude." is a personal attack. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(E/C) Yup. There's no reason to assume bad faith, especially on the reference desk. You could have told him that CAPS was considered shouting while still remaining civil. There was no reason to respond in this manner. --Bfigura 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were going to ask a question on another Misplaced Pages, where you have knowledge of the language but little familiarity with etiquette related to that Misplaced Pages, you could easily make such a mistake. To assume that the user wanted undue attention is to assume bad faith. To loosely refer to Hanlon's razor; "Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance." Leebo /C 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DirkvdM, I appreciate that you consider it rude that someone write in all-caps, but can you please comment civilly to that effect and then, if you are unwilling to answer their question, simply let someone else answer? --Iamunknown 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only tangentially relevant to this matter, but I wanted to point out that my few interactions with Dirk on the reference desk have almost universally been positive. I've found him to be exceptionally helpful -- Samir 00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I give enough reason to assume bad faith? How can this be explained by ignorance? Give me a good reason and I will apoligise. For another example, look at newspapers. All over the world, bigger letters are used to draw extra attention. Headers are always in bigger letters and still bigger letters are used to draw still more attention. It's universal. The only reproach that makes sense is that I researched this after making the comment. But it's ridiculous to take every possible excuse, however unlikely, into account. If a stranger walks up to you in the street and starts shouting in your face, do you go "Well, maybe he has Tourette's or maybe in his country it is polite to shout"? No, you tell him to get lost (or worse). And I didn't say that, I politely pointed out that he was being rude. (Well, actually I said he was rude, which is something different, so my apologies for that.) And I pointed out that it can have an adverse effect, namely that some people won't read his question. That's a ref desk equivalent of turning away when someone shouts at you. DirkvdM 06:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And if the user was native-English and/or computer-literate, then you might have a reasonable point. Drawing a comparison between a non-native speaker of English using capital letters and "a stranger walking up to you in the street and shouting in your face" is crazy. My father types in all capitals. It's not because he's rude, it's because he rarely uses a computer, and has poor vision. There are many reasons why someone might type in capitals, and rudeness is only one of them; in the absence of any indication to the contrary, one assumes good faith. You don't have to apologise though - in future, simply just don't say anything if you can't say anything nice, and let someone capable of responding politely and constructively handle the reply. Neil ☎ 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't multiple editors on this board give enough reason to assume good faith? Isn't that a guideline on Misplaced Pages? Why abandon it on the ref desk? --Iamunknown 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I teach newbies to use computers, and have found many use all caps. Part of it may be uncertainty in when to use caps and when not to. There are some subtleties in English, like "God" meaning "the one and only god" and "god" meaning "any of the many gods". Using the wrong capitalization there could thus insult someone's religion. I personally don't particularly care if someone uses all caps. If others do, they should either ignore the Q without making any comment, or, if they can comment without themself being rude, they should do so. Something like "please don't use all caps here, we prefer mixed case". We all need to be nicer, and not just to newbies. StuRat 10:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably also like to note that if there is nothing good to say, or you are simply going to say that you aren't going to answer the question, then it might well be best to, well, not reply at all... x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the questioneer is (most probably) not a computer illiterate, because else he would not have know how to post a question on the ref desk. Neil, would your father be able to do that?. And Stu, would the pupils that don't yet know when to use all (!) caps know how to do that? And if he had such poor vision, then he couldn't read any of the answers anyway (including my 'rude remark' - so no harm done in that case).

About not responding: like I said above, did that all caps section draw your attention? And was that just? I'd say no, so telling him makes sense. If someone draws undue attention you can't expect me to ignore it, because I can't. He gets the attention he asks for.

I have yet to hear a reason to assume good faith. The only one I am now starting to doubt about is computer illiteracy, but I don't find it sufficiently likely. And if there is sufficient doubt about his bad intentions I will apologise. That would be the honourable thing to do. Note that the questioneer hasn't done that yet. So either he can't find the thread anymore (in which case no harm is done) or he doesn't care. DirkvdM 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to hear a reason to assume good faith.

Dirk, I don't mean to be trite or rude, but according to WP:AGF: To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. Later in the article, it says: Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but do not scold. To me, the assumption of good faith seems pretty non-negotiable - kind of like the presumption of innocence in the American legal system.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, I agree with all above who think you have bitten this newcomer. Your response was less polite than the all caps. Accept that you made a mistake, and move on. (adding) TenOfAllTrades, use Wikiquette alert next time for something like this where there's no need to block the user. - Jehochman 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Block the user? Is that the issue here? Why wasn't I told? DirkvdM 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, why not assume my good faith? And what about the good faith of users who ask questions that might be interpreted as medical. Deleting their posts (as Ten sometimes does) is infinitely more rude than what I did. But that's a different issue. DirkvdM 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested you should be blocked, and that's why this discussion shouldn't have been started here. It wasn't one that required administrator attention. Leebo /C 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding my €.02 to a very silly debate that should never have ended up here: 1) DirkvdM does a hard job here as a volunteer, for no pay and little glory. I thank him for having as much patience as he has (and I say that as somebody who has virtually no patience whatsoever). 2) My sister types bulletins for the police department, and by convention uses all caps. She often forgets and types that way in personal correspondence. So it can happen. Dirk made a mistake. Let's drop it and move on. Jeffpw 12:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He made a mistake yes, but "drop it and move on" is really only a useful answer if Dirk accepts that it was a mistake and stops repeating the same mistake. If he'd done that, this never would have been brought up here. Friday (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Friday, you and others here think kicking someone in the teeth is the appropriate response for inadvertently biting a newbie (or anybody else, for that matter). Have you people no sense of proportion? Move on and leave Dirk alone. Or is protecting an anon IP so important you'd risk alienating a valuable contributer? Jeffpw 14:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed kicking anyone in the teeth; nobody is protecting an IP; and risk of alienating a valuable contributor applies equally to all editors whether they have 1 edit or 10,000. Each person is judged according to how they act. If anything, I expect better behavior from an established user than a newbie. Please take this issue to Wikiquette alerts if it needs following up. Thank you. - Jehochman 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, my main concern was not that he bit the newbie in the first place—at least, I wouldn't have brought that here. For what it's worth, I both understand and agree that contributing to Misplaced Pages can be a thankless task, and I acknowledge that Dirk is usually an active and positive editor; I have would have no trouble with saying he is a net benefit to the project. However, I was very troubled by his response in this case. The newbie did something annoying; Dirk bit the newbie for it; I asked Dirk not to bite, and left the newbie an explanation of why ALL CAPS messages aren't appropriate and asked him not to do it in the future. If the matter had ended there, this thread wouldn't be here. Instead, Dirk decided to go back to the Ref Desk and insult the newbie, ascribing to the newbie either a 'total lack of common sense' or a bad faith motiviation. Regardless of how good and useful Dirk is in general, in this specific case, he was well over the bounds of acceptable conduct. WP:BITE, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:RDG all exist for a reason, and are meant to be followed all the time—even when dealing with Indian school kids who need to work on their netiquette.

I'm also more than a little bothered by the attitude that anonymous IP contributors are less deserving of courtesy and decent treatment than logged-in editors. (I don't mean to pick you specifically, Jeff—it's an unfortunate and pervasive bias across a large segment of the Misplaced Pages population.) I know that I contributed anonymously to Misplaced Pages for a while before I got an account, and I'm sure that almost everyone else on this board did at one time as well. Unless there's some indication that an IP is a banned user, obviously trolling, or has otherwise clearly demonstrated bad-faith intent – indications that are not apparent in this case – we still need to offer a bit of basic decency.

I don't deny that it's easy to bite and kick anonymous editors. By and large, they don't know our dispute resolution mechanisms—they don't know where AN/I is or how to seek help. They don't have long or proven individual track records like logged-in editors do, so even if they do speak up they will tend to receive less attention. They usually don't know how to post a diff, or even what one is. They often aren't as familiar with the culture and norms of Misplaced Pages, so they may appear rude, confused, or disoriented; they might be a 'bull in a china shop' when they edit a talk page. But all that doesn't mean that we need to be cruel to them, nor should it mean we should accept it when an long-time Misplaced Pages editor is needlessly and gratuitously rude to them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going around in circles. All the arguments have been used up and there is no consensus, so if no-one has anything new to add, I'm quite happy to leave it at this. Just one more thing for clarification. From my point of view, I wasn't being rude, just very Dutch and therefore straightforward. I don't beat around the bush and say things the way I see them. This sometimes gets me into trouble with certain people. I know that, but I can't help being what I am. Or rather, I couldn't live with myself if I started being dishonest, which not being straightforward would feel like to me. So please assume some good faith on my part, however I come across. :) DirkvdM 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this, the reference desk is for people that wish to help out other editors and members of the public. When you are on the reference desk, you are acting as an ambassador for wikipedia. If you think you are going to be rude and to the point like you have been, then I suggest you go somewhere else to do some work. If I see another comment like that from you on the reference desk, then we'll have to think about a ban from commenting there. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Mormonboy74

Mormonboy74 (talk · contribs) seems to have been spending the last year adding hoaxes to Misplaced Pages. At least, he has entered data which can not be verified by reliable sources. Two of his articles are now up for AfD because of the lack of verifiability. Just a heads up to keep an eye on his edits. Corvus cornix 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs (and his deleted contribs), this is pretty clearly a serial hoaxer. I've indefinitely blocked the account. MastCell 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:AOL

An anonymous user put a Possible Copyright Violation notice on the Talk:AOL page on September 13, 2007, leaving no reasons why s/he did this. There's no listing on the September 13 copyright problems archive page, either. The IP address of the user is 90.201.195.17. Dr. Cash 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No copyvio there. That user basically screwed up the talk page. I was able to manually repair it (could have done it using undo, were it not for another editor making a null-edit at the top of that page, ugh...). — Edokter • Talk • 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig

Hi there, after a RfC link and discussion at ANI link this user was put under a topic ban on homeopathy pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. He was allowed to continue to edit Talk:Homeopathy, where he has begun to persistently push for speculative and unreliable sources to be included into the article. Could an admin look over his edits and think about either warning him or re-blocking him, because I think he is acting in a tenditious and disruptive fashion. Tim Vickers 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been placed on any topic ban whatsoever. I deny that I have pushed for unreliable sources. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's false. You have been community banned (link) from the homeopathy article, but you have not been blocked, yet. Wikidudeman 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic ban was on homeopathy, diff, where the current problem has occurred. This user was advised only 12 days ago to leave this topic alone and move to other areas diff. Tim Vickers 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the homeopathy article since the editing restriction was imposed. Whig 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If his editing at Talk:Homeopathy has been disruptive or tendentious, it would seem logical to extend the topic ban to include the talk page as well as the Homeopathy article itself. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. Wikidudeman 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond, but I've been watching the talk page, and I think this falls short of that. He's basically been arguing that an absurd spiritualist-flavored article from a one-time physicist should be included. However, I think his misunderstandings of RS are good faith, and until he demonstrates otherwise, he shouldn't be entirely banned. Until then I agree with this comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as the "quantum mechanics" article, he was pushing in the section two above (link) for a speculative article on water memory to be included. This isn't a one-off incident but a long-term pattern. Whig has been editing Misplaced Pages since April 2004, if he hasn't grasped the core policies by now, I don't think there is much hope of him ever doing so. Tim Vickers 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused by the sock puppet accusation. I thought he was fairly a new user, but he should know better. In that case I would go along with any sanction others might find appropriate, including a total ban from Homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a difficult discussion because it is a polarizing topic. Most editors who are regularly involved have made it known by one means or another that they are anti-homeopathy.

I believe Whig tries to maintain a neutral POV. I can show instances to support this if anyone is interested.

Almost any time that the discussion hinges on POV, Whig is facing several others, most or all of whom are arguing against him. However, they are not necessarily arguing the same points, or taking the same line of argument. This must make it difficult, confusing, and frustrating.

As to the suggestion earlier today that Whig was a “sockpuppet” of Sm565, I think it was disgraceful and abusive. Anyone who followed the discussion when Sm565 was present should know that accusation was not true. When challenged, the editor who made the accusation admitted as much.

To me, it is unbelievable that someone could make the post they did AND then claim it was NOT a personal attack. Wanderer57 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false statements based on assumptions of bad faith. I asked Whig a straightforward question in very good faith. I did not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not accuse or suggest anything. I just asked a question and got a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately I clicked the wrong place and placed it in a section by itself, instead of my original intention to let it follow in a thread where Whig's disruptive editing style was being discussed. I then just gave it a heading, which made my comment seem alone and thus more provocative, instead of part of a situation and thread where it would have seemed more natural. I can see now that the talk page was not the place to do it and I then moved it to Whig's talk page. I apologize for my poor judgment. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) That sockpuppet idea was just strange, but what we are talking about here is a long-term inability of Whig to understand WP:NPOV and WP:V and how this leads to disruptive behaviour in homeopathy, a subject he seems obsessed with. Tim Vickers 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that I fail to understand those policies. I believe I have been maintaining NPOV. Whig 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just extend the ban of him editing the homeopathy to commenting on it's talk page. Problem solved. Who agrees? Wikidudeman 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with these monstrous and draconian measures. Whig has made numerous useful contributions to this talk page and has engendered good debate in a civil manner. These folks who complain are all anti homeopathy and act like vile gangsters who stifle discussion and who act as bullies. Just because they want GA status and then to use that to become admins. It stinks. Admins ought to stop the bullying and intimdation of editors to that article which is still crap and will remain so because of the antics of these editors who complain here about Whig. My ten cents FWIW. Peter morrell 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Characterizing editors who disagree with you as "vile gangsters" engaged in "antics" is extremely helpful, and contributes strongly to reasoned debate. Raymond Arritt 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article that Whig has been pushing to be included doesn't really appear to be a reliable source to me. (Although I would commend everyone in the talk forum for being polite during the whole discussion). I don't know enough of the history to have an opinion on a warning/ban though. --Bfigura 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a content dispute, then? Whig 06:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it is but what have you been doing there just a few days after the article ban? Would it be wiser to disengage for a while from the talk page? -- FayssalF - 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I was expressly welcomed to continue editing the talk page by the admin who imposed editing restrictions. Whig 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment here, but I can not at the moment because I'm at work. I ask that before any action be taken, I can comment. I'll be commenting in a few hours. Mercury 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I may make a suggestion, the editors who are bringing this incident report are welcome to pursue RfAr, which several people in the RfC encouraged them to do. Whig 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May I draw everyone's attention to this? He evidently made a user copy of the article he's banned from editing just to add a {{POV}} tag. Then decided he liked the {{Balance}} tag better. (Then Fyslee, quite rightly, nowiki'd all the tags so that it wouldn't be category-sorted.) Still, though... Adam Cuerden 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strange indeed, especially the discussion page, where Whig describes his user-space homeopathy page by writing "This is the NPOV fork". (link). I hesitated earlier before describing Whig's attitude towards homeopathy as an "obsession", but that now looks like a pretty accurate description. Tim Vickers 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, from Oct 16 (when it was clarified that Whig would be participating in discussion but not editing the article) to Oct 25 (when I put in this comment: "Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over") the discussion in Talk:Homeopathy was generally amicable and productive.

Also, on Oct 25 Phoenix 15 posted this message: "I've checked the article against the GA criteria and it appears to meet them all. It's quite a good article. I'll promote it to GA status." Wanderer57 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have not really looked into to Homeopathy talk, but I would encourage a request for arbitration at this point. There is no point in tightening and tightening restrictions, I do believe this is more complicated and a community based restriction, may not be appropriately applied if it involves talk space. Send this to arbitration for review. Mercury 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe RfARb is the way to go, given the RfC findings and ongoing issues with talk-page abuse (disclaimer: User:Whig has moved on to Talk:Christine Maggiore where I've encountered him). On another note, it's inappropriate for a user to maintain a copy of a page he's been banned from editing in his userspace for the apparent purpose of creating a POV fork. I've deleted it. MastCell 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing by User:MoritzB

User:MoritzB has four times attempted to include inflammatory racist remarks from a newspaper interview with Nobel Laureate James D. Watson in the article Race and intelligence. These remarks have created a furore in the UK and the USA. Even when Watson retracted his comments, MoritzB continued to argue that his views were useful for WP. MoritzB similarly attempts to push the scientifically discredited statistical methods of Richard Lynn on Eugenics, Dysgenics and Race and intelligence. More worrying is the way he has dug out contemporary newspaper articles to paint the victims of lynchings as criminal scum. All his contributions appear to conform to a racist agenda; he has sided with racists like User:fourdee, permabanned by Jimbo Wales himself. --Mathsci 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Killed the ref tags, we have no {Reflist} tag here :) Spryde 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MoritzB is a long-standing single-purpose POV-pushing account of a particuarly distasteful sort. If WP:CSN was still alive, it would be worth considering a topic ban. As is, not sure what the best next step is. MastCell 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly re-inserting identical material is classic tendentious editing. This is aggravated by the fact that he did not note that Watson later retracted the remarks, which raises serious WP:BLP concerns. Blocked for 48 hours. Review welcome as always. Raymond Arritt 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument here; the behavior is tendentious and it's difficult to identify any positive contributions to the encyclopedia from this user. MastCell 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had exchnages with this editors and I agree with MastCell's assessment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this block as opposed to nothing, but think an indefinite one would be better. Otherwise he'll come back, behave for a bit, and then launch back into this. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have experienced this editor, and he is the last one standing from the racist group, that I know of, (User:Fourdee, User:KarenAER, User:Phral, and User:Hayden5650), who has managed to avoid being banned along with them for gross racist POV pushing and soapboxing. In addition to the above articles mentioned by Mathsci, he has done, and doing the same thing on articles and talk pages of Race and Ancient Egypt, Race, Nubians, Race and genetics, Negroid and others. All with a racist-pseudo-science and white supremacy POV. He and the others have helped make my time here very uncomfortable... so much so, that I have lost respect for Misplaced Pages, and one of the main reasons my editing here as decreased. This type of stain, needs to be wiped off Misplaced Pages. It's sickening, and a disgrace. Jeeny 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the about one year I've dealt with this editor, he has always struck me as not just POV-pushing, but editing tendentiously towards racialist, if not overtly racist (and sexist) positions, and far from showing any kind of subtlety, he seemed to demonstrate a liking of editing for shock value, such as inserting outdated, demeaning comments towards Blacks and also towards women, in what seemed like an attempt to provoke an outraged reaction.--Ramdrake 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Small point here, he has been here since July 2007. ~3 months. Spryde 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Feels like longer than that we've been putting up with this bunch. Maybe I just can't tell them apart any more. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB made a few contributions to Homosexuality in ancient Greece that struck me as POV-pushing rather than genuine attempts to improve the encyclopedia. What I've seen of his race-related edits looks far worse, and I don't see any reason to keep racist soapboxing editors like MoritzB around. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) After reviewing his contributions, he is one well read, well sourced disruptive editor. I will give him that. His views are his own and would be a case of WP:FRINGE. Some of them seem to be content additions that would be valuable (Not 100% as I am not a expert on homosexuality in ancient Greece) while others appear only to push buttons. Anyway, my US$0.02. Spryde 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his sourcing on Homosexuality in ancient Greece was fairly poor--he was giving quotes from specialist literature, but it was clear that he was picking up the quotes from non-specialist (and very slanted) websites, so his quotes were out of context and misinterpreted. I can't say if this is the case with his edits on other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been at least two previous threads about this editor, and an indefinite block was suggested both times - but never implemented. Why not? Can some uninvolved admins reading this please determine whether MoritzB should be editing at all, after all this disruption? It's embarrassing how long it's taking to close the door on this disruptive, biased editing. Picaroon (t) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As the admin who placed the current block, I would have no objections at all if it were extended to indef. Before this he'd only had a single 24-hour block. I was a little concerned about having to deal with the crowd who come out of the woodwork to defend disruptive editors because they haven't been given a bazillion and eight warnings, 17 gradually escalating blocks, and 12 last chances. Raymond Arritt 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you said that If WP:CSN was still alive, it would be worth considering a topic ban. It is still alive. It's been transferred here. Please read its AfD closing ceremony: Keep, but merge role and functionality back into AN/I. Now, is MoritzB willing to keep it cool and stop abusing and violating WP:NPOV? -- FayssalF - 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would also support an extended block and even an indefinite block. His history of tendentious editing is pretty damning. He has started edit wars on various articles and moved on to other articles once consensus forms against his edits (see the previous ANI threads). Can't see any good reason to have him still editing and I'd recommend an indefinite block that should be appealed through ArbCom. Pascal.Tesson 13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I'd definitely support an indefinite block but would like to see him back so we won't be accused of "not showing him enough patience at the ANI". It is up to him. He witnessed the fate of User:Fourdee, User:KarenAER, User:Phral, and User:Hayden5650 and the infamous User:Mariam83 who is still harassing users from time to time using socks. -- FayssalF - 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised he isn't blocked yet as there is a long history of such behavior with this user. See his edit here on Great Zimbabwe pushing racist fringe theories, and the same on afrocentrism where he caused edit wars due to his agenda... Many more examples but he's been reported so many times and since this isn't my case, I'll limit it to that. I'll just say that wiki editors need to stop being so indifferent as it makes such reporting seem worthless. This user has been doing this for so long and has seen so many complaints that people are tired of complaining and admins not doing anything.Taharqa 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above and again reviewing User:MoritzB's contributions, it seems clear that the feeling is that we've tolerated this user's long-term disruption and problematic behavior long enough. I've therefore gone ahead and extended the block to indefinite, with instructions on how to appeal it if MoritzB sees fit. MastCell 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka community discussion

The thread "Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed" and its subthreads was 92K long, so FayssalF moved it here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed. I agree it is a now a better location. All concerned please go there to continue working this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blockitis/false accusations

Looks like these are WAY off base: Just trying to help here Mysticpairs 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an admitted sockpuppet of blocked User:Mysticpair‎. Corvus cornix 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

HMMMM; the notice still seems important. The 1st. 4 links accuse Ahwaz,one of the admins, of having 3 sockpuppets (seems to be a case of mixing up an article titled Ahwaz with User Ahwaz which the Blocking admin. only corrected on one of the alleged socks' pages) Reayreu 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who's not a trolling sockpuppet see anything of concern here? MastCell 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. This is ridiculous. --Strothra 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They're all obviously sockpuppets of Ottawaman and were at the AFD and DRV to troll me and Strothra. It's really quite obvious to me, especially given the various AN and ANI complaints. He's better delt with block and ignore. Sarah 08:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM Dalmatia final decision breach

This matter concerns the final decision of the Dalmatia Arbitration Committee and its final decision (here ) wich restricted User:Giovanni Giove and myself to "one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)", and it is required we discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
With this final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: ) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page ).
In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits ().
In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

To whom it may concern, I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) i made only one revert per week per article, along with a thorough discussion each time (, , , ).
DIREKTOR 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement is probably a better place for this report, where it will get more eyes, and can be subject to discussion. As this board is rather highly-trafficked, it may remain unnoticed or be archived in the middle of discussion. --Iamunknown 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. DIREKTOR 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ESPN IP removing criticism

• 192.234.2.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• WhoIs

This IP, today, removed sourced allegations of sexual harassment against Woody Paige diff and Jay Crawford diff. Both Paige and Crawford work for ESPN, and the material removed details a lawsuit against these individuals and ESPN. The IP traces directly to ESPN's offices. Other edits to ESPN related articles include some poor attempts at expanding some entries. I haven't dug to deeply, more investigation is needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a WP:COI notice; we'll just have to keep an eye on it. Remember, COI does not prohibit editing, it just requires more care and oversight. -- Avi 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to avoid plopping some template there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What's to avoid? Now there can be no plausible deniability of policy. -- Avi 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I was drafting a personalized response, one less cookie cutter that can drive home the problems with COI editing. Templates are evil. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Although infrequent, this IP has done this in the past. See these two: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a first-hit on Google for both of those people's names. The allegations are sourced, but are extremely negative, and I understand why anyone would wish to redact them. Can we please consider carefully whether this material is needed? I, for one, don't think so. --Iamunknown 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue, try those articles' talk pages. Milto LOL pia 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider the content of biographies of living persons to be an admin as well as a content issue. Thanks for your suggestion, though. I don't think this will get very much attention. --Iamunknown 01:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you even tried the talk page at all? It's worth a shot. And if you don't think it will gain much attention, maybe just remove it yourself, post a note on talk, and then if no one responds it's all good :-) Milto LOL pia 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Its an admin issue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

False accusations

Without any check user, Alex Bakharev has accused a number of sockpuppets of being me, even though none have edited the pages I have contributed to. See: ]. I wish to make a formal complaint against this admin. I am sick of being victimised, threatened and falsely accused.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody's socking, who is a more complicated question. I'd be curious to see some evidence? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence, because no evidence exists as I have not been using abusive sockpuppets. It is a complete fabrication. Unless an admin carries out a check user against me and these other users within the next 24 hours and the allegations are retracted, I will seek to take this further.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying Ahwaz is inoccent (he's been editing Ahwaz-related articles) and i am not saying he's guilty (in some ocassions people create accounts specifically to ban others and pretend they are the other one). However, all this remain unconclusive. So i'd ask Alex or others to file a CU to sort this out because wasting time in accusations and responses is not for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. -- FayssalF - 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the articles in question, so there is no need to presume guilt. I did not know of these articles' existence until a notice regarding the AfDs appeared on my talk page - and I voted contrary to the sockpuppets I am accused of! It just looks like an excuse to ban me for things I have not done. I have put a request on Alex Bakharev's talk page to do a check user on me. He has since logged in and made some edits, but has refused to even respond. If he wants to ban me permanently, then he can follow proper procedures instead of this method.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I hope accusations stop or see a CU being performed. There's just no way to keep things as they are. -- FayssalF - 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another admin, Natalie_Erin, is insisting that Michael2314 is an abusive sockpuppet of me and reinserting the sockpuppet template, without any proof that this is the case - because there is no proof!--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and try to inform her about this thread. -- FayssalF - 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprisingly calm, after months of being confronted by false allegations that I am a Ba'athist by those who like to throw around ethnic stereotypes. No admin will step in when this happens. No admin ever answers my queries about Misplaced Pages matters and rules. But two admins have stepped in to accuse me of something I did not do. And I get no response, no check user verification, nothing. If this allegation is not struck off, it will be used against me in any disagreement, just like similar false allegations I have just let lie for the sake of my peace. I will take this all the way to AbrCom if necessary. I am fed up with this treatment. If an admin wants to ban me, then ban me with good reasons.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Try the CU guys otherwise this dispute won't end soon. -- FayssalF - 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see a checkuser on this. I still think it far more likely that this was a sockpuppet of Ottawaman trolling Strothra and myself. I don't understand why people think they were socks of Ahwaz and would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks, Sarah 14:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to confess

But it was removed:

Sarah is 100% correct (as usual). Apologies from Natalie_Erin, and Alex Bakharev should be swift,contrite and abject. In so far as those who chose to not jump in and support Al-Ahwaz (whoever the hell he is), hopefully you have a mirror. As always,a few will learn from their mistakes and most will blame their mistakes on others. This project is built on a house of sand as all saw via the Essjay event. It is always harder to put in the foundation later. Can it be done? Yes! But it requites a lot of sweat,digging, and acceptance that it is,right now,without a foundation. What should the foundation be? Why not start with the USA's Bill of Rights (even if it's been systematically castrated by fascists). Things like "Innocent until PROVEN guilty, Free speech! Free press! Right of Assembly! Right of Association! Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure ! Separation of Church and State!" or, if you prefer, the Magna Carta(Habeas Corpus!). What's the next step? Resist the egotists and rule addicts in favour of the basic,soulful premises this project tried to be based upon; things like Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith (Even if it's a "smelly" sock) and true,unfettered collaboration. Marginalize the control freaks and those quick to criticize,ignore,dismiss or block; they are much more damaging than the socks and trolls; be more controlling of the admins., and less of those who are not. 70.48.205.30Neutralizer/Ottawamn 22:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mitanni

Some weird edit war is going on. FYI. -- Cat 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I am missing something here, but there only seems to have been 7 edits (including 4 reverts) in the last 8 days . Not really an edit war, and what do you feel is weird about it? Thanks TigerShark 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304#Vandalism from a number of IP addresses against pages edited by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is what rather alarms me and the fact that the account was recently created-- Cat 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Leobudv or Kurdology1? The first is an established editor who would more likely support dab's position on an article than disagree with, let alone harass, him. The second appears to be more interested in articles relating to the Kurds & Kurdistan, & has interacted more with Denizz than dab. -- llywrch 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

156.34.238.220 is...

A WikiOgre on the loose and needs to be banned. He/ she keeps making unneccesary edits in abundance.Navnløs 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am simply trying to correct information based on the given example shown in the Template:Infobox musical artist. All my edits clearly follow all Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. Have a nice day. 156.34.238.220 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what "unnecessary" edits he is making. The ones I see glancing at his contribs look like non-pointless gnomish edits. Someguy1221 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just a formatting dispute. Personal attacks and calls for bans don't help. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit and edit summary are inappropriate, however. Corvus cornix 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My AGF is thin to none on most days.... I lost it about 20000 edits ago :D. I will have a tea and ponder my temper tantrum :D 156.34.238.220 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark

We are currently in discussion about a possible BLP violation at this article. Per BLP, I have removed the material in question. Shot info (talk · contribs) has continued to restore the material without any meaningful contribution to the ongoing discussion.

Shot info's reversions:

• 03:20, 24 October 2007
• 03:37, 24 October 2007
• 22:54, 25 October 2007
• 23:05, 25 October 2007
• 23:06, 25 October 2007
• 23:14, 25 October 2007

Please note that the matter has been posted at BLP/N and we are awaiting outside opinions on this matter.

Shot info seems to think that a consensus is needed for someone to remove possible BLP violations. I don't believe this to be the case. What I would like to see is the material in question be removed until the BLP policy issues which I have brought up can be addressed. I don't want to edit war any more (even though I am quite certain that WP:3RR does not apply when dealing with possible BLP violations).

Any third party help/input here would be welcomed by me... even if you just tell me that I am completely wrong here. ;-) Thanks. -- Levine2112 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The allowance to remove potentially libelous material on site and without discussion is specifically meant for material that could be considered derogatory if untrue. A reference is provided, an affidavit written and/or signed by a deputy attourney general from the state of Indiana. Unless you suspect quackwatch.org to have fabricated or altered this affidavit, it's a legitimate source for the complaint. The issue then, is a somewhat editorial decision as to whether this is of significance to the article or is fairly presented. Someguy1221 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That is precisely the kind of answer I was seeking. I am surprised that I got it here before BLPN. :-) -- Levine2112 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shot info is stopping an editor who has clearly articulated his purpose on the article's Talk Page from removing verifiable information from reliable sources from a BLP without consensus. I note that I have been involved in the discussions unfortunately Levine thinks that he can run roughshod over the article, here, BLP/N, everywhere trying to get an answer that he wants, without trying to develop a consensus first. He is merely gaming the system to prove a point, the point being, he doesn't think that a RS is an RS. Rather than actually discussing the merits in the context of the article, he just reverts, claiming BLP issues, and then engages in a editwar. This is vandalism on his part, and using TW to revert as well. Shot info 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained to User:Levine2112 dozens of times: The duty to remove contentious material on sight and without discussion is specifically meant for unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. The only consensus needed for re-inclusion of the disputed content is that the sources are acceptable (usually: published in a reliable third-party secondary source). This consensus should be clear from article edits and/or discussion on the talk page (or anywhere else, but see WP:CANVASS). Avb 00:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been an uninvolved lurker in this mess for quite a while. Levine2112 seems to have a strong personal dislike for Stephen Barrett. I invite anyone to view the megabytes of filibusters he's dropped at Talk:Stephen Barrett and Talk:Quackwatch over the (literally) years. His latest effort is a large-scale purge of Barrett-related links from altmed articles, which the Hulda Clark kerfluffle is but a small part of. He's also been blocked several times over Barrett-related articles, which doesn't seem to slow him down in the slightest. I think it's high time for an RFC, with the goal of a topic ban from articles involving Stephen Barrett and altmed-related areas if he doesn't change his behavior. Skinwalker 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker is being very tactful when he writes "strong personal dislike" above. It is that and much more. This is not just about Hulda Clark, but about yet another (yes, he has done it before) of Levine2112's deletion rampages aimed at eliminating references sourcing Quackwatch or Stephen Barrett from Misplaced Pages. He at times does it in such a manner that he doesn't violate policy, because he ends up pointing to the same content but from a more original source, which is fine....but his sights are mainly on Barrett and Quackwatch, which he wants to eliminate as much as a possible. A cursory examination of his recent edit history bears this out, and earlier rampages just as much. They are usually accompanied with edit summaries that use wikilawyering arguments as excuses for him to carry on his pro-quackery agenda (if one is anti anti-quackery, one is pro-quackery....it's the classic double negative situation by which he reveals his biases and condemns himself). His negative comments about Barrett and Quackwatch are numerous. He assumes bad faith on their part, and this affects his editing and leads to these deletion campaigns. A topic ban may be the answer. -- Fyslee / talk 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If he keeps it up, I'm giving him a short block. Adam Cuerden 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Before an edit war starts

Please clarify something. I was told long ago, when I was still editing under just an IP that tags go below infoboxes so they are at the top of the article but do not mess up the page. User:Mattbr disagrees. Could you clarify? Best example is Las Vegas (TV series). Thank you for your input. CelticGreen 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article message boxes states they go on top. As a side note, both versions render just fine for me (on IE 7). Someguy1221 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Top being relative? Top of the article or top of the edit box? When you put it below the infobox template once saved, the tag goes on the top of the article and the info box is on the side, as the example of Las Vegas shows. I've been told to put it under the infobox template so the page orientation is not disrupted. It is severely disrupted on Firefox with a wide screen monitor. CelticGreen 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Top of the page.

{{pp-semi-vandalismCleanup|date=October 2007}}

{{infobox}}-- FayssalF - 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not protection. Clean up and trivia. I was definitely told the trivia goes under the section that needs to be cleaned. And I'd really like a couple admins, not just user editors.CelticGreen 00:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was just en example. Fixed now. He is right. You can revert yourself. As for trivia, you are right. -- FayssalF - 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of admins doesn't (heck, shouldn't) carry any more weight than that of other Wikipedians. Indeed, this entire matter isn't an admin matter at all (no-one is going to get blocked, and no page protected). Please move this threat to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

...and that's why i advised CelticGreen to revert themselves because i am not entitled to do it at their place unless it becomes disruptive which is not the case at all since they came here for an advice. -- FayssalF - 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at that. I didn't even know that existed. I also thought the editors were the final be all end all say. Learn something everyday. Thanks for the suggestions. This person was putting the trivia tags at the top and telling me I was wrong, which I can be sometimes, that's why I asked here. I guess this is only for problems and that other page is for discussion. Thanks for steering me in the right direction. Finlay ~ you mean threaD, right, not threaT? I wasn't threatening anyone. CelticGreen 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

it just happens that the user you are referring to (Mattbr) is an admin himself :) He did the correct thing and thanks for your query. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See also my comments at the village pump: there used to be some rendering problems with message boxes placed alongside infoboxes, but those problems seem to have been fixed since. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin abusing page protection

• Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Admin protected the page in his preferred version and is abusing the mediation process (over a single sentence in the intro) to prevent anyone else from editing any part of the article.

Page needs a lot of work, but has been protected for three weeks now. See #Admin edit rights privilege abuse. — Omegatron 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. To call restoring the page to the version protected by admin user:Riana, after you unprotected it during the mediation, which was the second time you used the sysop ability to edit protected pages; the first being where you made an edit to the heart of the lead which under intense discussion, may possibly be reminiscent of that great Yiddish word, chutzpah .

See:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs)
• User talk:Omegatron#Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
• Warned by Riana not to use sysop privs in edit dispute
• Unprotects page 01:41, October 22, 2007

-- Avi 02:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird

A few moments ago, I got a weird message from a Connell66 sock (the sock was blocked almost immediately afterwards by another user). When I mentioned that the username bot now has that string ("Bimbo Wales") flagged, Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry came by and said that he may be making socks specifically to point them out and get them blocked.

I am now officially confused. Any ideas on just what exactly is going on? -Jéské 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here. A new vandal/troll. -- FayssalF - 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FLIR Systems anon IP campaign

FLIR Systems not sure what can be done beyond a semi-protect of the article, but I believe (based on all three IPs re-adding the same material) a single anon IP editor is responsible for the editing issues on the article.

• User talk:67.171.180.157
• User talk:67.171.181.43
• User talk:71.236.187.142

At first the editor was removing existing content while added nothing but negative info about the company, but now has turned mainly to just added negative info about the company. However, all the negative info is copy and paste info that is a copyright violation. This has been explained on the user talk pages, but they don’t seem to care. I’m speculating here, but I’m guessing there is a COI issue or former employee out for blood. Regardless, at a minimum the page needs a semi-protect for a week, but I was hoping admins might have better way of maybe reporting the user to their internet provider or such. Anything would be great. Aboutmovies 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All the IPs locate to the Portland, Oregon area. Bonus question: FLIR Systems is located in a suburb of what city in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.? Raymond Arritt 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ding ding ding, I'm going to guess Portland, Oregon. Article semiprotected for a month. Neil ☎ 10:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully they'll give up, or sign up for an account and then start editing properly. Aboutmovies 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani makes comments which are insulting and maybe even abusive toward other editors

In fighting with several users on several articles User:Nishidani is acting with disrepect to Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:AGF:

<blockqoute>::Nonsense. You want smear innuendoes in, and, at that, incompetent smear material. That is not an inflammatory summary, since several other editors have more or less said that is how they read the passage. Rewrite it as you like, tighten your seat belt and get into an edit war. It will not, I repeat, will not stay on this page, as if is a defamatory and highly vulgar characterisation of the plight of an entire people, and that you insist on retaining it flags a temper of contempt, not only for Palestinians, which is par for the course in much of the world, but for the discipline of history. If you put that into a paper at a UCLA history course, you'd be kicked up the coit for slumming it Nishidani 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

she referes to other editors as "rag-and-bottle editors" and may even go so far as accusae them in anti-Semitism:

This latest case deserve more details:

User:Nishidani has two days ago made this comment on a talk page:

"Many rabbis dealt with the Nazis, sending poorer Jews and Jewish communists off to the crematoria, where Jewish inmate slang called the victims who were condemned to the 'bakery' because unable to work anymore, 'Moslems', all this in exchange for their own and their family and friends' lives.

These accusations were in reply to my request to stop posting non-relevant data.

I find it offensive that one turn a discussion from :' what is relevant or not to an article' to accusations leveled against rabbis who can not respond.

What would any reasonable person do in their situation ? just kicking such stories around is something that fit anti-Semitic sites not Misplaced Pages.

Are such accusations correct ? but even if they are - why push stories on rabbis where they don't serve any useful purpose but to agitate an already hot situation. (there is a long debate in talk pages)

User:Nishidani later made this comment - directed at me(at least so it seems):

"because people who want that information ought to earn it, and people who might abuse it, should not have their antisemitism buttressed by facile access to someone's hard-earned notes.

the whole discussion is in: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Adding_of_non_relevant_data. it is clear from the explanation she gave later that "someone's hard-earned notes" is her and "people who want that information", "people who might abuse it" and "should not have their anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access" is directed at me.

I wish someone who has better English than me (she does note that my English is not good and indeed her use of sophisticated words and style is above my level of understanding) would review her comments on talk and make sure to take the steps to stop this kind of sophisticated, yet insulting, use of the English language. Zeq 06:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The tactic of using non relevant information is something that this user is also doing in Misplaced Pages articles:

What does this has to do with the subject of the article. Zeq 06:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think a momentary non-assumption of good faith, or a generalized comment about "rag and bottle editors" can be matters of much concern to ANI. And these comments weren't even addressed to you personally. Who are you to take offence on someone else's behalf? Gatoclass 07:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. More than one user that have such problem with her is not "momentary non-assumption of good faith". If you bother to read what she wrote later it became clear that she did not want to make it is for me easy to find a source - she wanted me to go read books (that what she wrote). So when she wrote:

   "people who want that information...should not have their anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access"

   who do you think she was speaking about ? Did she accuse me in being anti-semitic ? if not who was she accusing ?
2. In any case, when she accuse rabbis of colbarating with the Nazis in a talk page of an article about a known-Nazi colborator this is (for me ) insulting as it has an antisemitic tone. Zeq 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know Nishidani is a she? And where are all these other editors who "have such problem" with her/him?

I think you have completely misread his comments about antisemitism. Why would anyone accuse you - an editor with a well established history of pro-Semitic editing - of antisemitism? That would just be nonsensical.

Nishidani was simply making a general comment about the nature of the texts he was referring to. The antisemites he alluded to were purely hypothetical. Gatoclass 07:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. She was speaking directly to me this became clear when she explain her comments about "anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access " with those words: "scholarship is in books, in libraries. Hence, if you want to know the state of the art of a subject, go to a library, and don't surf the net. ". In previous parts of the exchange it is clear that she/he does not want (initially) to give access to hin/her "hard earned notes". So what you derscribe as "general comment" about "hypothetical antisemite" is not so "hypothetical". This was an exchange about him/her as the one who bother to read books and about me as the "anti-Semitism buttressed by facile access".

I would agree with you that writing in the English that she/he does (both in talk and in the article) makes it very hard to understand but in this case it is clear from the explnation he provided further down the talk page. Zeq 08:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 08:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you are completely misreading his intent. As I said, it simply wouldn't make any sense to accuse an editor like you of antisemitism. Gatoclass 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One wonders, if Nishidani (not assuming either sex here), believes that "scholarship is in books... go to a library, don't surf the net" is the truth why Nishidani is wasting hir time trying to build an online encyclopedia. It would seem that this would be a waste of hir time. I don't believe it would be a leap of logic to conclude that if Nishidani really believes that what we are doing here is pointless, Nishidani's virtiol filled arguments are nothing more than trolling for response not a serious discussion in an effort to collaborate in the creation of an encyclopedia and Nishidani's continued presence here should be addressed with Nishidani's belief that our efforts are fruitless in mind. Kyaa the Catlord 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• in here she refer to the work by other editors as "semi-vandalaism" and "junk": Zeq 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he wrote that he regarded the repeated insertion of a set of defamatory generalizations (which by their very nature are unprovable) about Palestinian Arabs, from a writer with questionable credentials, as "semi-vandalism" and "evidence of bad faith". While I have not supported such comments, they don't seem like such unreasonable judgements to me in the circumstances. There is no requirement to WP:AGF, and editors have differing opinions about when AGF is exhausted. Not only does he have a right to his own judgements in that regard, but he himself qualified his comments with "semi-" and "evidence of". So again it appears that you are trying to make a mountain out of molehill. Gatoclass 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, another traffic infraction charge, again on false premises. There are many splendid neutral editors whose work on the encyclopedia is hampered by these endless recourses to squabbles before an arbitration committee. I apologize for Gatoclass for the waste of hir time here. I intuit (from the fact that Zeq's English both on the articles, and Talk page, is solecistic, but here is, in the first comment, almost impeccable) that this is going to assume some frequency in my case, so, since I am the target, and what I wrote is under my responsibility, I will assume, if it is necessary, the burden of defence. I won't at this point interfere with the construction of the 'j'accuse' but simply see if these contorted charges expand, deepen, blow out, ring in numerous other editors for the prosecurtion or not. If it does, instead of simply collapsing under its own weight of frivolous misrepresentations, then I'll make the necessary defence, which is quite simple. Zeq has troubles with construing English, at least on the page where he selectively culled the 'incriminating' material. Nishidani 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black going on here, as Zeq likes to characterize those who hold opposing views as Mufti supporters. Israel-Palestine related articles are always going to see tensions rise and maybe a barb will be a bit sharp once in awhile. Is running to AN/I for every perceived slight really going to accomplish anything? Tarc 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The link Tarc linked to show that his claim is false. I was refering to two opposing POVs - not of editors but in general (POPVs that exist in the real world where some people oppsoe the mufti and other support him at least partly) and suggested that both POVs will be present in the article (including those who see him as a hero). I don't see any reason to get into this as this AN/I report is not about me. Tarc could file one about me and we will discuss it there if he wants. (we already discussed it on Talk page so tarc could actually see the result there) Zeq 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That you backtracked subsequently does not alter the initial accusation. Tarc 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

false and irelevant accusation from tarc has nothing to do with this report. Zeq 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Socket Puppet Abuse User Check Request

Can somebody please check out usernames User:Denveron and User:Ems57fcva as they both appear to be pushing an identical viewpoint and writing in a similar style. They are trying to dominate the Herbert Dingle page by deleting all legitimate sourced edits by other contributors. I strongly suspect that Denveron and Ems57fcva are the same person and that he is determined to impose his anti- Herbert Dingle POV on the article. DVdm may also be a sockpuppet although there does seem to exist some evidence in writing style that he is in fact a different person. Arthur Spool 08:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, although Denveron only edits on Herbert Dingle, you are going to have help everyone with diffs about Ems57fcva's edits. Ems57fcva hasn't even edited Dingle since the start of the month. Is this something in particular you are seeing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Or is it something in particular that you don't want to see. They both write in exactly the same style and on the same topic and with the same point of view. Denveron arrived on the Herbert Dingle page as a new user immediately after a freeze period of one week, and he continued on exactly where Ems57fcva left off. Other users have been blocked on alot less evidence. Why not ask Ryulong? He seems to be pretty good at spotting identical personalities behind masks. Or is it perhaps that maybe none of us really want to block Ems57fcva or Denveron? Arthur Spool 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky81682, fwiw, see my comment about this on Ryulong's talk page. Cheers, DVdm 12:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See also "a major coincidence!", miraculously but also rather transparently happening after my comment. Sheesh :-) - DVdm 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

User Jtrainor is refusing to participate in discussion. Pushing his POV to article, deleting sources provided before. Necator 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll ask but why are you adding a source that says nothing like what you are using it for? The source is about what you say the S-400 is capable of doing yet you wiped out the language that the Russian had claimed its capabilities (which is both what the other sources indicate and what consensus on the talk page indicates). Also, User:Duckhunter6424 and others seem to reverted you as well. In fact, it looks like the moment the protection was lifted, you had to put the exact wording that you've wanted the page since September. All in this, this whole thing is a content dispute, so it is best to go to dispute resolution. Of course, if you want to keep the discussion here, I am more interesting in your editing now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus have not been reached. When I found additional non russian sources about this thing capability against stealth, both this users did not answer me on a talk page. And User:Duckhunter6424 is not reverting my changes anymore after that, but Jtrainor keep going silently. This dispute was about wording. And I am trying to say, that not only russian sources claimed this system capability. So wording like "Russian sources have claimed" should be removed. Necator 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate also, if you read whole this discussion here and here. If you have enough time for that. Because this discussion is going pretty strange. Every time I do provide sources for any my claims in discussion, but haven't seen even one from my opponents. They just changing the topic or avoiding to participate in discussion when getting to much sources against their POV. Thanks! Necator 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Necator, why don't you falsely report me about it some more? I'll be pleased to escalate this right to an RfC if you want, because you consistently violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with these little tiffs of yours. Here's a hint: Reverting you is not a violation of any policy. Are you going to do this every time someone reverts you on any article? Jtrainor 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

something abnormal

I had reported a user in WP:AIV, later i saw in userlog that he is an admin. Quoting self from there:

• JWSchmidt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit summaries look like he is removing spam, i think he is reverting articles to some 1 year old versions. And his entirely different versions have deleted templates, and article size drastic changes: Immediate attention please. Lara_bran 09:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This maybe even technical error, since admins have "revert" option. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would recommend (whenever you want to report someone at AIV) is to actually warn the person on their talk page first. In this case, why not ask him what's going on? It may simply be a slip of a button (I've done that before). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) How about contacting JWSchmidt to ask him? It seems that he is trying to reverse changes brought about by Sadi Carnot, a known problem user who was pushing fringe theories. As such it's not unusual to reverse changes made many months ago. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okey, me actually first time to report someone in WP:AIV. Now will go to usertalk, thanks. Lara_bran 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

JW is reverting to versions before Sadi Carnot started editing. Many of these articles (Love, Evil, Sexual intercourse) are high-profile, widely edited articles, and reverting to very old versions is throwing out a lot of good work as well as Sadi's flummery. I have suggested a different approach may be needed. Neil ☎ 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Lara bran and anyone else who reverted those edits of mine. I was reviewing the edits of User:Wavesmikey, finding edits such as this one and then trying to look at the current article to see if the the external links to www.humanthermodynamics were still there. I must have mistakenly edited the old versions of the articles. I hope the last of my errors was at Conservation of energy, where I just reverted myself. I'll try to pay attention more to what I am doing. --JWSchmidt 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So you edited old versions, but many articles are heavily modified after that. I have searched for text www.humanthermodynamics in mainspace, but no matches as of now. If content is problem even that can be searched for specific phrases or words, reverting to old version is certainly not a solution. I thought that as vandalism since edits did not match edit summaries. As for human thermodynamics you can see yawning is to cool our brains. Nice day! Lara_bran 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to use Linksearch. It shows that there are still some links out there. Is there a list of sites that at to be eliminated? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me...?

Or are these names remarkably similar: Herbythyme (talk · contribs) and the indef blocked Kirbytime (talk · contribs) ...? Viridae 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Phonetically they're very similar, but I don't understand...are you suggesting something? Sarah 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest - it just struck me as odd. Viridae 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Herbythyme's edits are good, and the account is over a year old and has been active pretty consistently. Are you suggesting a user in good standing with almost a thousand edits, and no blocks, is a sock of a banned user just because the names rhyme? Seriously? Neil ☎ 14:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also if you look at the normal time of day of editing it doesn't match up. CitiCat 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously suggesting anything - the username caught my eye and when I looked at the contribs some of the first few were the additon of popups etc to the monobook.js. Seemed slightly strange and as I am no good with socks I posted here. Viridae 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Herby is an admin on Meta, Wikiquote, Commons and Wikibooks. He has always seemed like a good guy whenever I've had anything to do with him and I am certain he is working in good faith. He is also probably far too busy to be running socks. I think the username thing is just a coincidence. Sarah 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He also has Checkuser rights on the Wikibooks, Commons and Meta. Sarah 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks sarah. Viridae 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to pile-on a bit. HerbyThyme is a well know Commons admin and editor in good standing on here. I sincerely doubt he's indulging in socking, somehow - Alison 17:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but the (unintentional?) pun in the "Resolved" box is so bad that I want to report it to ANI! <eleland/talkedits> 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely intentional -- Avi 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Block requested

Please block me for 72 hours. I do not want to be involved in this fight and want to be prevented from editing for 3 days. Appealplease 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors are typically not blocked on request. If you do not want to get involved in a dispute, then simply walk away for those 72 hours. Arakunem 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think socks of User:Dereks1x are usually blocked for longer than 3 days. I suggest an admin look at Special:Contributions/Appealplease and then do the honors. --barneca (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Was just looking into why such a request would be made, and yes, I concur with that assessment... Arakunem 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, call everyone a sock. I am not a sock. Greenwinged is definitely not Polounit. I think ProtoWolf is the sock master. His creation date is suspect, just when Derek got blocked. His name say proto as in prototype sock master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appealplease (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef, a clear sock/troll. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe

Just thought I'd bring this to administrator attention. Is User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe okay? The username, his contributions towards User:Y, especially this one. I have no idea if anything needs to be done, but just thought I'd ask some opinions. I'm going to inform Arbeit of this discussion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know who this is a "work sock" of. If it's no-ones, then it should be blocked as being against our username policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm under the impression it is actually Y's alternate account. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd block it for disrupting the arbcom, but that's me. ⇒SWATJester 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps it is Y's sock. Still... --Ali'i 18:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted revision of the userpage. I am Y's sock. I edit while Y is at work. Hence my name. Please don't block me for disrupting ArbCom. Don't take yourself so seriously. Arbeit Sockenpuppe 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I confirm. -- Y not? 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a case of "arbeit macht Y"? Sheffield Steel_stalk 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing prod tags for amusement

IP User:81.158.211.115 has started going through the prod list and objecting to them without explanation, doing it alphabetically judging by the contribution history. I don't mind a contested prod, but it does seem like it should be based on something other an editor's amusement value. Should validity of the contested prods be assumed (making all the prod's a potential AfD) or can bad faith on the tag removals be considered and reverted? Michael Devore 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My own, nonadmin opinion is (a) this IP just came off a 31 hour block for disruption a couple of days ago, and (b) obviously bad faith removals, either just vandalism, or (if they have issues with proposed deletion policy) almost a textbook case of violating WP:POINT. I say IAR and put the tags back (someone with automation). I'll leave a warning, and AIV should be appropriate if they continue after that. --barneca (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a message. Also, this edit is interesting - Alison 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - by Icairns - Alison 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My block of Miltopia

I am sure this will cause some drama, but please let's try to minimize the drama.

I think it is about time that we stop putting up with some really useless users who have done little more for months that simply troll and cause problems. The specific reason for his block was his "LOL I have aids" comment, which I find deeply offensive. But the more complete reason is a thorough evaluation of an ongoing pattern of behavior. He's been indef blocked numerous times.

There are others like him who need to go, but please let's not have this block set off a spree of bans of obnoxious irritants. Let's go slow.

I am going camping this weekend with my daughter. I will not be online again much until Monday. Stay chill until then. :-) We can have a fight about it on Monday, if necessary, after a period of reflection. He'll live through the weekend somehow, even if still blocked.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good block Jimbo, there's been numerous disruptive actions by Miltopia in the past and in many situations he comes here soley to troll about. It's well known that he's that "editor from ED" - I'm surprised we put up with him for this long. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the block as well Jimbo, good call. And I agree fully that we need to stop baby-sitting the vandals and trolls and get around to showing them the door, a-la the block function. ^demon 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Added: I've put the {{indefblocked}} message on the user page. ^demon 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For those of us who don't know the background, where's a good place to start?⇒SWATJester 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just to provde the basic links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Good call, Jimbo. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you Jimbo. You have restored my faith in the values of the project. The circumstances of my last run-in with this user nearly had me at the point of bailing out. - Crockspot 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed; good block. Acalamari 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• endorse block - AIDS is ever-so-funny, of course. Geez :( Just the last in a long litany of offenses - Alison 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I wish I was Jimbo and could ban useless editors if they overdo the obnoxiety :oP dab (𒁳) 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Seems justified. I've encountered users like this who toe the line on purpose, and they're quite frustrating. Leebo /C 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. Frankly, there's been several times in the last couple months where I saw an editor acting so poorly that I couldn't believe that noone had thought to block them before. The overt racist who was editing BLPs to add the vital information that they were "race traitors" (and that one of the milder things he did) - and had evidently been doing things like that for months - was enough to make me wonder whether all the other admins had gone mad, or at least had optimism to rival Pangloss. Adam Cuerden 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with this block, but let me play devil's advocate here, if only for the sake of argument. If you look through Miltopia's contributions, there's a lot of useful ones mixed in with his arguing; he's not here solely for the purpose of trolling. He claims not to have anything to do with ED anymore, and he does make useful article edits.

Miltopia is difficult to be around, but so are a lot of editors. Many editors as disruptive as him were given topic bans (back when Community Sanction was still around) or are referred up to ArbCom. Perhaps Miltopia could be barred from interacting with Mongo and banned from the noticeboards or something like that.

I'm not sure if Miltopia is worth the trouble to watchdog if he is kept around, and I realize that Jimbo's word is law and that there is not (nor should there be) anything like due process on Misplaced Pages. I'm just a little uneasy that maybe we're allowing someone to be indef blocked for the crime of possessing an unpopular set of opinions and an abrasive attitude. Comments welcome. A Train 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Addendum: I hadn't read Adam Cuerden's comment proir to leaving my comment above; if Miltopia was adding terms like "race traitor" to biographical articles, then consider my above comment a thought experiment and dismiss any thought of my supporting an unblock. A Train 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)) This doesn't have anything to do with Miltopia, as mentioned below. Striking out to avoid any confusion. A Traintalk 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia wasn't adding "race traitor" to articles. Adam Cuerdan was referencing a different user as an example. IrishGuy 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your original position. He has provided commentary valuable (IMO) commmentary lately. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I am not seeing much prevention here except removing a set of opinions that differs from others. He originally was disruptive but the last 500 edits were decent. Spryde 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Atrain, lets not be hasty to someone people disagree with, and who enjoy's baiting MONGO. I'm not saying he shouldn't be banned, just not to be hasty about it. --Rocksanddirt 21:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's being prevented is future trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. When I was reading the argument I thought "Oh crap, zOMG drama to come," but when I saw Jimbo's signature at the end, I was pleasantly surprised. Since I joined Misplaced Pages in 2004, the standards of what admins are willing to tolerate have fallen drmatically. I see users carry on with behavior that was unacceptable years ago; I applaud Jimbo for taking a stand for building an encyclopedia; a jump back from the poisonous atmosphere which has pervaded for so long. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

81.158.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - probably a sock of the user. The evidence is this diff. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but look above, too... --Ali'i 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realize that Miltopia does not live in London? At least not according to what could be found by Googling and looking at what has been posted about his whereabouts on a certain other site we don't link to. If he is getting indef banned now a checkuser to establish this before he becomes stale would be in order. EconomicsGuy 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're just going by a whois, it's meaningless on BT accounts as they all trace back to BT in London, same as AOL accounts worldwide trace back to AOL in Virginia — iridescent 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia is in North America. Unless BT has some extremely excentric setup the traceroute I did which led to Birmingham, England can't have been that far off the target. Still, I'd like to see a checkuser on this before we jump to conclusions. EconomicsGuy 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I joined Misplaced Pages in 2004, the standards of what admins are willing to tolerate have fallen drmatically. Uh, to be fair to the rest of us, the standards applied to admin behavior have also fallen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Since admins are but editors with a few extra buttons, thats not really surprising. After all, the admins are a product of the pool they are drawn from. We should worry less about what admins are willing to tolerate and more about what the community is willing to tolerate, including poor standard of behaviour from (some) admins. Rockpocket 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ab-so-lute-ly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, how long ago was this "I have AIDS" comment? Can anyone provide a diff? Thanks.—AL 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • He was edit warring on his own user page back in April. At least that's the instance I found. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it really justified to indef-block him now for something he did back in April, when his recent edits (as far as I can see) have been generally polite and constructive (even if sometimes opinionated in a way that disagrees with some others here)? He does have a "smartass streak" to him, certainly, but he doesn't seem lately to be obnoxious to a bannable extent. *Dan T.* 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • "he more complete reason is a thorough evaluation of an ongoing pattern of behavior." He doesn't seem to have been doing much constructive editing that I can see, and he appears to have been baiting other users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • He disagreed with Jimbo on the Ombudsman block. Maybe he just got tired of him. His previous overturned indef blocks made it all the more easy to block him (though at least the Fred Bauder block was a mistake). I'm actually more interested in knowing what other editors he apparently plans to get rid of. EconomicsGuy 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Though I have never had person interactions in any matters involving Miltopia, there were numerous instances where I was very aghast at his actions. This was a ban that indeed needed to be enacted.¤~Persian Poet Gal 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, and reiterate RyanGerbil10's point. We seem to be tolerating consistently poisonous behaviour with the justification that the perpetrators have a history of constructive edits. Constructive edits are easy to quantify. What is less difficult to ascertain is the persuasive knock-on effects that obnoxious behaviour has on the encyclopaedia and its editors. Rockpocket 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I can't believe you people. Miltopia is a good person. We owe him because he stood up for Wikipedians on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and was banned there repeatedly for doing so. We have stooped to the lowest level and betrayed him by banning him here. MONGO blocked him for no reason and started threads about him here just for harassment. Yet, the person who gets banned for baiting is Miltopia?? And, how is saying that he has AIDS so offensive? I guess it might be offensive if he said people who have AIDS deserve it. "Jimbo" obviously spends too much time with elites from the media, because he seems to have developed an intolerance for what he defines as "political incorrectness." He didn't insult anyone.

  Not only has he been banned, we have blanked his user page that he obviously spent a lot of time on. It's not your page, people.--Gnfgb2 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not his, either. A Train 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it have to be blanked and replaced with a threatening-looking box? He's not a vandal. He shouldn't even have been banned -- certainly not for something he did in April, or for an argument he had recently, or for predictions we try to make. I put a {{retired}} template there, but was reverted. He doesn't deserve this.--Gnfgb2 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If the boss thinks he deserves it, he deserves it. HalfShadow 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. If this were one of those cases where he was exercising his special Jimbo powers, he wouldn't have asked for comment, he would have just done it and maybe made a short note that he did. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• What is wrong with all you people? Tolerating constantly poisonous behavior because of constructive edits is what we've done constantly with MONGO. Some of the people commenting here are the same people who have told me that we shouldn't do anything about him? I knew there was a double standard working here, but I didn't expect it to be so obvious. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So does that mean we can expect a block for MONGO soon as well? Goose and gander, both the same? That would be wonderful. If we can't block MONGO for the behavior attributed to Miltopia, how can we block Miltopia? ThuranX 23:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Miltopia is a troll. MONGO is a pair of boots that stomps trolls. You do see the difference, don't you? One is trying to harm the project, the other is trying to help it. Enough handwringing, please. - Crockspot 23:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see two users. Both are incivil pretty much equally... but one is defended because he also happens to do good things, while one is now banned despite the good things he did. Accusations that someone is deliberately trying to harm the project are serious, and must be backed up by evidence. -Amarkov moo! 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I also see two users, one more good than bad, and one more bad than good. It's a matter of balance. Maybe "trying to harm" is too harsh, but he was harming the project. - Crockspot 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Um, yes. MONGO is also harming the project. In fact, I don't thing even he denies that, just says that it doesn't matter because he's dealing with the trolls. -Amarkov moo! 00:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • We had a block for MONGO not that long ago. Then it was overturned because he also has productive contributions. But clearly, that only applies in the special cases, and Miltopia wasn't fortunate enough to target the right people with his behavior. -Amarkov moo! 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• (double edit conflict) I'm going to have to strongly disagree here. It's true that Miltopia has done some stupid things in the past. The "LOL I HAVE AIDS" thing, was undoubtedly a trollish move — however, it was back in mid-April. On the other hand, while he's recently been speaking out against policies he disagrees with such as the attack sites clause in WP:NPA, he's been doing so in a relatively civil manner, trying to work on a compromise even in the face of constant personal attacks targeted directly at him. He's also been contributing to the encyclopedia while doing so. To block/ban Miltopia now over his past actions months ago, when his behavior now is fine, is unnecessarily punitive and out-of-line. --krimpet⟲ 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• He's built a record of persistent low-grade trollishness, active participation in whatever drama is going, and mediocre contributions. I support the block. Tom Harrison 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, this entire argument is a non-issue: Jimbo, who (unless I'm reading this wrong) effectively is Misplaced Pages, has decided someone needs to be blocked. So they are. HalfShadow 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Jimbo is normally just like any other respected user. When he's exercising his special powers that let him overrule everyone, his word is law, but there is no evidence that he is doing so in this case. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Of course, Jimbo can do what he wants, but he's sought opinions here, so that's mine for what it's worth (not very much, I guess, since I seem to have gotten various people including Jimbo peeved at me for my tendency to be out of step with the common belief system around here, especially among admins). Miltopia was pretty annoying a few months ago, but hasn't been that way lately, and blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. His main recent "offense" has been to be politically/philosophically opposed to some policy positions taken by others, just as I have myself. *Dan T.* 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• His behavior recently has not been fine. I had a serious complaint about him earlier this week that was basically ignored and archived. He pushes buttons as far as he thinks he can get away with, and then chuckles about it. I certainly won't miss him, and neither will the project. More: I also am not so sure that Jimbo was requesting comment here. It looks more to me like he was notifying the admin pool of what he had done, and was asking for no one to unblock at least until he is back on Monday. - Crockspot 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pushing buttons as far as he thinks he can get away with and then chuckling about it... prompting others to make serious complaints that get basically ignored and archived... does that sound familiar? There's an editor or two who this description also applies to, but nothing ever gets done about them because of their status and social network here. *Dan T.* 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Misplaced Pages can't be micro managed in this way. Terrible decision. Privatemusings 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Unsure about block If "He doesn't seem to have been doing much constructive editing that I can see, and he appears to have been baiting other users" is enough to get you an indefinite block without a warning, will this be applied equally to all? I don't know this user and cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of his behaviour; however we would not normally block, let alone ban a long term user for an incident from 6 months ago. I can think of at least one other user who routinely edit-wars and abuses other users, yet seems to lead a charmed life with regard to the unblock button. I don't know, this makes me uneasy and I need to think about it some more. --John 23:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose block I have just reviewed all of Miltopia's contributions back to 06:24 22 October 2007, and the edit summaries (with some contributions) to the beginning of the month; I do not see trolling. Perhaps someone could supply specific diffs for the last week, or month.

I also note that the "AIDS LOL" edit summary and placement of Wikipedians with AIDS happened back on 21 April 2007 and was substantially amended on 1 May 2007 (the page was "protected" against Miltopia editing it for the duration of the week long block, disallowing removal by the user).

Also, taking a self admitted controversial decision just before absenting oneself for the weekend is unhelpful for the volunteers who are going to have to deal with this in the meantime. This is a bad decision for bad reasons.LessHeard vanU 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Apologies for the last attempt - for some reason there were quite a few edit conflicts. LHvU)

• I have some concerns about this situation, bearing in mind some of this user's history (some positive and some negative) that may be being overlooked here. However, before we spend much more time discussing this issue, dramatically or otherwise, please note that at least thus far, Miltopia has not responded to the block or posted an unblock request. His talkpage is not (and should not be) protected, and perhaps we should wait to see what his response to the block will be. If he never requests an unblock, then further discussion here would be moot (except perhaps as a continuation of the neverending philosophical debate on the Role Of Jimbo). If Miltopia does ask to be unblocked/unbanned, then his request will be entitled to consideration (although an administrator's granting the request and undoing a Jimbo block unilaterally would certainly not be acceptable), but the conversation here would benefit from being informed by what he might have to say in his defense. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• This just in: Zscout370 has unblocked. EconomicsGuy 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh jesus - be prepared for wheel warring. Viridae 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite a WP:BOLD move... for all my own anti-authoritarianism, I would never counsel getting into a wheel-war with Jimbo! *Dan T.* 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with some real good reason how that was a valid unblock, I'm going to revert it soon - Jimbo blocked him, and there's a consensus here that the block was valid. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • As much as I hate wheel warring, I can understand why someone would unblock (still a very bad idea, though). Doing something controversial right before you leave for a couple days, and asking for people not to reverse it, is pretty much just begging for someone to do so. -Amarkov moo! 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not ask Zscout370 to self revert first, to avoid a potential wheel war? LessHeard vanU 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry to perhaps be a little cynical, but could anyone above confirm if this is being discussed elsewhere, perhaps IRC? The block notice, followed by several 'supports' seemed to arrive somewhat quicker than the concerned responses below. No biggie if this isn't the case, but if it were, it would be healthy to disclose. Privatemusings 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User 164.106.37.3

User 164.106.37.3 has repeatedly made unconstructive POV edits to the article List of Blood+ characters and I've become tired of reverting them. The edits are always the same and some of the material we've priviously discussed on the article's talk page. I've already left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't seemed to notice it. Some one else has also left a message about POV edits he made on another article. Could an administrator please block his IP address? It doesn't have to be permanent - I just want him to take notice of what he's doing and come to the talk page. Thank you. --Eruhildo 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, but in the future see WP:AIV. -Jéské 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism by User:KurdzenWeys

• "gay"
• "gay"
• "stfu"

-- Cat 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have a facination with Dumbledore's recently announced sexuality. It's childish, but not untrue. He'll get tired of it when he sees consensus does not favor the edits. Leebo /C 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just added a note that he stop simply messing around. If he continues making non-constructive edits, I'll give a short block to make it clear. There is no reason to deal with people who are just here to waste time. I'd just ignore his template discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tyar with unacceptable behavior

Tyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been throwing personal attacks at DBZROCKS. He has even created pages which attack DBZROCKS (now deleted) (evidence and deletion). The user even tried to "fake" a sockpuppet by posting userlinks to the deleted page above (evidence, try clicking on the name, but, if you look in the toolbox, no link to the user contributions pops up) on DBZROCKS's talk page. I feel as though some action needs to be taken. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a little while; he was making some good edits. Next time though use WP:AIV for a faster reponse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to trade?

I did this last week, so here we go again - I need a copy of the infobox at this article in the German Misplaced Pages] so I can add it to all of the Augsburg city division articles I am writing. If a compatible infobox exists, I have not been able to find it. In exchange, I'd be happy to provide two hours of admin labor in an area of the infobox person's choice, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable. I don't have time to do it tonight, but I would be happy to do this work tomorrow afternoon. Drop me a note on my talk page when/if someone takes this up. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor fresh from a week-long block immediately leaping back into edit wars

After this request to cool down an edit war at History of the Linux kernel, User:Mike92591 got himself blocked for incivility for a week. Well, the week's up, and the very first thing he did was jump back in. Rather than get back into the same edit war again, and considering that I've got little intention of spending any future free time getting abused by this editor, what's the best course of action? Chris Cunningham 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One course of action is to read and reflect on WP:POT. Seems to me you've violated 3RR today as well as a month ago. Perhaps the best course of action is to remove yourself from these disputes, rather than engage in forum shopping. Isarig 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case this is a good-faith attempt to nip this stupid fight in the bud, which is why I haven't yet made any changes to the History of the Linux kernel article. What I'm not going to to is be bullied off of Misplaced Pages by trolls and POV-warriors. Speaking of which. Ahem. Chris Cunningham 22:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A good faith attempt would be to hash it out in the article's Talk page, seeking consensus. Another good faith attempt would be to ask for a third opinion. Yet another good faith attempt would be to open an RfC. If these don't work, you could try mediation. Surely a long time editor like you knows this, which is why it strikes me that this current report is more forum shopping for sanctions against an editor you have a content dispute with, than it is a good-faith attempt to nip an edit war in the bud. Isarig 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting in the firing line by editing the same talk pages as the user for the time being. I've never been through the third opinion process. My RFC experience is limited to a couple of comments. Had these helpful suggestions been provided in good faith I'd have been grateful. But no, they're provided to give me grief, yet again proving that your sanctioning was too lenient. Anyway, I'm not sure that it's designed for resolution of stupid personal politics (the issue isn't so much the content now as the manner in which the edits are proceeding), and I'd rather not have to go through the whole process of mediation / RfC if I can avoid it. Chris Cunningham 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it forum shopping if this is the only page he's come to? Jd2718 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick block review

I've just blocked Dyslexicbudgie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)for 24 hours for this disgraceful racial attack in an RfA. I've just realised the conflict of interest that could be associated here with me nomming the candidate so could someone review it for me ASAP? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have gone for a longer block. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours? My congratulations on your self-restraint. --Carnildo 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards