Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:23, 29 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?

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 for the sake of brevity. east.718 at 18:56, 10/27/2007

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

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

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)

In point of fact, I have been an editor on Christine Maggiore since 2005. Whig 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More community sanctions might work better than an arbitration. Wikidudeman 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have good cause to dispute my user conduct, why not file an RfAr? Whig 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Wikidudeman, if there is a dispute still, RFAR is the way to go... I will oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Mercury 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

They take too long and are too much trouble. I see no need for an RFAr, A simple community block from editing the homeopathy talk page should suffice. It can run concurrent with your current 6 month ban from editing the article. Wikidudeman 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the common reasons for RfCs and other such actions is to reduce disruption. An RFAr is one of the most disruptive and time consuming procedures around, and thus would be very counterproductive to the purpose of reducing disruption. Other more effective and quick sanctions are available to any admin who has the courage to act immediately. A topic block of all homeopathic subjects - including talk pages - would help, just for starters. If the same long dragged out discussions without productivity continue, then other types of blocks could be considered. While civility issues mustn't be ignored, civil editors who disrupt are often the most disruptive because they are allowed to continue for so long. They have the same effect as 3RR violators (in spirit) who never revert four times, but edit war constantly. Action, not endless and disruptive DR, is what is needed so we can get on with actual editing. -- Fyslee / talk 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mercury in part. Talk page restrictions should be made much more hesitantly than namespace, and only with confidence that the user has nothing to add. I might support a community ban later, but we haven't had enough experience with this user under the existing block. Maybe revisit this later. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have observed the discussion closely - although not been involved in editing the article - and I can state quite categorically that this whole discussion would not have occurred if the proponents had not been so closed to disagreeing sentiments. It seemed at times as if a cabal had been formed whereby alternative points - accompanied by reasoned argument - were discounted merely on the basis of "I do not believe it therefore it is not true, therefore we shall oppose this contributor". I found it disagreeable in the extreme and unworthy of Misplaced Pages. I would call for an experienced and previously uninvolved editor to review ALL the contributions made with a view to assessing the actions of the proponents of action against Whig. docboat 11:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with docboat's statement. Whig 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "closed to disagreeing sentiments"? Homeopathy is clearly false. Thus, it is reasonable to oppose those who say that it is true, with no reason other than that belief. There's no way to be open to disagreeing sentiments any more than one could be open to sentiments that water is made of cheese. -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the whole issue neatly encapsulated, Amarkov. In your opinion, it is so, but there is plenty of opinion out there - with references and evidence - which would disagree with you. It is right that all opinions - referenced and backed up - should be on display. And FYI, there is plenty of water in cheese. Now Whig may not have the best approach to dealing with the array of editors opposed to him, but the reaction to his editing is disproportionate. All too late now, I suppose, but your comments underline the unfairness of the whole episode. At least, IMHO. docboat 04:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not clearly false to me. Whig 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the recent discussion that brought us here, that this is much ado about very little. As I mentioned above, from Oct 16 to Oct 25 the homeopathy discussion was generally amicable and productive. It then split over the merits of two papers by Alex Hankey, Ph.D. Isn't there some simple Wikimechanism to get a ruling on these papers, so life can continue? Wanderer57 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a simple mechanism, it's called consensus. The consensus on the talk page was that the Hankey papers were ridiculous and unusable, except to describe Hankey's opinion which itself is not notable. The problem is that Whig continues to agitate for his preferred changes well after consensus has gone against him. Skinwalker 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this pragmatically, since Whig does not seem to have convinced any other editor that it is appropriate to cite the Hankey papers in Homeopathy and since Whig is not editing the article, there is not really a current problem. Wanderer57 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to bring the content dispute here to ANI. I intend to continue to press that source forward for balance in the present article, however. Whig 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, the inclusion of links to Barrett without balance is an NPOV violation in my opinion. Whig 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I would continue to develop this source to see whether he is notable in his own right, etc. Whig 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit more to say, but not in ANI. Whig 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Press that source forward"? The only way to gain acceptance for the source is to develop a consensus. You've failed to convince any other editor of its appropriateness, regardless of their POV's. Your approach is not only failing to generate consensus, but is actively disruptive (see here or your current RfC). Continuing to "press the source forward" in the face of consensus, using this sort of approach, is textbook tendentious editing and, one would presume, the basis for the calls to ban you from the article talk page. MastCell 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of things I have not yet done. How I would press it would be an NPOV dispute. Whig 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that we could settle this matter without the agony of an arbcom proceeding, but it is becoming increasingly clear that will be impossible. The only alternative would be for everyone simply to ignore Whig's tendentious use of the Talk page. In practice, there will always be people who can't resist the temptation to respond. Raymond Arritt 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt puts forward a good alternative. There is already a section on the talk page for discussion of the Hankey papers. If anyone WANTS to continue to discuss those papers there, Misplaced Pages has lots of storage capacity. (Personally, I have formed a pretty definite opinion of the papers, and likely won't discuss them further.) Wanderer57 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do now? It seems like this is a dead end here. I am willing to have RfAr if that is what some editors want to do to prevent me from continuing to edit in Talk:Homeopathy. If I am not blocked or banned from doing so, I intend to continue as I have been, because I have not seen evidence that I am doing anything wrong here. If some other accommodation can be reached short of RfAr, I would be glad to discuss it. Whig 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another "accomodation ... short of RfAr" can be used. You can already be blocked (without an RfAr) based on decisions in previous RfArs. Advocacy is forbidden here. Your expressed intention (above) to continue to press this issue in spite of a clear consensus against you is POV pushing and disruption. So on at least three counts you can be blocked from editing any article related to homeopathy (and its talk pages): (1) advocacy, (2) POV pushing (3) disruption. Any admin can do it right now at the drop of a hat and they will be thanked for it (I'll give them a double barnstar!). If you carry such editing habits to other subjects, you can end up getting banned indefinitely from all of Misplaced Pages, and it can be done by any admin without an RfAr (which itself is a very disruptive process and should be reserved for extreme situations). Courageous admins have carried out such blocks many times and have saved Misplaced Pages and its editors from lots of grief and wasted time. -- Fyslee / talk 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to say anything improper to say in ANI, but no block has been forthcoming in several days of asking for one, and if I am blocked I may request RfAr anyhow to review it. I'm not sure what purpose is being served by continuing here. Whig 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your expressed intentions are keeping this alive. Until you either stop editing or clearly bow to consensus and stop pushing this agenda, you will be under observation and risk getting blocked for disruption. Your intentions are incriminating. -- Fyslee / talk 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My intention is to maintain an NPOV dispute until dispute is resolved. Whig 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your "expressed intentions":

• "I intend to continue to press that source forward ..."
• "I intend to continue as I have been,..."

Such intentions against consensus are disruptive and fail to respect your fellow editors. -- Fyslee / talk 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I propose this

• Whig gets a topic block, including talk pages, from editing any alternative medicine or related subject for say, one month, after which he will be on probation.

Any disagreements? Adam Cuerden 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. -- Fyslee / talk 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Given his stated intent to continue tendentious editing until he gets his way, and the objection of at least one admin to an outright block, this is the best of several imperfect options. Raymond Arritt 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mercury said he would oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Whig 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this issue is currently about disruption of talk pages, that suggestion is rather impotent and doesn't make much sense. Talk pages are not havens of refuge for disrupters of talk pages. They can be blocked from access to those talk pages. -- Fyslee / talk 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion with Mercury, we came up with the possibility of Whig getting one post per talk page per day. Let's try that, and see how it goes.

So, to summarise:

• Whig may not edit any articles related to alternative medicine, for one month, after which he will be on probation, including 1RR. Tendentious editing after the month may result in either an indefinite ban from alternative medicine, or, if necessary, from Misplaced Pages.
• Whig is encouraged to find non-controversial articles in any other interests he may have to edit.
• In the alternative-medicine related articles Whig is banned from, he is limited to one post per talk page per day.

°Are we agreed? Adam Cuerden 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. First, because you are broadening the ban without cause. If you are going to limit me on Talk:Homeopathy, that does not mean you should limit me elsewhere. Second, it really only defers arbitration in my opinion if editors continue to object to my maintaining an NPOV dispute. Whig 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. If you aren't willing to agree to a compromise, and have made very clear that you are unwilling to refrain from tendentious editing, I don't see any choice but a block. Any objections to that? Adam Cuerden 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not from me; given the near-unanimity at Whig's user-conduct RfC and a lack of interest in modifying his approach, I think that's a reasonable action at this point. MastCell 19:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. It is done. He is blocked for one month, with indef block as the next step up. I did hope we could reach a compromise whereby he could be encouraged to work on non-controversial pages so that he could learn Misplaced Pages ettiquette, but, well. He's announced intent to continue tendentious editing, and he refuses to admit even the possibility he might be acting wrongly. Adam Cuerden 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection. I don’t think the discussion on this page takes into account the underlying dynamic of the homeopathy talk, and I find it hard to see this as a neutral forum.

Talk:Homeopathy is largely a discussion with one editor who, on a regular basis, is arguing for a “more balanced” article against six or so strongly anti-homeopathy editors. For that one to address the issues raised by the other six, he may have to contribute six times as often, and address a variety of viewpoints. In this situation, it is easy to label the one as “tendentious” and the other six as “reasonable”, no matter if sometimes they take positions that strongly POV.

Let me be clear. I’m NOT saying the one is always reasonable, or the six are always strongly POV. I’m saying the dynamic favors the six, and disadvantages the one.

The homeopathy discussion sometimes resembles a very lopsided tag-team match. When that happens, the dispute is brought here (or to a RfC) to be adjudicated. I think that the same lopsided approach gets brought here to a significant degree.

- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -

Re suggestion of a limit of one post per day in a discussion. In a discussion like homeopathy where there may be 60 posts in one day, that does not allow for any significant participation. Wanderer57 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not an easy subject, but that just isn't enough to give a free pass to tendentious, disruptive editors who constantly attack all the other editors. If Whig were less of an extreme case, he might get a bye. In this case, no, sorry. Adam Cuerden 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam: I do not think you qualify as a neutral administrator in this particular case. For example, you took the position in talk:homeopathy that a clearly POV site is preferable to a neutral site that uses a blue font. If that is a neutral position, I am the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Also, I object that between asking if there were objections, and giving a "ruling", you allowed about 80 minutes on a Sunday afternoon. Wanderer57 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And asked the Administrator's IRC channel. Adam Cuerden 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. How does asking the administrator’s IRC channel allow participation by interested parties who take part of Sunday off? Wanderer57 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Misplaced Pages. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. WP:WEIGHT codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Misplaced Pages policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell: I do understand and respect that Misplaced Pages strives to be a serious reference work.

My particular concern now is that in my opinion, the administrator who made the ruling on Whig does not qualify as a neutral administrator in this particular case. I emphasize 'in this particular case'. I am not confident that he, or other people involved in the homeopathy discussion, are able to step back and objectively consider my concerns raised above about the "underlying dynamic of the homeopathy talk". Last and least, the 80 minutes allowed to raise objections was not adequate. I would appreciate your feedback on these points. Wanderer57 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Wanderer - the admin who is blocking is most definitely not neutral, and the ruling is suspect. This needs to be addressed at the admin level - leaving aside the merits or lack of them in blocking Whig, this is highly suspect and detracts from the serious nature of Misplaced Pages. How does one go about getting an admin reviewed for behaviour? docboat 02:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can not leave the merits aside when reviewing an admin on admin actions. I'm neutral here, and Adam made a good call. The decision to block is not suspect, and I do not believe it detracts from the Pedia. With regards, Mercury 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking and possible unblocking

• I agree and support Adam here. Please see my talk page and Whig's for what I am willing to do. Regards, Mercury 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And I support Mercury: Whig is a borderline case, but one that has stated extreme reluctance to change. If he becomes willing to change, and acknowledge the problems brought up in the RfC, we may be able to make a good editor out of him yet. Adam Cuerden 12:08, 29 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)

You were warned about no original research and verifiability policy at wikiquiette But you keep going. And, please, don't tell me about civility after what you have published on your page "Misplaced Pages is useless crap because anyone can write anything down." ... "Contentious issues are just clouded with polemics by assholes with an agenda to push." And if you want to blame me for something, it would be nice to provide some references, which will prove, that your blames are not just empty words. Necator 08:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And again you violate WP:CIVIL. What's on my userpage is not germane to this discussion. And, as a matter of fact, I havn't been warned for jack squat-- whereas you have been warned for 3RR in the past and the article in question has been protected at least once. Really, please stop trying to smear me, you're only digging yourself in deeper. Jtrainor 11:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to have yelling match with you. Let administrator decide what to do with that. Necator 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor is correct. His userpage is not relevant; however, Necator since September, you've basically only been editing on a single article, insisting on putting in the exact same wording. Throwing in additional sources (especially when you are misquoting them) is not appropriate at all. Necator, if multiple people are against your edit, you are then working against consensus. Period. Don't complain that everyone is all friends with each other and thus you can do whatever you want. I'd suggest getting a third opinion. After that, if Necator still wants to edit war, I recommend a topic ban on Necator, simply because I think that would be better than a series of blocks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me, where did i misquote a source? For example, source that I've recently added says "Fourth generation surface-to-air missile system used S-300 9M96-series missiles, but all-new ground elements providing capabilities against low RCS stealth aircraft, small cruise missiles, and future low-RCS re-entry vehicles." And this source is not russian. So wording like "Russian sources have claimed" inappropriate. Am i wrong? Necator 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jtrainor claims are totally unsourced, as you can see from here and it doesn't hold him from making edits, and revert sourced parts of the article. Necator 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My block of Miltopia

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia.--chaser - t

My desysop of Zscout370

Move to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370. Sorry if there's an edit conflict. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion was already at 50k+ I've moved it to a subpage - it may also be something we refer to in the future and having it on a separate page is therefore simpler. violet/riga (t) 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be wise to also include the Miltopia subpage link at the top of the Zscout subpage link, so it's all in one place ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just came here to do that. I considered merging these discussions there but they had already gone too far separately and such a move would be a little confusing. violet/riga (t) 00:00, 29 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)

So you come here declaring you have no intention of participating in any discussion on the talk page (which is, as you surely know, the first course of action to take when a content dispute arises), and don't want to try RfCs or mediation - what is it that you expect then? That the other party in the content dispute be sanctioned on your say-so? I've given you several options on how you may go about it, which you dismiss out of hand while acknowledging they are helpful, simply because you assume they were not made in good faith. Perhaps you should add WP:AGF to your reading list. Isarig 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute; it's a report of bad faith by an editor whose personal attacks on me have made me disinclined to engage him directly any further. AGF is not intended to address deliberate moves of provocation. That is also why there's no onus on me to assume good faith from this suggestion. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a content dispute. You have yourself described it as an edit war in your initial report, and anyone examining that page's history and it's Talk page can see that it is a dispute over the inclusion of material which you allege is 'pure FSF propaganda', and two other editors disagree with you. Disagreeing with you over content is not "bad faith". There is no excuse, of course, for the language Mike92591 used, and he was properly blocked for it, for a week. We must assume that he learned his lesson. If he hasn't, then surely he will quickly be blocked again. But to come here and ask for some preemptive sanction, in order to gain the upper hand in a clear content dipsute (in which you appear to be in the minority) is just as bad. Isarig 14:48, 27 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)

Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. It has nothing to do with the number of pages you come to, only to the selection of venue - in this case WP:ANI, vs. any of the other good faith ways to resolve content disputes. Isarig 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Isarig, way to assume bad faith. Chris Cunningham is reporting that a recently-blocked editor is behaving the same way as they were behaving which got them blocked, and all you can do is attack the person making, what to me, is a good faith request for review. Corvus cornix 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't behaving the same way at all. The editor was blocked for making uncivil comments. After his block expired, he has not made any uncivil comments, but returned to the article where he and another editor are having a content dispute with Chris Cunningham. If we are to assume good faith, the only way to proceed is to assume the editor learned his lesson from his week long block - and to properly engage him on the Talk page, or other DR procedures such as I've suggested to Chris above. Instead, we have Chris declaring that he will not participate in talk, does not want to try RfC or mediation, but wants some admin to "nip this in the bud" - which I interpret as a request that this editor be somehow sanctioned, for doing nothing other than disagreeing with Chris Cunningham - a serial edit warrior himself. Isarig 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Serial edit warrior" says the guy under community sanction for edit warring with sockpuppets, Isarig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.81.198 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And just who's sock-puppet are you, Mr. 2nd-edit-on-wp-is-a-WP/ANI-comment? Isarig 00:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to say this. The irony in your suggesting that the OP of this thread read WP:POT is rich. No dog in the fight, I just read AN/I sometimes ... and I really enjoy irony! K. Scott Bailey 02:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So, getting back to the point, and ignoring Isarig's baiting for now: what's the recommended plan? Should I go back to the article talk and try to have this out again? I'm not particularly in the mood for what I see as the inevitable personal attacks and edit warring that this would produce. Again, the editor was blocked for refusing to use anything other than personal attacks on talk, and then for a rude unblock. If I thought discussion would work, I'd have gone back to discussing it already. Chris Cunningham 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should go back to the article talk and try to solve your content dispute. If the editor is uncivil or makes personal attacks, he will be blocked. There is no issue requiring admin intervention here at this point. Isarig 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing from User:에멜무지로

Hi, User:에멜무지로 has been warned about soapboxing many times.

• Soapboxing on User page

He has even been blocked about it, fairly early on:

• Block
  • User talk:에멜무지로/#Temporary block

When warned about it, he tried to sneak in soapboxing at his User subpages. Thank goodness they've been deleted now.

• Subpages where soapboxing occurred:
  • User:에멜무지로/Sandbox
  • User:에멜무지로/Sandbox%C2%AD

He's been warned many times (at least four times, to my reckoning) and reverts have been marked as "rv soapboxing"

• Warnings
  • User talk:에멜무지로/#Your user page
  • User talk:에멜무지로#Policy evasion

Yet he's at it again. Please do something so that he can be more constructive at Misplaced Pages. --Kjoonlee 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He(she) also tried to remove this thread from AN/I, which is a naughty thing to do. The preceding 24 and 72 hour blocks had no effect so now it's a week. Raymond Arritt 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But for the record, the 72 hour block was for spurious redirects, not soapboxing... --Kjoonlee 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this case is typical, but I don't feel like this user was fairly treated on the soapboxing issue. I can't believe that WP:NOT was intended as a rigid policy for the censorship of even a single sentence on a userpage. I understand you don't want a mess from the Korean Misplaced Pages translated and dumped here - but users deserve a little slack on their own userpages. If you'd have let him say his piece in a few sentences, you wouldn't have had to read through a dozen reverted edits about it here. 70.15.116.59 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he blew it when he unilaterally deleted the original posting of the present thread. Raymond Arritt 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, but I do think the userpage/soapbox policy issue is important. When a user feels gagged, he's guaranteed to thrash around until he breaks something. 70.15.116.59 04:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed this user has been blocked for his userpage. Other users here have advocated nuking other countries, with no intervention on the part of admins--even after it was brought to their attention here. With allthe actual vandalism, edit warring and harassment of editors that goes on here, it amazes me that an admin would waste his or her time (and by extension, ours here on ANI) by bothering with this. Unblock the guy and let it go. Jeffpw 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Calton and TruthCrusader dispute

I've been watching my watchlist light up for the last little while, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly is going on here.

On the face of it, I see Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in some sort of edit war on Will Geer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over whether or not to include statements about the actor's sexual orientation. Calton keeps adding the information (including a reference to a printed source); TruthCrusader keeps removing the info (arguing that the sourcing is inadequate). I assume that they're both going to sit and sulk for a bit because they're getting close to a 3RR violation.

There are a couple of factors that seem to raise this beyond the usual BLP/content dispute. Looking at the history of Will Geer reveals a series of incivil edit summaries, particularly from Calton: "...hissy fit...lack of self control", "...Buckwheat", "...daft...". (Calton is fresh off a monthlong wikibreak that followed a 24-hour block for persistent incivility.) On TruthCrusader's part, I see the repeated removal of content that appears to be sourced, along with edit summaries that don't seem to accurately reflect that fact: "r/v. Not sourced, not verified...".

Adding fuel to the fire, Calton appears to be suggesting that TruthCrusader has been engaged in some sort of off-wiki harrassment of Calton. TruthCrusader made an edit to Talk:Will Geer here that links his username to a particular IP address; in this post to User talk:TruthCrusader, Calton insinuates that an individual using that IP address has made some sort of inflammatory blog posts. A further post from Calton repeats the statement, and adds that TruthCrusader has started to use proxies (and throws in a bit of abuse, as well).

I don't know what the history of TruthCrusader is, but it certainly appears that something funny is going on. I have asked Calton and TruthCrusader to explain themselves here, pronto. I have something of a history with Calton, so I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to take any administrative actions in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that it strikes me as weird to get so involved in something with which you have no involvement, what exactly do you want an admin to do and how is it your prerogative to demand that these editors explain themselves pronto here? Sorry, but that smacks of arrogance and busy-body meddling. Eusebeus 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(The unpolite answer) That's what sysops - new and old - do. They volunteer to look after the general well being of the encyclopedia by actin in an administrative function. Attempting to resolve editor conflicts is one of them, as is deflecting the slings and arrows of outrageous displays of being a dick. Further, a good admin likes to get the opinion of others before embarking upon an action where there might be consequences - therefore TenOfAllTrades is to be commended for both involving themselves in the matter and referring it to their colleagues. Is there any other matter that needs explaining to you? LessHeard vanU 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A spirited defense, certainly; but not very convincing. Sorry Less. Eusebeus 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I saw an edit war, serious user conduct issues, and the insinuation that one of our contributors was being harrassed off-wiki by another. The two editors don't seem capable of resolving the dispute on their own, and TruthCrusader has regularly sought admin intervention on his behalf. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project; it doesn't work if the atmosphere is poisoned by the sort of bile that's spilling over from this dispute onto articles and other editors. Those strike me as issues worthy of this board's attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your comments and "busy-body meddling" -- a fairly accurate summary, I'd say -- might be appropriate if they were better informed. As far as the edit-warring -- and your rather juvenile summary thereof -- there's nothing to explain, or at least dispute: I added back -- properly sourced, neutrally worded, and footnoted, to boot -- relevant material about Will Geer. TruthCrusader is removing it for no discernible reason, other than, perhaps, an impulse-control problem and one of his quarterly attempts to get me banned, something he's been doing off and on over the last couple of years. The two sides are not even close to being equivalent, and the actual edit-warring is being done by one side only. The false equivalency is, at best, irritating, and worst actively insulting.

• As far as TruthCrusader's off-wiki harassment and his attempts to snow admins as part of his campaign, I've already privately e-mailed a more complete set of evidence to a few admins I trust (including one who's on ArbCom) documenting the off-wiki attacks and the clear evidence connecting TruthCrusader (blog software records IP addresses, and TruthCrusader was very helpful in connecting the dots). Bottom line: this is a horse you don't want to back. --Calton | Talk 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh,, and you've got your chronology backwards, though I don't suppose that's obvious: I discovered TruthCrusader's mucking about with Will Geer BECAUSE I was backtracking to figure out who left a message for me saying "fuck off you wikipedia nazi" -- and, as I said above, this edit lead me right there. And though I've really DO have better things to do -- like my job, which I'm behind on, and sleep, which is what I should be doing right now -- and therefore haven't been editing Misplaced Pages, I figured I ought to take the time to fix the mess that TruthCrusader left. And, as usual, I got drawn in trying to fix up messes where I saw them. But, if you think exacerbating messes, defending trolls, and encouraging harassment on- and off-Wiki is the way to build a better enecyclopedia, go for it, but don't expect a lot of support from a lot of people for that. --Calton | Talk 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• This one's easy. The linkage between TruthCrusader and the obscene harassment Calton has received is clear; if I see one more report of it that even seems like TruthCrusader, I'll just block him myself and let the chips fall where they may. --jpgordon —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay; I wasn't aware that this had been discussed elsewhere. If there's serious off-wiki harrassment going on, I don't think anyone would object to a flat ban immediately. It doesn't make sense to me that our optimal response would be 'wait and see if he does something else obnoxious' while he tries to drag admins into blocking Calton, while Calton keeps leaving bitter messages and insulting edit summaries without any other recourse...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ok, so we have a content dispute and behavioral issues. Looking at the Will Geer article and talk page histories it seems like there is a long running pattern of people adding claims that Geer was gay or bi-sexual without references and these being challenged and removed (by TruthCrusader amongst others). Now the information has apparently been re-added, sourced to claims made by Harry Hay. I have no idea whether Mr. Hay (who is apparently also dead) should be considered reliable on this issue, but that likely ought to be the focus of both user's efforts. Rather than reverting each other with claims of 'bad sources!' and 'no, good sources!' they ought to be discussing the merits of the source. BTW, edit warring over content is edit warring... regardless of who turns out to be 'right'. To claim that 'only the other guy is really edit warring' is simply false.

As to the behavioral issues. Calton claims that TruthCrusader has engaged in egregious harassment and attacks off-wiki. Unfortunately, it is inherently difficult to prove such. Logs and mails can be alterred, open IPs can be accessed by other people, et cetera. However, in one sense it doesn't matter... because that would not be an excuse for the on-wiki attacks which Calton has engaged in. Even if Calton is absolutely right and truthful about what has gone on off-wiki. Even if it had all taken place ON wiki openly under TruthCrusader's account. Responding in kind, though not quite as viciously as the described off-wiki conduct, is still harmful and disruptive.

Evidence of the off-wiki harassment should be looked at to see if it can actually be proven (in which case an indef block would be very much in order), but regardless of that, both users need to stop edit warring and Calton needs to stop attacking and insulting. --CBD 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To Jpgordon: If the evidence is clear, why wait until you see another report of it? I suppose you are the among the people privy to Calton's evidence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that's how I work. Others might work in other ways. (And I try not to block people before I've had breakfast. Need nutrients in brain to make rational decision.) --jpgordon 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson comes up with his usual long and convoluted rationale excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls, with a side order of passive-aggression, a heaping helping of false equivalency (why yes, the things I've said about TruthCrusader are SO similiar to him accusing me of being a pedophile and saying that my father raped my mother -- and by the way, I redacted some equally awful crap from what I posted), and some actual falsehoods about the article that has wound up at the center of thngs, to boot (hint 1: "Harry Hay" is NOT the source of the claims).

Personally, I can't imagine why CBD thinks carrying water for trolls in any way aids the building of an encyclopedia, and yet he continues to do so. Is there something to this "Trolls are people too! Fight the power" schtick that I'm missing? --Calton | Talk 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See, that's precisely the kind of behavior I was saying you shouldn't be engaging in. Which seemed self-evident so... you are doing what, exactly, here? Trying to insult and provoke me? You need to calm down and stop attacking anyone and everyone who asks you to be remotely civil. --CBD 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never had any reason to doubt Calton's honesty. His civility needs work, but his integrity is above reproach. I would also trust Jpgordon's assessment of any privately-held evidence. Is there any conceivable reason not to drop the banhammer on TruthCrusader here?

As to the second (relatively minor) issue here, I hope that any (remaining) involved parties can have a good-faith discussion about type and quality of sourcing on Talk:Will Geer. If TruthCrusader is removed from the equation, there should be nothing that prevents a civil, rational talk page discussion about any remaining editorial concerns, right? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He is arguing that you are making false equivalences, CBD. You seem to be avoiding responding directly to this charge. El_C 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding? No... I simply assumed that since proof Calton's 'charges' were false is plainly visible on this very page there was no need to respond to them at all. If you think otherwise, let's look at these 'charges';

1. CBDunkerson is "excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls" - See my first post above (my only previous comment on this matter). See me saying that TruthCrusader, the presumable target of Calton's personal attack, had edit warred and that if the accusations of off-wiki harassment could be proven he should be indef blocked. In what way does this 'excuse bad behavior'?
2. "false equivalency" - I said that Calton engaged in edit warring too... he has. I said that Calton has engaged in incivility and personal attacks too... he has (and not just towards TruthCrusader). I said that these were less severe than the vicious comments attributed to TruthCrusader off-wiki... they were. So, where did I say anything 'false' or that they were 'equivalent' except in ways that... they were?
3. CBDunkerson has stated "actual falsehoods about the article ... 'Harry Hay' is NOT the source of the claims" - I can't claim to have studied the matter in extensive detail so perhaps I am somehow mistaken... but I truly have no idea how the quotation of Harry Hay saying, "Much of America wasn't ready to hear that Grandpa on The Waltons was bisexual" in this edit by Calton means that "Harry Hay is NOT the source of the claims". Harry Hay said it... but he is not the source? What person then, other than Harry Hay, IS the source of this claim?

Bad behavior by one user does not excuse bad behavior by another. Claiming that saying both users need to follow the standards is "excusing bad behavior" is an obvious falsity. The truth is that I did not excuse Calton's bad behavior. Which I will no doubt be thanked for... given the vehemence of insistence that bad behavior should NOT be excused. :] --CBD 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's enough strawmen to populate an Iowa county full of cornfields. That last paragraph, where you link together separate quotes to give the appearance my claiming something I didn't is a classic. But let's go through them.

• Point 1: let's start with your denigrating rhetoric, starting with "Calton claims", piled on with other, similar qualifiers ("difficult to prove", etc.), all with the rhetorical result -- intentional, I'm sure -- of casting doubting on what I say.
• Point 2: All those "facts"? Literally true, qualitatively false. Again, another attempt to rhetorically place my comments on par with the grotesque outbursts of TruthCrusader ("Granted, your organization is not as bad as NAMBLA..." "Yes, as President, he would be not as bad as Pol Pot...").
• Point 3: I included THREE references, not just one you quoted as if it were the only one. So I'd say yah, you didn't study the matter in much detail -- all three or four sentences worth -- to overlook the two other references. Again, literally true regarding your characterization of one of the references, qualitatively false to not mention the other two.

Ultimately, yeah, it's a question of your playing rhetorical games to minimize egregious conduct and make false equivalences. Personally, I'm thinking that all this contrarian behavior on your part is just a game for you, a chance to play a junior-league defense attorney on the internets. It certainly seems that your standards as to what is defensible directly correlates to the likelihood of the "defendant" being blocked or banned: your essentially unilateral defense of User:Pigsonthewing in his two ArbCom cases -- User:Pigsonthewing hisownself couldn't be bothered to respond -- is an obvious showcase, and funny how his incivility deserved a pass, hmm?

And just a thought: regular readers on this noticeboard should think back on CBDunkerson's various contributions to it. It might be worth considering how frequently he jumps to the defense of the badly behaved with his "Fight the power! Admins can't be trusted!" rhetoric. How seriously should he be taken? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As responding to the claims you are making just brings additional accusations I see no point in continuing. I will simply say again; you are not allowed to be incivil to other users. Not to users who have been incivil to you and certainly not to those whom have simply disagreed with you. If you do not stop I believe you are working your way towards an indefinite ban. Since you have responded to my block of you with all manner of accusations I will not be doing so again, but the fact that you have repeatedly harassed good editors who have done nothing wrong tells me it is coming. There is a reason your unblock requests were denied. You can't abuse people the way you do and remain a Misplaced Pages user. You need to stop. --CBD 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Harassed good editors who have done nothing wrong" refers to yourself, right? ;) Sorry, couldn't resist! El_C 11:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to his nastiness towards users like Just James, RedSpruce, JackOfOz, and so forth. Longstanding positive contributors whom Calton has belittled and harassed over minor issues. Yes, he is also incivil to those who dare ask him to stop being abusive, but if the first problem were resolved the second would not exist. Finally, yes, he is also insulting to newbies who make mistakes and actual 'vandals' and 'trolls', but those are hardly positive traits either. Remember, it is very important that we not be "excusing bad behavior". Right? --CBD 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you don't have a single shred of moral authority. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. A truckload of hypocrisy, a long history of troll-enabling, petty behavior, shifting standards, and -- here, especially -- dodging responsibility for your actions. I listen to people I respect: that group does not and has never included you.

Remember, it is very important that we not be "excusing bad behavior". Right? Right. When did you plan on starting? --Calton | Talk 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have NO idea what is going on or how this has suddenly exploded. For the Will Geer article, I did not feel the information claiming his sexuality was verifiable enough to warrent such an inclusion in the article. Apparently I wasn't the only one who felt this way. I cant see how it could be called an edit war, as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me, rather than caring about the article, which is why I was trying to prevent what I felt was not notable sources removed from the article. In the interests of fairness however, I will cease to work on the article as apparently Calton will not give me any peace over it. I still maintain the sources being given are not notable enough, but I will allow others to make that call now.

As for this so called Wiki-stalking. I admit my past on Wiki hasn't been stellar, as evident by my block logs. However, I have NO idea what Calton is on about. He hasn't shown me or anyone outside his circle of 'friends' any evidence at all and I honestly have NO idea who he has decided to throw this at me, of all people. I have remained civil in this matter, despite my temptation to unload on him, which is something I wish to point out he has not. I can't even think WHY he would think I would WANT to harass him, I had forgotten he had even existed until I logged in one day to find a rather nasty message on my talk page. There DOES seem to be something fishy going on, and I wish to point out that part of my problems in the past were caused by a multiple banned user named Chad Bryant, who would do what he could to get me banned or in trouble. He HAS impersonated me on the Internet many many times, and I am starting to wonder if this may be the case now. Just look at my past talk pages/incidents/block logs of myself and Chad Bryant to see. That MAY be what is happening here because I damn well know I would not waste my time with anything to do with Calton. TruthCrusader 20:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this investigation however, as I do not like lies and slanderous remarks being made about myself, even on Wiki which, by the way, I don't even visit much anymore due to real life.

as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me - Mr Kettle? Mr Pot on line 2...: I provided THREE reliable sources -- two from books, even -- and yet you reverted with the edit summary "...Not sourced, not verified...". So, who, exactly, seems to be reverting for its own sake? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have posted on Talk:Will Geer the results of a brief search for references regarding the alleged bisexuality of Geer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "off-wiki" behavior should be considered. How can Misplaced Pages's rules have any bearing or weight over real life actions? As I read this, Calton seems very insistent that TruthCrusader is harrassing him off-wiki and that this should factor into a banning decision. In the interest of balance and fairness, I'd like to bring the following website to the community's attention : http://www.fireflysun.com/book/Berkeley_Wikipedia_cyberstalking.php The host of this site is apparently a US government expert on Cyber stalking and Internet harrassment. A google search of Calton's name brings up quite a few sites on which people seem to be accusing Calton of online harrassment. Amazon's website seems to have had two major incidents regardng Calton harrassing famous authors. Take it for what it's worth, but I'd be inclined to question Calton's credibility. The majority of his editorial contributions seem designed to provoke confrontations with others, particularly new users. MegaMom 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above information is certainly new to me. Since this is apprently the case, unless of course Amazon is 'lying' I respectfully request this matter is dropped as Calton it seems has a massive credibility problem now and any information or "evidence" he claims to have MUST now be considered highly suspect. I have already agreed to leave the Geer article alone, despite my objections to it, and hope this matter now goes away. TruthCrusader 09:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience of Calton - and I should note here that I *often* disagree with his tagging for deletion of images and I would agree his civility at times needs work - I have never seen any reason to question his integrity or credibility, or his commitment to the project. I'm also surprised that an editor who has never interacted with him, so far as I can see, and has not quite 350 edits is willing to make such bizarre allegations against a long term contributor on a forum such as this. The "US Government" trick is the oldest in the book - the site linked to is nothing but a long first-person rant by some individual in defence of an author, with extremely tenuous links being drawn. I tend to agree with WP:V that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that simply hasn't been provided here. Orderinchaos 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is any of this being discussed here, and not on the article's Talk page, the WP:AN3 page, or in an RfC? Corvus cornix 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, I have made no "bizarre allegations" I have provided a link to information and asked others to look into the matter and make their own determinations. I suggest that you take the time to review the site I provided a link to more carefully, as the author's credentials and employment status with the government are mentioned therein. No one is trying to play any kind of "trick" here, as you allege. The "evidence" was strong enough for Amazon.com to take action against Calton. Not to mention the fact that there are people all over the Internet complaining about Calton's behavior on Misplaced Pages and other sites.

You are correct in stating that I have had no previous interaction with Calton, although I have been keeping tabs on his conduct for some time now. My 13 year old son is one of the many people, the FAR from civil, Calton has unnecessarily harrassed on this site. Information contained on my son's user page would lead any THINKING adult to realize that they were dealing with a minor. From his very first message to my son, Calton was apparently hostile, rude and threatening. He apparently referred to my son as a "nit-wit" who had "confused Misplaced Pages with my space". When my son tried to explain to Calton that he was new to Misplaced Pages, his requests for guidance were met with hostility and taunting, abusive remarks. Calton apparently took great delight in having my son's user page deleted from this site. My son was really heartbroken and upset over the situation for quite some time. No adult that I know would treat a child in the hateful manner in which Calton apparently treated my son. I've told my boy that Misplaced Pages is "too rough" a site for him and he is no longer allowed to visit it. Sounds crazy when one considers the fact that it is an encyclopedia, which could or should be a good learning tool for a child. The only lesson my son learned from Misplaced Pages was one of online harrassment and intimidation.

It seems that Misplaced Pages may have turned a blind eye to its own rules where Calton is concerned. Any objective outsider can see by reviewing this man's edit history, that he is not a "valuable" contributor. He seldom contributes to articles, other than to provoke arguments and confrontations with other users. He can clearly be seen stalking editors from article to article. He seems to spend the majority of his time targeting and attacking new users, especially children. If he is not an administrator, as his pages state, he should not be behaving as if he were some sort of cyber cop for Misplaced Pages. According to Calton, himself, allegations of pedophilia have apparently been made against him elsewhere on the Internet. As a parent it causes me great concern, when I see this overtly hostile, abusive editor engaging in a pattern of initiating unwelcome contact with minors on this site. I think Misplaced Pages would be wise to consider banning Calton, as the harm and bad feelings he generates these days must far outweigh any good he may have done in the past. MegaMom 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a good look through the cyberstalking portion of that site (which, I'd note, has no actual entry page and doesn't appear to be linked from the entry page of the site, which appears to be an Objectivist information source of some sort) would indicate that the specific case situations I could find are targeted at people who were issuing negative reviews to this fellow's book. The lengthy screed about Calton provides little in the way of proof that it's one person involved in all of this, and if you manage to get towards the bottom of the page, find that the creator was, in fact, been in a battle with Calton here over apparent self-promotional issues. Thus, his analysis could be considered questionable, especially considering other commentaries like this page, which would seem to suggest that a crowd of admins were cyberstalking him as a group effort.

As for your son's issues with Calton, some diffs showing his harassment would better enlighten readers as to the particular actions you disliked. Can you point towards the specific incidents involved? I'd be interested to see specific diffs for your claims that he targets children specifically, personally. My (non-admin) view is that yes, Calton can be abrasive in his comments and could do with toning it down some, but busting spammers and other troublemakers is all good work that needs to be done. So, if you could provide some specific diffs for the issues you mention, that would be great. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, your posting only provides more credibility to the site I referenced. In the first place there appears to be only be ONE bad review the site operator has objected to - from Calton. Moreover, it appears that Calton stalked the author from Misplaced Pages into the real world and attempted to damage his professional reputation. I have now found what appear to be THREE authors on Amazon who've had "issues" with Calton. Amazon clearly has his IP address and has apparently taken action against him. I'm inclined to trust their assessment. I don't profess to know all the facts here. This is one of several sites I came across when researching my son's online attacker. Frankly, I believe your "evidence" only proves my point. The link you've provided is an excellent example of defamation of character (as Misplaced Pages's defines that term) in flagrant violation of Misplaced Pages's own policies. On the Administrators' Noticeboard Calton clearly attempts to defame that author's character on several fronts. The most clear cut example is when he states that the author's book was published by a vanity press. Well, as an uninvolved bystander - it took me all of about two minutes to conduct a google search and find that Calton's statement is false and therefore, libellous. The book in question was published by Bedside Books, a subsidiary of American books. Although they may be a small publishing house, it is clear from their website that this is NOT a vanity press and the book is not self published. http://www.american-book.com/ Now, if I can find that out in a couple of minutes - why haven't Misplaced Pages's administrators bothered to investigate the matter? Your link provides clear cut evidence that Calton has maliciously posted a libellous statement about a living person seemingly designed to defame that individual's character and harm their professional reputation. Why? I want to know why blatent clear cut libel has not been deleted from the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is apparently turning up on google searches of this authors name? (I can't really blame him for featuring Calton on his site.) Can an administrator please explain that "oversight" to me?

As for my son, he made the classic, naive mistake of using his real name on this forum. I really do not want his name to have any more "appearances" on google as a result of these discussions. He's barely a teenager and he's already had his good name sullied all over the Internet, thanks to the malicious, irresponsible actions of Calton. I will discuss this matter with my husband tomorrow and see what he thinks about providing more information. Calton should be banned. MegaMom 06:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• What we have here is a lot of vague, unsubstantiated assertions about someone who has been here a long time. The case you raise above is a perfectly routine case of vanity spamming. If you want the debate archive blanked to save his blushes, you have only to ask nicely and it will be done, but shameless self-promotion would appear to describe it just nicely. Sure, people get carried away, happens all the itme, but that doesn't mean we're obliged to be superhuman about it. People who spend ages pushing themselves or their ideas are a recurring problem. You want that archive blanked? Guy (Help!) 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add my requestt to see this so called "evidence" that Calton passed to 'people he trusts' has so far been answered with silence. I feel, as someone falsely accused of something, it is my right (not to mention common courtesy) to see what these claims are based on. Should my requests go unanswered much longer I will take them to a higher level in the Wiki hiearchy. I am honestly sorry this matter has exploded so much and taken up so many people's time, which could be used to better the encyclopedia.TruthCrusader 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a 207.69.137.* user

Some user of what looks like to be an Earthlink controlled IP range (207.69.137.*) seems to be engaged in a campaign of subtle vandalism around Misplaced Pages. For example here, where chunks of the article have been repeatedly ripped out under the claim of not verifiable. Looking at the talk pages of the anonymous users involved 1, 2 and 3 show a pattern of vandalism disguised as concern for one policy or another leading to temporary blocks and such. Is there anything that can be done that is more permanent? Feel free to shout at me if this isnt the right place for this concern btw. --Martin Wisse 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With an ISP IP range like that, it's tough to tie all those edits and warnings to a single user. A lot of vandalism originates from ranges like that. Especially with dial-up ranges, as those change every login. That said, its probably best to treat these like any other vandalism events: Revert and warn the user, then list on AIV if it becomes epidemic in a short period of time (within a few minutes of the last warning). Arakunem 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Any possibility of some administrator semi-protecting the James D. Nicoll article in the meantime, as this is getting out of hand? --Martin Wisse 11:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, unban User:Robert Lindsay

I've just read his lengthy post on his blog. (If you find the link offensive, please remove it.) I've read the reasoning for the permaban and an appeal against it as well. In my view he was banned for his opinions, but even bad opinions are not a wikicrime. That's why I ask for his unbanning. —V. Z. 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• We couldn't care less what his opinions are; we just have no reason to provide a platform for him to express them. --jpgordon 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Never heard of him before but on reading the sorry saga I agree with Jpgordon - there's a difference between "Misplaced Pages is not censored" and "Misplaced Pages welcomes trolls". Since this guy claims to hate us so much, why would he want to come back? — iridescent 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The project is better without such people. Let them have their fun at their blog, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should he be unbanned could I suggest that there be a brevity requirement that goes along with it? :) Anyway, who gives a crap if the Jews are in charge? So long as the info is available and editable I couldn't give a monkey's left teste if it's left-handed lesbian Moslem with AIDS and a limp that's in charge. ---- WebHamster 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's probably a Yahoo! Group for them. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My reaction. Now he has been blocked for more than one year (since 7 April 2006). I think it is enough and he should get the second chance. In my view only repeated vandals should be banned indefinetely. Other people should be judged by the ArbCom.

Another reason is that Robert Lindsay is probably his real name and the people with real name shall be treated better. They have no second chance to establish more productive account.

You may ask why I do a voluntary attorney to a man I don't know and with whom I never communicated. I have similar experience to him from another Wikimedia project.

—V. Z. 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should people with a real name as their User name (even assuming it is their real name) be treated better than other people? Editors should be treated based on their behavior, not on their names, and it's clear from the blog and from the block, that this person (real name or not) is an anti-Semite with an axe to grind. Why should we want him to continue his venom here? If he should decide that he wants to come back and will modify his behavior, he can ask to be reinstated, he doesn't need someone else to speak for him. And may I ask you for something else, VZ, could you please cut down your excessive signature? Corvus cornix 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Depopulation

SchmuckyTheCat is emptying Category:Universities in mainland China. Kowlooner 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a category and list for both 'mainland China' and 'People's republic of China'? isn't that sort of redundant? Or am I missing some subtle difference? ThuranX 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Schmucky's blanking of the section. I don't know what's going on here, but it doesn't look very legit. ⇒SWATJester 03:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:Instantnood can take a hike with his complaints. SchmuckyTheCat

I see no evidence that they are the same person. If you continue to mass revert again, I'm blocking you for disruption.⇒SWATJester 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I got a message from Kowlooner which said the two are different, but I'm not sure in what way, as he specifically said that "Yes there is. In PRC legislations, regulations, directives, etc., mainland China does not include Hong Kong and Macau." I didn't think that PRC included those two either. I'm not sure what Schmucky's trying to do with that, but I do note that instead of clarifying Kowlooner, he just erased the comments off my talk page, which I generally take as rude in two ways: One, although no one 'owns' their talk, I've repeatedly read here (AN/I) and elsewhere that messing with others' talk pages shouldn't be casually done, and two, because it interferes with user to user communications. Now, can we get a simple, one para clarification about why there is or is not a difference between Mainland and PRC? ThuranX 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, That makes it twice, at least, that Schmucky has deleted another editors' comments, once here at AN/I, which I've seen before treated ESPECIALLY poorly, and on my talk. Is there a checkuser to actually support the contention that Kowlooner is banned? Further, now that it's been brought up, let's not drop it at the moment a CU proves it. I'd still like an explanation. ThuranX 03:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 33 Political divisions of China 22 provinces, and some others. Instantnood wants their to be three (Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau).

This conversation is so old and stale it is ridiculous - and the perpetuation of this and INSTANTNOODS perpetual edit war over it is what got him banned. He returns with a sockpuppet every few weeks to carry this argument, just long enough for any CU data to expire. But check the RFCU archives to see that I can spot an Instantnood sock a mile away. I'm not waiting for weeks of some process to AGAIN remove the same revert warring abuse that went on for two years. SchmuckyTheCat

, , . I'm not sitting still while the latest incarnation of sockpuppet edits a few hundred articles that will need fixing later. I've had this exact conversation several times. SchmuckyTheCat

It's your duty to file a RFCU, or to report him here or at AIV. It's NOT your duty to make massive, disruptive reverts of every edit this guy makes, without so much as the slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet. It's even worse to do that in the midst of a massively POV category depopulation. Weren't you involved in an arbitration about all of this relatively recently as well? I've warned you once already on your talk page, and once here. If you continue to revert him, I'm blocking you for wikistalking and disruption. You should know better. The proper move here is to file an AN/I or AIV or RFCU report. Not to massively remove every edit this guy has ever done. ⇒SWATJester 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet?

1. Look at that article history, it's all Instantnood socks.
2. Oh, another one.
3. Oh, Kowlooner makes the same exact edit as Qaka? Who is Qaka, well, User:Qaka says it's an Instantnood sock.
4. How about this one?
5. BTW, who's wikistalking?

Should I go on? SchmuckyTheCat

And, I'm not removing every edit. I'm looking at every single one. I don't care about the majority of them, actually. Instantnood has always had useful edits. But the insistence of edit warring about the political structure of China and various spelling issues is defining. He has an amazing ability to make these changes to hundreds of articles in a short amount of time, and THAT is incredibly disruptive. Waiting a few weeks to "settle the issue" every time he pops up leaves hundreds of articles in a bad state - particularly when he is editing stub templates which, in turn, affect hundreds of other articles. SchmuckyTheCat

Re ThuranX: The PRC has 23 provinces, five autonomous regions and four cities directly under the central government. One of the 23 provinces lies wholly within the ROC, which the PRC claims but have never ruled. Three other provinces claim territories in the ROC. In addition to the provinces, autonomous regions and direct cities, the PRC has two special administrative regions, namely Hong Kong and Macau. The 22 provinces, five autonomous regions and four direct cities are collectively called Mainland China. They constitute what PRC was before Hong Kong and Macau became part of the PRC. Kowlooner 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he'll talk your head off about this. SchmuckyTheCat

OK, so Mainland China WAS the PRC, until the PRC gained Hong Kong and Macau. So ... Mainland's now an outdated term, and the PRC represents the current state of China's geography? So why is it bad that he's depop'ing Mainland to move them to PRC? ThuranX 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he's a political crank and that's what he edit wars about. SchmuckyTheCat

Nice Personal Attacks and trolling. Remember, just because you 'got him', doesn't give you free license to break policy too. ThuranX 05:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The PRC is the 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 direct cities, and (after 1997 and 1999) 2 special administrative regions. Mainland China is 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 direct cities. Since the special administrative regions are different from the rest of the PRC Mainland China is used to denote the rest from the special administrative regions. 203.218.133.216 04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go with SchmuckyTheCat here and I've blocked Kowlooner indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Should a checkuser prove otherwise, he can be unblocked. I saw one of his earliest edits as changing the use of any PRC templates to Hong Kong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The diagnostic evidence shows the same. SchmuckyTheCat is unblocked, Kowlooner and the IP are both blocked as sockpuppets of a banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So SchmuckyTheCat got blocked for helping Misplaced Pages and reverting the bad faith edits of a sockpuppet? No wonder so many solid editors leave Misplaced Pages. Poor kitty. You deserve a saucer of milk for your troubles. Jeffpw 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: the checkuser came back inconclusive. The only thing we have to go on here is the quack test, which is inherently inaccurate. ⇒SWATJester 08:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I said CU would be inconclusive, because IP log data is only kept a few weeks. But second, what CU report came back inconclusive? Not the current one, which hasn't been acted on. SchmuckyTheCat

Ryulong and I contacted Dmcdevit on IRC. The conclusion was that the IP data was indefinitive, but it was his opinion that based on editing patterns it could be the same person ⇒SWATJester 08:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

fwiw, I've never been incorrect when anyone else who knows Instantnood's pattern has been asked to take a look. I've been right close to a dozen times. I've never cried wolf and said a user was Instantnood just to see some smackdown action on some newbie I disagreed with. It is more disruptive to let a banned user - who by definition are disruptive - have their way with the wiki than it is to have a recognized user block their actions. Banned users are banned for a reason. When they pop up as a sock they should be acted on. Even if it was not Instantnood, if the edits were so similar to be unrecognizable, then the edits were just as disruptive as if it was. I'm all about not biting newbies, but a new account whose first edit goes straight to POV pushing stub tags is not a new user and knows exactly what they are doing and fully intend that disruption. You said I should wait until an admin justifies the actions. That's bogus. Admins just have extra buttons and if I can clean up disruption from the project, I will. SchmuckyTheCat

Swat would do well to read that linked essay, particularly the part which says And it certainly does not give you any Sergeant-like authority. Several of his actions today have been autocratic, and his deletion of the ITMFA image seems spiteful, considering he has had cross interactions with two editors who had the image on their page, and deleted it immediately after reading a message from me critical of his actions. The image is at deletion review, where its copyright free status is being established. I would hope the image is restored soon. Jeffpw 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume a little good faith here and stop the snide remarks Jeffpw. They're far from helpful. I deleted the image after viewing it on your user page and being curious as to what it meant. I clicked on the source, and found it to not have a correct license. Calling that spiteful is pretty arrogant. ⇒SWATJester 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Swat, you may find my remarks to be unpleasant, but that does not make them snide. I stand by the above comments, and would ask you to assume good faith about me, as well. I would also suggest that the simple fact that your actions have put you on ANI at least twice in one morning might tell you you're editing when you probably better could take a break. I commented to that effect on your talk page, but you deleted it without replying. I repeat it here. Jeffpw 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with initial decision to empty category - "mainland China" is arguably POV, while "People's Republic of China" is not. "Mainland China" asserts that there is a "non-mainland China" and this gets way too close to a "two-China policy" which recognises Taiwan as equal to China. While my own personal political beliefs entertain this, Misplaced Pages is not the place to have this argument. Orderinchaos 11:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What you believe is not entirely correct. Although the KMT on Taiwan no longer insists the ROC is the legitimate China, it still calls Beijing "mainland China". But the usage of "mainland China" here with the category got nothing to do with Taiwan, but Hong Kong and Macau. If you bother to look at any document issued by the Chinese government, it uses "mainland China" to call the rest of the country that is not part of Hong Kong or Macau - in other words the 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 direct cities combined. The Hong Kong and Macau governments use "mainland China" in the same manner too.

Believe it or not, Google for the evidence. 203.218.46.10 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Race of ancient Egyptians, two blocks resulting

Three users, Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently got into an edit war on Race of ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is nothing new, nothing new at all. I blocked the first and third users for 48 hours, and left Taharqa a warning because he made fewer reverts. Then I realized there are a half-dozen more users liable to continue the edit war, so I protected the article for a week. I'm unsure which of the two I blocked broke the 3RR, but it doesn't matter much to me, as they've both edit-warred (and been blocked for it) before, and should have known better. Comments on whether I was too harsh, too lenient welcome; I just did what seemed most likely to end the dispute (for the time being). Picaroon (t) 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm logging off now. If any admin thinks these blocks were the wrong solution, no need to wait for me to respond, just gain consensus here and unblock. Picaroon (t) 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy definitely broke 3RR, and looking at his block log, it would have been justified to block him for longer. Jeeny's violation isn't as clear, since he says he was trying to restore some grammar/spelling corrections, but this edit is more than just spelling and grammar, and the edit summary is indicative of edit warring. Looking at his block log, there's a lot there, but a lot of the blocks were overturned after they were imposed, so the 48 hour length seems fine. It looks like Taharqa had 3 reverts today (of different content each time); a warning was certainly appropriate, and from what I see of his/her conduct on the article (see esp. 23-24 October), I'm not sure I would have stopped at a warning.

Given the ongoing disputes at this article I wonder if it's a good idea to impose a 1RR parole on the article, or other editing restrictions. It's been protected from editing several times already. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

3 full blocklogs. 48h for this kind of long blocklogs is in no way too harsh. Taharqa doesn't need to break the 3RR to be blocked. Egyegy has had some problems discussing at talk page. Same for Jeeny. A bit of a confrontational behavior. I've just blocked him/her for 48h in accordance w/ other blocks. IMO, 1RR is definitely better than protecting the page. Please read these comments at the AN. -- FayssalF - 04:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain to Swatjester why I feel his 1-week block extension is problematic and why I intend to undo it. Regretfully, that discussion is not going well, with Swatjester remarking how he has "lost a huge amount of respect for as an admin." Probably it is the time for someone else to remark on my comments: here. Many thanks. El_C 10:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, that comment was made on the statement that you were going to unblock Jeeny. For another, your concerns are based on your self-stated distaste for incivility block extensions. As the other section on this page, and my talk page both show, there is extensive support for this block. Perhaps the reason that your conversation with me there is not going well, is because you haven't really shown any grounds for overturning the block, other than "I don't like it." ⇒SWATJester 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You concede your comments on her talk page, while she was already blocked, were not particularly designed to be facilitative of further of calm. I don't like it, and neither does Misplaced Pages. El_C 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I conceded that my comments were curt, but civil. Thankfully, wikipedia has no requirement that my comments be voluminous and extensive in my coddling of blocked users. ⇒SWATJester 10:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge that your comments did not facilitate calm. The user repeatedly asked you why she was blocked when the page was protected. You failed to respond, thus turning a volatile situation into an explosive one. El_C 10:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, more accurately, it was already an explosive situation because Jeeny is an explosive user. Go ahead, check her contributions to see how many reverts shes made in the past two days on that page. As for the page protection, I removed it because it should never have been protected in the first place. None of that excuses the fact that she violated 3RR and the initial block was valid. El C stop for a minute and look at the timeline here. Jeeny edit wars. Jeeny and others are blocked. Page is also protected . Jeeny requests unblock, is declined by me. Jeeny asks why she was blocked in the first place, I tell her she was edit warring. Jeeny curses at me, I block for a week, and then unprotect the page. None of what you are saying has anything to do with the fact that Jeeny violated 3RR the first time, and was validly blocked by Picaroon. The fact that Picaroon unnecessarily protected the article is irrelevant: Jeeny was already blocked by then. Every offense that Jeeny made was clearly a blockable offense. I'm honestly starting to question why you want her unblocked so bad. ⇒SWATJester 10:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Without looking into the content of the article dispute, I would comment that El_C has a valid question; what purpose is served by both blocking participants and protecting the article? I am aware that there is at least one good reason, but is it applicable here? It is a reasonable request. LessHeard vanU 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Struck, since Swatjester has answered concerns in above post - edit conflicted. LessHeard vanU 10:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Kizor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm unsure of how to even handle this, and so I figure it's best to report the incident and let administrators make the call. Today I received this message from Kizor (talk · contribs · logs) in which I was summarily dressed down for my opinion on an AFD. I'm just about at a loss for words... for one, it's a blatant violation of WP:NPA ("your disregard for fairness and justice in your haste to destroy dislikable content"). Secondly, it doesn't appear the editor in question applied the same inappropriate message to others who !voted the same way I did. Thirdly, the discussion is almost a month old (early October). Finally, he tries to "shame" me into !voting differently in future discussions. He may have said "without malice" at the bottom of the message, but the content speaks for itself. In my opinion it is wholly inappropriate; I've learned that tis usually better to let an uninvolved party handle the situation instead of exacerbating it by replying to the editor directly. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - I was unaware that Kizor is an administrator, however it doesn't really change my opinion on the matter. The only thing that changes is that I'm sure his intent was indeed without malice, but it certainly doesn't make his message any more appropriate. /Blaxthos 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, i just see no single sign of a personal attack in what you refer to. The tone is a bit harsh but i see nothing else which needs any admin action. The bottom line is, as you said, that he did it w/o malice. So? Is there any harassment or Wiki-stalking? No. Just let it go Blaxthos. -- FayssalF - 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Notified Kizor in case he offers some more insight. I'm more curious why he said it was AFD"s"? Is there a larger history behind this? Either way, I don't really see a personal attack but will leave my mind open. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I said "AfDs" in reference to this one and future ones, we have no other history that I know of.
To address Blaxthos' points, For the second, the two other editors voting delete are casual users, not esteemed editors extremely active in AfDs, so their behaviour is a couple orders of magnitude less significant and I do not feel that there's a need to message them. For the third, it's three weeks old, which I consider recent; not that resent, but not history either. For the final one, any changes made to Blaxthos' behavior would've been a result of himself, agreeing with me. For the first one and the issue of civility, it was indeed written without malice (I checked before saving). There being no polite way to issue a dressing-down that one feels necessary, I went for open and straightforward. What do you guys think - too harsh? --Kizor 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found Kizor to be both friendly and fair and I believe that in any event he meant well and is doing a good job overall. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I believe what you've caught has entirely been my good side, too. --Kizor 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what's appeared below while I was slapping the above comment together, yes, apparently too harsh. Blaxthos makes a good point in his quotation of NPA. At least an "apparent" or "actions that would be indicative of" or something would've oriented things more to that direction, and on reflection everything from "haste" onwards is redundant. --Kizor 06:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
• USER:Kizor - "I'm deeply disappointed in your disregard for fairness and justice in your haste to destroy dislikable content..."

The title of the section he created is "Your behaviour in AfDs". He is directly calling judgement into question (because of an afd !vote, no less!)... how is that about content? Also, do you think it's a fair action, considering there were others who shared the same vote during that AFD? His comment implies that there are other (uncited) AFDs where my judgement is suspect. That is definitely fodder regarding the contributor. /Blaxthos 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Even more follow up - I've been around the block more than a few times, and would consider myself a fairly established and dedicated editor. I don't expect this thing to go anywhere, especially given that Kizor is an administrator. Do I think that his message is appropriate? Absolutely not. Do I think he should suffer for it? Not at all. I just wanted it on record somewhere, with someone, that perhaps such bullyish comments aren't the best things for our administrators to leave. I'm certainly entitled to my opinion that article foo is unencyclopedic/gamecruft, and I am not concerned with "impressing" or "disappointing" other editors (especially the staff). Take from that what you will... /Blaxthos 06:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he is an admin doesn't give him immunity so it is irrelevant. Yes. That's policy but you have to check the context. Some comments are more objective than subjective and vice-versa. He talks about your "disregard" and not "you". In fact, i am concerned more about the tone than any other thing.

Have you first tried to ask him about his comments or inform him about this report? It is always suggested that we inform users about reports so they can explain their actions. This is what Ricky's has volunteered to do. So at least let us hear him. -- FayssalF - 06:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Kizor's comment was a bit abrupt, but I'm really not seeing a personal attack. Instead, it seems that there's a good faith concern being expressed, even if it's being done in a slightly uncivil and/or uneven manner. I don't really see a need for administrator action here. Blaxthos, if you have a concern with Kizor's tone, I recommend bringing it up at Kizor's talkpage. A good faith "Hey, are you aware that this could be seen as a personal attack? Can you tone it down a little?" can have huge weight on someone's talkpage (especially to a new administrator who is probably under closer than usual scrutiny anyway). I'd recommend at least trying to work it out directly with him, rather than heading straight to ANI, which is really for more egregious cases of personal attacks than something like this. --Elonka 06:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So noted. For full disclosure, I only responded to his comment on my talk page, but I did reference this report in the reply. Due to past drama I usually try to avoid direct conflict with other editors, and often find that the involvement of third parties keeps things in perspective (as it did here). Thanks for taking the time to give your advice. /Blaxthos 06:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Itchy trigger fingers

I just had a brand-new article blown out of the water before I even had a chance to finish it. It was about a new radio-controlled model, the HobbyZone Millennium PTU. There is no need to quote policy to me; I am well aware of it. However, it was tagged as being an advertisement, which it was not. Notablity was more than established in the text and I was in the process of adding external links when it was deleted. I had written many similar articles on other models under my previous username...and these may be in danger of being lost as well. One thing I learned early on as an administrator was to check the posting user's edit history. I made the mistake of not doing so on a number of occasions and got seven shades of hell for it. Believe me, I learned fast when it came to experienced editors. I would greatly appreciate it if this were restored. Thank you. I'm signing off for the night, so if anyone wishes to contact me, please do so on my userpage. --PMDrive1061 07:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to make a post to WP:DRV, alongside the references that you want to add. This makes the undeletion requests easier to track as well as giving a more stable refernece on why the article should be kept (at least temporarly.) --Sigma 7 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's the appropriate place to discuss this. -- FayssalF - 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Those sorts of discussions used to be under the heading of "articles for undeletion." Thanks again for sending me in the right direction. I'll list it there right now. --PMDrive1061 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted articles don't need to go to DRV before recreation - the recreated article just needs to address the original reason for deletion, or it's still speediable. Natalie 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest building the article on a user sub-page first, and then copy/paste into the article when it's in a more finished state. That might help with the itchy trigger finger. Ronnotel 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarifiation to PMDrive. There is a difference between an 'advertisement' and 'written like an advertisement'. "Another unique feature is" and "which may be ordered through any hobby dealer which stocks the model" justify an {{advert}} tag. -- FayssalF - 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Two months ago, I left Misplaced Pages. I have not returned (and I have no intention to). I am merely opening this discussion to try and get things in the air.

I decided to see whether the time was right by experimenting with a new account, User:JohnEMcClure. Before this, I reread WP:SOCK, and I'm quite sure I didn't violate anything. I didn't edit any articles that I did before. As to what happened, you can see. I did, with some deliberation, try and see what would happen if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary (but I didn't do anything I deemed as a personal attack, as commenting on actions are different from commenting on people). I would request a larger-scale review of what happened, as I feel it reveals some serious problems with how we deal with these things. Perhaps some of you disagree, and I would be interested to see what people think. --Eyrian 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to permit the account to be unblocked, under the condition that you refrain from edits such as this? Although I originally declined your unblock request, I do believe in second chances and I'd be willing to let you have one, through the JohnEMcClure account, or a fresh one. Anthøny 09:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself. I was making a determination if I would be any happier if I returned; it's clear I wouldn't be.

The issue I feel is significant is that the actions taken regarding the block were, to me, inappropriate, and that it's a problem that needs to be looked at. --Eyrian 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you'd be well-counselled not to unblock your own alternate account. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Konstable showed that it was unwise. Daniel 09:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. But that's really very immaterial; why would I want the account unblocked? It simply doesn't matter to me. --Eyrian 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

Maybe I interpreted "I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself." wrongly. Daniel 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I may not have been clear. The account was designed to be entirely disposable, I have no investment in it whatsoever. Its block status is immaterial. --Eyrian 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what should be discussed here is whether what happened was justified. Anthony has stated that he'd be willing to unblock the other account now. Why? What has changed? The status of the account doesn't matter to me, but what happened to determine that status does. --Eyrian 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see that this is the correct venue, although I am at a loss to determine which is (Jimbo's talkpage has become deprecated recently), for this meta discussion regarding the communities response to sockpuppets. The matter which might have required admin attention - the tagging of User:JohnEMcLure as a sockpuppet of a banned user (which one has not been indicated) - is either resolved or disregarded. Perhaps Eyrian/JohnEMcClure open an RfC (with input from Anthøny?) to discuss this - interaction with WP might be limited to that one venue. As I said, I don't see any need for admin intervention here. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This was my natural choice for a forum to consider a block, though I suppose I didn't count the fact that it was moot too heavily. I don't know if I want to stick around long enough to go through an RfC. I really just wanted to get the issue on the table, and in sight of the right people, and this seemed like a decent way to do that. --Eyrian 10:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

For clarification, because simply reviewing the talk page doesn't make it clear, according to the the block log, Durova blocked JohnEMcClure for being a sock of JB196, not for the content disputes necessarily. I have no feeling whether the block was right or wrong at this point, because I am not sure what evidence the sock allegation was made on. Into The Fray /C 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for Durova for the truth, but it seems that the probable beginning was this edit. --Eyrian 10:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm...if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary..runs along the lines of Creative_trolling I'd think. Eyrian, you continue on your way with your interpretation seemingly of anything later than 1910(?) being trivia and deletable. For some reason you decide to continue incognito (?) and have run into the same trouble. Trouble is where you draw the line in the sand is way past loads of people (which is fine), but you continue to be disruptive about it (which is not), and patronising and antagonistic edit summaries don't help either. You might enjoy yourself more if you did something more creative than working on wiki-pruning so much. C'mon, get an article up to GA or FA even, I'll even help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw what looked like distinctive JB196 methodology. If this is a different disruptive user then I've no objection to renaming the reason for blocking. Go ahead and request a checkuser. Durova 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to which line he thinks he's testing. The line drawn between real In Pop Culture sections and trivia lists? The line between good sock and bad? It may sound stupid, but I looked at his contribs, and since most mainspace edits removed things like 'Yohgurt in Pop culture', which consisted of a single scene from the Simpsons, I don't see him crossing any particular lines in that regard, and if he really tried to find the tipping point for good sock bad sock, well it's not like that couldn't use some clarifications, we've had a few of those sort of sections here before. ThuranX 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence would be a worthwhile read. I'm also willing to discuss this offsite with any editor in good standing. Durova 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

this is one example, though an article which needs cleanup - there is alot of literature etc. written about the subject. Much of what he has deleted is extremely trivial, but he has some very strong views which at the other end are only shared by a few and quite arbitrary and is prepared to really push the point at times. To be fair alot of messy articles that survived deletion were improved but the whole saga was the most unpleasant I've been involved with in my time here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The alternate account also posted in this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I'm unfamiliar with some of the history. But from what I can tell an admin with an apparent history of contentious edits disappears for two months then upon return creates a fake account as a disposable "experiment" to see what happens if he provokes people by taking things "over the line." The first edit this new account does is take up the WP:POINT work of a contentious editor accused of being the proxy of one of Misplaced Pages's most notorious sockpuppeteers ever, who has just triggered a massive ArbCom case involving a couple dozen Wikipedians. He then votes to delete an article in a contested AFD. The admin then uses the fake account to commit incivilities, accuse me of stalking him, make vague predictions of prevailing and edit warring against me (which, given that it was actually an admin in disguise, is rather ominous), and deny that it's a sock puppet.

I will hold my tongue here until and unless I learn all the facts. Given that he has hidden the truth and only admitted things once people caught on, how can one be sure one knows everything? The only question is how one interprets it. At best this is strange conduct for an administrator - copy-catting an editor who just caused an arbcom case seems misguided. Administrators are supposed to carry mops and brooms, not carry out elaborate ruses to test the community's response to provocation. At worst it violates fundamental behavior policies.

It seems reasonable to investigate whether Eyrian has sockpuppeted elsewhere, or is a sockpuppet, or is somehow connected with Alkivar, Burntsauce, and/or JB196. A block while we sort it out might make some sense. He claims he has no intention of returning to Misplaced Pages anyway so surely he won't be inconvenienced. Depending on what we find, some of these accounts may be logical parties to Alkivar's ArbCom case or a new arbitration request, or are simply blockable. You can obviously form up your own opinion and decide what to do. Just letting you know from the peanut gallery as one who is affected when administrative matters get out of hand, this is beyond odd, it's creepy. - Wikidemo 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A desysopping should be considered at this point, at least. Neil ☎ 10:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Breaching experiments are a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...when you spell it out like that Wikidemo it does indeed get murkier. OK, what now? I was unaware of the other issue. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another weird thing

Again, this might not be the right forum, but here goes. I created the secttion above titled "Weird", but I forgot to sign it. The new weird thing is that somebody else's signature got attached to it. I'm not User:Jéské Couriano and the diffs show that I made the edit. Any idea why this happened? --Steven J. Anderson 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, looks like you forgot to sign and sinebot got confused (I didn't go through the history). Not surprising that sinebot would get confused -- this has to be one of the most active discussion pages on WP. You can always fix it. Into The Fray /C 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I used {{unsigned}} to give attribution to the post I was answering, but I must have copied the wrong name out of the page history after looking for the diff in which your message appeared. Mea culpa. --Dynaflow babble 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block

User:172.209.25.107. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not without proper warnings being left first. I've laid the first one down. Tabercil 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Proper warnings? Did you look at the contribs? A vandalism-only IP who behaves like this doesn't require any warnings. I would certainly block, except I see TerriersFan already did. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Help on Mike Huckabee - second request

I filed this BLP/N report, about an offsite call to arms in -'defending Huckabee's article from criticisms by the liberal elitists' a few days ago, it went unnoticed, I brought it here, it went unnoticed.

User:Huckabee08 appeared, blanked a few times while obviously hyping his guy, then got blocked.

Now we have an established editor admitting to hunting for negative criticisms. I spoke to him about this, suggesting he find other articles, or take time off, User_talk:Jmegill#Please_be_aware: but he's not listening, and continues to edit the page.

Since that offsite posting, there's been a lot more editors doing a lot more edits. some try to help, some are just interested in making Huckabee look like a prince. I'm requesting a week-long semi on the page to prevent any further agenda-warriors from joining the fray, and I'm requesting an admin please speak to Jmegill and Shogun108 about pushing their views on the article. (Shogun108 admitted to being a member of the HucksArmy group, and his only edits are to the article, making him a clear SPA.) ThuranX 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on Citizen Kane article.

User:Annoynmous has ignored User:Erik's in giving the WP:OVERLINK guideline and Annoynmous has broken the 3RR with User:Erik, User:Bignole, and I and he/she refuses to yield to consensus. Reginmund 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to have only made one small edit to New Zealand. Are they using sock- and/or meatpuppets? Caknuck 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant User:Annoynmous. It appears another user has corrected it for me though. That was a metathesis on my part. Sorry for the confusion. The revert warrior is User:Annoynmous. Reginmund 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading the situation right, this seems to be an edit war over whether or not Orson Welles is wiki-linked in the infobox? It looks like all 3 of you have flown right over the 3RR for something extremely trivial. --VectorPotential 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3RR. That is why I reported the situation, but the situation concerns Annoynmous adhering to the guidelines and reverting three users' attempts to remove the overlinking. Reginmund 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Crofty 4000 block review

Want a review of a block against User:Crofty 4000 who doesn't seem to be here for anything more than posting to his user page. Per Kate's tool, out of his 108 edits here, 93 have been to his user page, creating what I would call a fairuse nightmare. I first asked him to remove them, then removed them myself when I didn't get a response. He reverted, I warned again. He then reverted again and I blocked for only 24 hours. Does that seem too harsh and too bitey in anyone else's opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems on the lenient side if anything. Compare with this case I was involved with yesterday. The relative paucity of mainspace contributions means we do not need to extend any special tolerance in this case I would say. If they repeat this on their return I would indefinitely block them. Here's another example of a problematic user page I would be interested in having other eyes on. --John 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK is overdue, admin action requested, here's how

On the main page is the "Did you know" column. It is overdue for change as noted by the clock (which is on red alert). The next update page is ready. It just has to be moved to the main page but this needs admin action.

Next update page is here

Thank you. I usually hold off on mentioning this, but it does seem more time urgent than some of the ANI issues. DYK is on the main page, the most viewed page of WP. Archtransit 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought... can't we get a bot to do the page moving... and it would just occur every 24 hours or whatever? I'm not fully into what the tast requires, but there ought to be some way to automate this, instead of having "red alerts". —— Eagle101 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, since this is moving content to the main page, it has to be checked / done by an admin (well, another "trusted user" would be good as well, but since we only have the distinction editor / admin, it has to be an admin). The chance of vandalism and pranks on the main page would be way too big if this was moved by an adminbot. Fram 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block. Spartaz 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo was referring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Misplaced Pages should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections. Anthøny 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.) I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring. Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Misplaced Pages policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Misplaced Pages is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute). It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- But|seriously|folks  23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving. However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks. I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others. He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished. Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again. Then when his block expired, he did. —LactoseTI 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at Goguryeo. The reverts were on edits made by this annon IP which are as follows. In these edits, stable contents built upon a very difficult consensus were unilaterally deleted with no discussion whatsoever. I believe reverting the changes were made in good faith and contributed to maintaining the integrity and stability of the article, and do not constitute edit warring. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history", but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of An Jung-geun, a Korean national hero, as a terrorist? Why INSIST that An Jung-geun was a terrorist, when it is very obviously offensive to Koreans and "independent activist" or "political assassin" are good enough definitions for this individual? Can Goodfriend's reverts be really defined as ultranationalism when he was restoring material where supportive western(i.e. non-Korean) reliable sources are abound? Please have the courtesy of taking the time to look at other secondary and tertiary sources on this subject, and decide for yourselves where the extremism(e.g. ultranationalism) really lies. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that? We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles. This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat. Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts. If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia. I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic. One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring. This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. —LactoseTI 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Using Misplaced Pages just as a signature collection

Although they are new users, Eddymania7 (talk · contribs) and Tony Spencer Hawk (talk · contribs) look to be only here to see how big they can make their guestbook, they seem to know eachother, and I assume one has told the other about Misplaced Pages, and how fun it is. While using guestbooks is not against the rules here at Misplaced Pages, I believe it should be if the user is only using Misplaced Pages to make their signature book as big as possible. I have a signature book available for anyone to sign, yet I still edit mainspace. What are people's views on this, and what would be the appropriate action to take? I gave one of the users a self made note/warning , and would like others views on this. Thanks, — jacĸrм (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT clearly says that Misplaced Pages is not for the purposes that these two editors have been pursuing. This is policy. I am familiar with Eddymania7, as I've had to revert a number of "vandal"/test edits. I almost blocked the account as a vandalonly account, but his edits did not seem malicious, just misguided. If the editors are here to contribute, then it is not so much an issue. But if their only edits are for socializing, then there are a lot of other free resources for this purpose. — ERcheck (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Both users have also removed my notices I left them about not using Misplaced Pages for these purposes. This leads me to believe they have not read them.. — jacĸrм (talk)

I suspect it means they read them but don't care. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them, but I'm not aware of an actual warning for using Misplaced Pages in this way. — j</fo{{nt>acĸrм (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for {{uw-socialnetwork}}. east.718 at 22:00, 10/28/2007

No, I know that exists, but it isn't a warning which can be extended upon, such as vandalism: level 1,2,3,4 etc. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If these users continue like this, they will be blocked, as they are not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Typically this means disruptive users. A total lack of contributions also counts as "not contributing constructively". --Deskana (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to good, old-fashioned personal messages rather than templates? violet/riga (t) 23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if they don't stop, block indef. Jbeach 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, it is possible that we have a case of sockpuppetry. User:Eddymania7 created User:Tony Spencer Hawk's (TSH) talk page here. Then he requested that the page not be deleted, signing it and then unsigning it.. Then TSH signed the same note.. Both have a pattern of deleting talk page messages and have signing user talk pages and getting signatures as their main activities. Blocking is not an unreasonable step if they continue to use Misplaced Pages as a social site. — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards