Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:13, 14 January 2008

• 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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• 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?

Hezbollah userbox

User:Raggz

slakr

User John Celona

• John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block for this user. He has disregarded the consensus for an article which took days to determine, has blatantly used inflammatory/hateful language on edit summaries despite requests from other editors to stop, and now he is making POV edits in a vindictive way. Others have experienced the same thing, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:John_celona -- there are many editors who have asked him to stop with the repeated bad faith accusations -- pls see Peter Yarrow talk page...Oh, and I forgot to mention that he has made several edits to the article using a suspected sockpuppet, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:David_in_DC#Checkuser_.3F--- --Jkp212 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I made exactly one post having forgotten to sign in. So much for sock puppets. User Jkp212 should be blocked as he has posted inflamatory language falsely claiming that a judge claimed a 14 year old girl "coerced" a 30 year old man into sex. This is not true. In fact, the child "resisted the advances" of the molester. ,, Despite being asked four times to provide a source for this alleged quote (made at 20:00 on the Peter Yarrow discussion page) user Jkp212 is unable to provide such a source.John celona (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Jkp212's primary charge, that John celona has disregarded consensus on . The minor content issue in question (whether to describe a prison term as "short" or "three months long") hadn't been specifically agreed-upon. Regarding the other charges some diffs or other evidence would help. Editing without logging-in isn't sock puppetry unless the editor attempts to make it appear that he's different people to violate 3RR or skew consensus. I don't see any blockable offense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, User John Celona did much more than try to add "three month". That is a huge misrepresentation -- pls read his edit history. He repeatedly added inflammatory material to the article and edit (without discussing it on the talk page) DESPITE being asked kindly to avoid such edits. He attacked every other editor on the page, and he made vindictive POV edits as a fighting tool. Have you actually looked at his edits? And yes, there WAS a consensus reached, which is why several editors kept asking John to respect the consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any fair reading of the Yarrow talk page shows Misplaced Pages at its best, including one RfC that reached a resolution, thru December 15th. From December 21st on, the date of John Celona's first edit that upset the work of a hard won consensenus, everything degenerates. In this case, reading the actual talk page, with a keen eye to the chronology, tells the story better than any recapitulation would. David in DC (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Dec 21, user Sarcastic Idealist asked John to avoid use of the word "molest" and other inflammatory language in edit summaries. He did so on the talk page, and John clearly saw this, and then went on to use the word and other inflammatory language in edit summaries numerous times. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the word "molest" is in any number of the verifiable links I posted on the disussion page. I believe 10 of them were posted. On the talk page, not the article. John celona (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user in question is being somewhat tendentious (as is, truth be told, User:Jkp212 from time to time), but I don't think we're anywhere near blocking territory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that: if anyone deserves to be warned about anything it is Will and Jkp212. They are trying to bite a newbie because he disagrees with them. Yes John seems to be seems to be a bit tendentious at times but he seems to be learning from his mistakes.

John Celona is adding to the problem by making WP:POINT edits to Gene Krupa and Charles Lahr. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Willbeback and Sarscastic idealist But allow me to put things in another perspective by saying that John celona is a newbie who seems to be learning from his mistakes while David and Wkp212 are continuing to try and find ways to vilify him for haying opinions that are at variance with there own. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding, Albion. We have tried numerous times to make very civil requests on Celona's talk page or on article talk pages (as have you), and his edits seem to be getting more combative. disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 or take a look at the yarrow talk page. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 is combative, disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, John celona stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in this edit concerning articles Holocaust and Holocaust denial. He has not backed down from that statement. Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you will find that was in reponse to a threat from a user on another page to my posting of my mother's experience in WWII France. The user threatened that by posting my mother's truthfull recollections I would be prosecuted in France! My response, while "in your face" and sardonic was not unprovoked by such a ludicrous coercive threatJohn celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these the "truthful recollection" that you refer to, which are essentially Holocaust Denial? : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=144901749 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment, while offensive and totally a jerk move, was also 7 months ago. The time to complain about it was then, not now. I agree, however, that running to other articles to edit them to his idea rather than find consensus and then act isn't the best solution, and that having been asked to wait for that consensus, any further edits of the sort are POINTy. A warning is urgently needed for such system-gaming, and maybe a block. ThuranX (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a BLP dispute on one page has any connection to pages on deceased persons to whom the BLP doesn't apply. If an administrator tells me to desist from putting these verifiable links to pages on dead people I will do so. John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that user Celona has violated the 3RV policy over the last day or two. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, could you provide us with one article where that is the case?John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Krupa --Jkp212 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::False. As anyone who goes to the revision page can plainly see. ] Please point out where I made more than 3 reverts? If I had, you would have had me blocked in 5 minutes flat. Perhaps you should be blocked for posting false information, removing properly sourced material from non-BLP articles for BLP rationales and posting false and unsourced material (as you did on the Peter Yarrow page at 20:00 on January 8, 2007) claiming a Judge stated a child "coerced" her adult molester into sex while the sourced material clearly states she "resisted the advances" of her molester. John celona (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and while there's clearly some edit-warring going on (for which it takes two), I don't see a WP:3RR violation. Could you provide diffs of the three offending edits by John Celona? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Below are some of the edits. I will note that there were a number of editors who had requested that he not make those edits at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183097877

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183112037

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183304527

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183320993

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183531276

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183624764 --Jkp212 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'd rather not have anyone blocked, and if user Celona now understands how disruptive this type of thing has been, and avoids doing it, then I would prefer that there not be a block. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From 23:19 8 Jan and 21:56 9 Jan, he reverts three times to a version initially edited in just a couple hours earlier. If it's not an actual textbook 3:24 ratio, it's close enough, especially in light of the repeated requests for him to wait and find consensus. Add to that his current wiki-lawyering attitude, and it's enough for a block to prevent more reversions without consensus, and to allow consensus to begin to form. That way, after 24 or 48 hours, there will be some premises regarding consensus to whihc he can add a statement, one which he'll have 24-48 hours to prepare. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is cause for a block here. He didn't exceed 3RR, those edits occurred days ago, he's been discussing the matter on talk pages, and there isn't a consensus one way or the other. Wikilawyering charges may be leveled all around. Page protection, rather than an individual block, would be more appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In his latest less-than-helpful edit, this editor has now accused me of being a stalker, on my talk page. I've responded to him there. If one views the totality of this editor's contributions, one is left wondering why this editor, who might fairly be called a troll, is being enabled to the extent that he is. David in DC (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" is a word you are very familar with, as it is oft used by exasperated editors towards you, as a cursory look at either your talk page or your behavior on discussion pages shows. To wit, from July-" Trolling It's not appropriate for you to comment in such a manner on a deletion discussion. In future, please comment on the subject at hand and do not engage in petty trolling at every opportunity. You can and will be blocked for such behaviour. Nick 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)".

You can, and surely will, continue to slander me in the most venomous manner. I suppose it is easier to do that than to discuss the reason you are stalking me-that you want to censor properly sourced material from the article of a well known political/cultural figure who served a prison sentence for forcibly molesting a little girl who "resisted his advances". , , .John celona (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Yarrow page had all the sourced material about Peter Yarrow's arrest, conviction, jail sentence and clemency it needed before this editor arrived on the scene. It was worked out painstakingly over numerous iteration, among advocates of no info whatsoever to advocates of lots of info. The compromise, which created a very good balance between WP: WEIGHT, WP:NOTABILITY, and all the regular BLP concerns was disrupted by your unilateral edits and refusal to work in a consensus-like fashion. I was one of the folks ADVOCATING more for info. JkP was one of the ones advocting little or none. We were both satisfied, as were all the other editors who spoke up, until the unilateral, non-good-faith assuming edits started. And the disruption continued from there.

I resent the accusation of slander. The truth is an absolute defense against a charge of slander. David in DC (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, David the casual glancer at the Yarrow talk page can see that the whole edit war was over you and JkP trying to censor from the article the well sourced fact Yarrow "served 3 months in prison"; a fact which has been on the article since January 30, 2005-THREE YEARS AGO! John celona (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if the casual glancer was unable to read English. David in DC (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

• Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please tell this person to lay off the accusations, innuendo, and personal attacks? He has received final warnings from two admins (Henrik and Jehochman) and is still continuing. He just caused Waterboarding to be reprotected a 5th or 6th time with another edit war. More chestnuts:

• here
• here

He had posted the same text on Ned Scott's page here on ANI, and then pulled it. I have several times publically asked this person to stop with this poisonous atmosphere, and have largely abandoned that damned page because of his POV pushing and harassment. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the Blackwater Worldwide artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to WP:OWN the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of  Unrelated on RFCU within a week. That is the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from WP:OWNing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. Neutral Good (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.

Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email. That may be forgiveness, not vindication. Jehochman 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - Alison 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by User:Neutral Good that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. BLACKKITE 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to synthesize the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own original research. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, the RfC page.)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to endlessly argue against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. Jehochman 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice how deeply involved Jechochman is in the article content. Though this particular page that we are reading right now has NOTHING to do with the content of that article, he brings the whole debate from that page here, where it is irrelevant. I will forego proving his contentions wrong, as they belong on that page not this one. But, the important thing to notice is how he is using wikipedia administrative practices to push around people that he disagrees with on the article. Before any action is taken based upon his words, his motives and demeanor should be examined as well. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statements by both Neutral Good and Blue Tie. I came into that article after an edit war I found via RC, and that Alison locked down. I stuck around, and occasionally helped out on talk over the months, and finally helped to get it unprotected--I have nearly no edits to the article itself, beyond gnome work like reference formatting. I have consistently asked for more people to look at and watch the mess on Talk:Waterboarding as the situation had begun to deteriorate: why would I do that, exactly, on multiple noticeboards over the past 6-7 weeks, if I was doing something illicit or trying to hide some nefarious activity? If there is some sort of contested situation I believe the only people who would not want more attention drawn to it are the people who are wrong, and arguing from a position either not supported by policy or by facts. I've told both Neutral Good and Blue Tie to get more attention from admins on the article themselves if they wanted. They complain rather loudly when I do so, myself. Why is it they want less attention drawn to Talk:Waterboarding...?

The waves of SPAs then all arrived en masse for whatever American election cycle reason. Either way, this has nothing to do with the waterboarding article specifically in this posting I did--it is not a content matter. It is about the aggressive SPA Neutral Good, who does not contribute to anything but one topic (Waterboarding), runs around this site in my wake, waging some sort of campaign against me. He appears to be either a troll or bad hand account. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)

That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. htom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Misplaced Pages, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? Lawrence Cohen 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has spoken out (unfortunately in a sarcastic and confrontational manner) about a problem that has concerned many of us on the Waterboarding article. Please do not disregard what he says simply because of the way that he says it. Lawrence, Jehochman and their friends came up empty-handed on their first two Checkuser attempts, were partially (and only briefly) successful on their third and, despite all of their caterwauling, the influence of the Harvard Law students has been positive, thoughtful and well-measured. They are abusing the administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN the article, and should be banned from it for a week. Maybe even a month. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

And now, if you don't mind, I'll respond to the preceding sneaky, underhanded attempt to delegitimize me by labeling my account as an SPA. I happen to choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, as I have every right to do. I happen to have an ISP that gives me a rapidly shifting IP address; otherwise, I could point to a trail of thousands of edits on hundreds of unrelated articles, going back more than two years. This SPA tag is precisely what I'm talking about when I say, "They are abusing administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN this article." There is a constant level of low-level needling and baiting coming from them and it is destroying WP:CIV. I will not tolerate being delegitimized in this fashion. Please do something effective about this sneaky little pack of trolls. Forgive me for this outburst, but they are really getting on my last nerve. Regards, Bob 70.9.48.23 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

OK, as I've become more frustrated with the ability of tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editing to stall improvement of articles, I'm going to propose something here, as an admin uninvolved in this dispute. Neutral Good (talk · contribs), based on current contribution history, appears to be an aggressive single-purpose agenda-driven account with evidence of edit-warring and tendentious editing. S/he is by no means the sole problematic presence at the Waterboarding page, but his activity has been signficantly unconstructive and is unbalanced by positive contributions elsewhere.

I propose that Neutral Good be banned from article/talk pages relating to waterboarding, loosely defined, for a period of 1-3 months. This will provide an opportunity for this user to contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia (they have expressed an interest in improving several unrelated articles: , ) and develop a track record of positive contribution. The waterboarding article will still be there in a few months. I'd like to hear thoughts on this proposal, ideally from uninvolved editors and admins. MastCell 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I protected the article again only a few days after it came out of the previous protection. It's clear that what we've been doing up to now hasn't worked. I don't know the positions or histories of the combatants, but any admin who has the fortitude to dive in and start topic banning (or blocking) the most troublesome edit warriors has my support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like the imagination behind this solution. "If you aren't a single-purpose account, then prove it by editing other articles for a while." This solution should be used more often. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. I believe that without this editor the Waterboarding dispute will be resolved more quickly, and allow Neutral Good to improve unrelated articles in the meantime. henrik•talk 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And what were the lot of you planning to do about the editors who "are abusing administrative processes in a campaign to WP:OWN the article"? Three-month article bans for them as well? That would be the only fair solution. If you're going to ban Neutral Good from the article for three months, ban the people who have been abusing admin processes in their effort to harass Neutral Good and others who disagree with them. Otherwise, you endorse abuse of admin processes, and you endorse this violation of the Misplaced Pages policy known as WP:OWN. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly, I hear crickets chirping rather loudly ... 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that 20 minutes were allowed to lapse before your comment got a response. I don't see evidence of "abuse of administrative processes in a campaign to own the article." I see a tense situation involving a number of otherwise productive contributors and at least one tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. My instinct is to remove the single-purpose agenda warrior from the equation temporarily and allow the other editors, who generally have track records of constructive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, a chance to work it out. On Misplaced Pages, it's very easy for one person shouting at the top of their lungs to drown out 10 people trying to be reasonable. If you have actual diffs and a more compelling argument that some sort of abuse of process is taking place, then please present them, but rhetoric alone is not particularly convincing. MastCell 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't respond sooner, but I only look in on WP:AN/I about once every day or two -- I find it more enjoyable to spend my time working various articles than to opine on disputes. But I stand by my earlier statement: if a given editor appears to have no other other goal than to force her or his own point of view on an article, that person should be encouraged to work on other parts of Misplaced Pages for a while -- regardless of allegations of "administrative abuses" or whether I agree or disagree with the point of view in question. The fact is that we have over two million articles here; getting into a long, tedious fight over one of them is counterproductive at best -- & self-destructive at worst. -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't help noticing that the endorsements of a block for Neutral Good were coming like machine-gun fire about two minutes apart, and in fact encountered an edit conflict with one another; but the moment I suggested some equity, the machine gun fell silent. If you want diffs, I'll look them up tonight and post them on your Talk page in the morning. Fair enough? In the meantime, try reviewing the Talk:Waterboarding page and the edit histories of Badagnani (talk · contribs), Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs), and Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) over the past couple of weeks. That's where I'll be looking. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs) certainly looks bad from a brief skim, but has not edited in the past 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with him unless he acts up again. I'd recuse myself from any action regarding Badagnani (talk · contribs), since I seem to recall we've had some fairly heated discussion on diet-related articles. Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) has a track record of positive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, including several FA/GA's, and I don't see anything in his contribs there warranting sanctions, though diffs are always welcome. MastCell 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor: I've been silent recently, because I've been in this cyclical wheel for a long time, as see no point in repeating myself on the talk page. I've been staying off the article main page, and even the talk recently as it is pointless. As soon as consensus is achieved, the article is unlocked, it then hits the fan again. If people would rather I would keep on ....? I'm tired of being baited by puppets and trolls there. You will note I did not get involved in this latest go at Neutral Good. Since when was backing off bad? Unrelated, I have no issue with IP editors, I preffered to do so as an IP but eventually had to switch to user with all the RfCs to vote (as annoyingly, IPs are banned there) - plenty of bay area comcast IPs before the creation of this Inertia Tensor account were me. Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotta stick my nose in this. I keep seeing SPA being thrown around as a pretty bad thing over and over lately. It is not inherently a bad thing. It is not against policy. Some here do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word though. Arkon (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SPA's are not inherently bad. Some of our best articles are written largely by SPA's. However, SPA plus soapbox plus tendentious editing is a noxious and all-too-common combination. MastCell 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has already explained, on Talk:Waterboarding, that he had an extensive history of editing as an anonymous IP. Again, that is not inherently a bad thing, nor is it against policy, but some her do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the SPA issue, are Good's edits tendentious or needlessly provocative? Looking no further than his contributions from today, I see edits along the lines of this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah not a particularly good comment. However, considering the heat on the topic, my completely uneducated, uninformed, worthless opinion is that it isn't worthy of a topic ban of any sort. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ban as a marginally involved editor with this page watchlisted for a while. ➪HiDrNick! 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a 3 month ban for violating something that is not policy (SPA) is extreme. If the problem is WP:TE, I was unaware that TE was a policy either. If you are going to exercise a ban, it really should be for something that the community has agreed to by policy. But realizing that wikipedia does not always operate by either consensus or policy but on some other indescribable basis, I would at least suggest that there should be better evidence of evil than has been presented here. The frustrations of two highly biased admins (at least on this topic) who are pushing other editors away from that page should not be sufficient testimony for extreme actions. I do not like to communicate the way that NG does, but as with Arkon, I just do not see a serious violation in his comments. And I believe it is incorrect to say that NG was the cause of most of the protections on the article and it is inconceivable that he is the only cause ... yet he is the only one accused. I get the feeling that this is a case of scapegoat.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think every good editor agrees that incivility and disruptive editing are not helpful or wanted on wikipedia. Accusing admins of being biased is not going to help. They are chosen for their track record in good editing practice. If you find yourself in confrontation with one you should be questioning your behaviour and your bias. In my opinion there is clearly enough evidence on the talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're damn straight, Blue Tie. Here's what I've seen in Internet communities and this one is no different. The trolls pick on the new guy. The new guy reacts a little strongly. The community, to the astonishment of the new guy and any detached observers, rises up in defense of their trolls because they are, after all, THEIR trolls. Neutral Good (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, you sort of play right into it and do yourself no favors by calling people trolls. I suspect, like many people, you are getting emotional over these things (feeling targeted can do that too). I recommend that if you feel emotional, you take some time off to cool down. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I take time off to cool down on a regular basis. In fact, I just came back around Christmas from (approximately) two months of Wikibreak and saw this mess. I also take at least two eight-hour periods off every day, to work and to sleep. There appear to be several editors on the article who don't even do that. Neutral Good (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A BETTER PROPOSAL would be to instead LOCK the article and the talk page thread each for 16 hours each day to allow editors a hance to cool off and relax withoitu worrying that the others guys are fucking around with the original ocntent. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing. Which is a guideline. As I said, Neutral Good is not the only problematic presence on the article, nor is s/he the root of all evil. On the other hand, the other editors currently involved generally have a track record of being able to work collaboratively elsewhere. Neutral Good has a track record of unmitigated tendentiousness. The idea behind the topic ban is not to excuse everyone else, but to a) temporarily remove a particularly inflammatory and unconstructive presence, and b) to give Neutral Good a chance to build up a better track record of collaborative editing on other articles before returning to waterboarding. Trust me, the article and the issue will still be there in 3 months. MastCell 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem with you last statement based upon the history there. Previously (before I edited there), there were apparently disputes. Supposedly they came to some consensus. Some of the editors now claim that regardless of right wrong, left right, etc. they are simply seeking to preserve consensus. The argument boils down to "We already decided so it must not change". If that philosophy prevails, then when he returns in 3 months, the chorus will be "We already decide now go away". I must have missed it, because I do not see NG's edits as being especially bad on that page, and I think it should bear some weight on the matter that he was, almost immediately accused of being malicious (as I recall) based upon the fact that he was new but seemed to know wiki-editing. When an editor is greeted with that, and treated badly by a small mob, their reaction to that treatment can look like tendentious editing. And perhaps it is. But it is not exactly one sided.

I believe a real solution to the problems on that page would be to ban anyone who insists on only one form of wording and nothing else. The only folk left then would be those who are willing to consider other wordings. Such people are able to negotiate and eventually come to consensus. People who are intractable, not just on principles but on exact wording cannot come to consensus if anyone else disagrees with them. That is a big part of the problem there. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the problem

Yes, it's long. Sorry. Please read it anyway.

The problem is that Waterboarding is a massive hot potato in the current American election cycle, which is attracting more and more people that want to install an American-centric POV onto the article, irregardless of minor details such as the fact that American politics are a tiny fraction of what has significance and weight in Misplaced Pages articles. 144 sources say Waterboarding is torture, a solid half dozen to a dozen say it's not. The ones that say "not" are all American, right-of-center types. One political viewpoint of one idealogical bent getting to install modern American POV onto a topic that dates back to around the year 1400, predating the United States, is the problem, but no one is hardly willing to come out and say that in the interests of WP:AGF. I'm going to suspend AGF a moment here, which I know I shouldn't do, but someone needs to try to summarize this mess. If this goes to Arbcom this is probably going to be my statement.

That is the crux of the entire problem--it's a pure push to minimize and downplay the wording and effects of the article, specifically in calling waterboarding "torture". That simple facet is a content dispute, but an extremely, extremely weakly positioned one, that virtually every new person to the waterboarding page has agreed is a weak position--the views of the American Right are a lone viewpoint in general, and the view that waterboarding is not torture is a very, very small minority viewpoint. Various courageous warriors however are trying to inflate this fictional disparity into something on the level of the debates on abortion, Holocaust denial, or global warming. It simply isnt. It's a small number of Americans saying that after 9/11, it's not torture. It doesn't work that way, because that violates NPOV. It can argued it may be disputed in some American political circles, but it's preposterous to say that globally waterboarding is contested as a form of torture. Any suggestions that the article and in particular it's lead reflect a global world view primarily are met with scorn. One person even was so bold as to say that foreign opinion is irrelevant, because they haven't been through what we Americans have.

That is the problem: a tiny minority group of very vocal tenditious editors are insisting that a minority American point of view needs to have elevated, weight-enhanced authority to preserve NPOV. Everyone else says that in the interests of NPOV, the exact opposite needs to happen, with the minority American POV (that is held by very few sourced, notable authorities) being relegated to the WP:FRINGE side of things per WP:WEIGHT. Neither side is willing to budge, and with each verbal body check it just gets worse each day, until the past 24 hours when we finally had people running around virtually waving their arms screaming "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" in all directions, on every side, following the Harvard class experiment that en masse decided to decend on the waterboarding debate to weigh in (just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre).

Before waterboarding was on the news media every day the page and talk were quite manageable. Things went downhill civility-wise here (no offense: just saying this based on chronology, not saying they were directly responsible) after Neutral Good arrived; after 209.221.240.193, a confirmed IP address of User:BryanFromPalatine/User:DeanHinnen arrived, and several weeks after Blue Tie arrived further. Those were the basic landmarks for downward progress as I recall. Add in the confirmed per User:Alison sockpuppetry involving Shibumi2 and others, and the random ever changing massive cloud of Sprint Wireless IPs that sometimes (but not always) calls itself "Bob" was just the icing on the cake. Other than that, debate had been quite civil, barring the occasional drive-by lunacy, until roughly the past three weeks.

I am routinely astonished that one side of the debate goes ballistic with anger and innuendo whenever any user attempts to get more eyes on the problem. I and others have been derided for having the nerve to ask in places like the RS noticeboard, Fringe theory noticeboard, and here on ANI, and was accused of using requests for more people to review a situation as an attempt at canvassing. If some were so convinced that they were truly defending Misplaced Pages in the name of NPOV, why would they be so upset at the fact that I wanted more people to review the situation? If the defense of NPOV was true, then all the "new" people would side with the correct side of the NPOV debate here. The fact that nearly every single "new" person has sided with the "Is torture", global sourced view, over the past week since this got wide exposure after civility went out the door, has caused civility on the talk pages to completely flush itself down the toilet in response. Make of all that what you will. Lawrence Cohen 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem has nothing to do with the Election Cycle. The fundamental problem is simply that the issue is disputed in society at large and wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects society. However, that basic problem is compounded when editors not only refuse to assume good faith but actively look and seek for ways to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective. The post above is an example. Sure... he does not "say" that certain people are responsible, but he names names, one after the other, of people who disagree with him and says the last one "puts icing on the cake". It throws gas on the fire for an admin to take a strong partisan view and then post about the guilt all around him, while he and fellow sympathizers are innocent victims tolerating hoodlums. One would think that only the people who disagree with Lawrence are causing problems. I guess if everyone who disagree with him would go away, things would be just fine. But that works both ways. Sure, he's not canvassing for support. He's just dragging the content debate from that talk page over to this one -- and complaining. No, that's not canvassing. That's getting "more eyes". Look at how hard he tries to convince everyone here that his position is the right one... even before you get to that talk page! But its all in the name of keeping you neutral when you arrive. And to emphasize how neutral his position is, he asserts that all the new people agree with his view. He then asserts that these new people joining up on that side have enraged some small minority to ferocity, apparently because they are somehow outnumbered. Well, from the perspective of editing suggestions for the articlethat is simply not so. New editors have stated that the firm stance that the article takes "Waterboarding is torture" is not correct and should be adjusted. In fact, there really has not been a terribly uncivil situation on that page that I have seen. It has been very active. Sometimes heated. But the uncivility has not been all that bad until tonight when an admin imposed new rules on the page, but then did not enforce them -- leading to a sense that things were "unfair". THAT is the problem and it will soon die away. But meanwhile, Lawrence comes here and salts the well against the people who disagree with him by claiming that they are unreasonable, uncivil and basically horrible --- so all fair minded admins can know exactly what they should do or who they should target when they arrive if they are even remotely sane or good people.

Other than the fundamentally difficult nature of the topic, the most important contribution to that article's heat has been a constant drum-beat of subtle and overt provocations and bullying actions by admins who take a strong pov in the debate. Perhaps due to the nature of the issue, it is impossible for an admin to be unbiased. But I do not agree with the causes that Lawrence postulates above. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you decline to mention was that this fake consensus was the pre-made meatpuppetry from Harvard, that has already been discredited here: those people are all the admitted Harvard classmates that made a decision ahead of time, in real life, then all came to Misplaced Pages to post that very section. Abusive meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it was not discredited.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree with Lawrence (and disagree with Blue Tie): this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of waterboarding as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible that there are no sources prior to 2001 that use the term waterboarding at all. If you have seen any, I would be very excited to read them. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the English word "waterboard" is an interesting question, but does not affect the meaning of what I wrote: every reliable source reported the drowning technique as torture when done by the Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge etc. Nobody claimed the technique might not be torture before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been used at least as early as 1946 in UN documents. All evidence I have is the second entry on this Google Books search, I have no easy access to these documents to check it any further. Fram (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching infrequently and endorse Lawrence's summary of the situation given above. Orderinchaos 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus

moved to talk page for continuity of discussion, especially as discussion was complete here.

Harassment Notice

Yes, I am currently being harassed by the admin known as Jeske. He has recently threatened me for no reason on my talk page and merely provided a very vague reason why. Someone apparently vandalized my talk page, yet he chose to accuse me of it days after he gave his threat. Now, he has been trying to bait me on and on into arguments with him, and I have my best to avoid him. Yet, he is always around no matter where I go.V-Dash (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jéské Couriano has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why not forget about this dispute and go edit some articles? What you're doing here certainly does not look like you're trying to avoid him. Friday (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:( It's no use Friday... Wherever I go, he's there right behind me...V-Dash (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For background see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/V-Dash. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my eyes just sort of glaze over when I read "admin harassment" and it isn't followed by diffs showing the accused administrator's actions. Can you provide said diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although not an administrator, I would like to note that, having witnessed these clashes from the very beginning, I do not believe Jéské to have done anything wrong. V-Dash has claimed above that Jéské "threatened" him for a vandal's comment, yet this diff and the several subsequent edits show differently. Jéské merely warned him against making further personal attacks after it came to his notice when another user, User talk:Orange Boomerang removed that comment over a month later (for the record, after Orange Boomerang removed that comment, V-Dash posted on their talk page stating "stay off my talk page." V-Dash's conduct towards other editors has been poor at best, and I do not think it is surprising that conflict has arison. V-Dash has previously accused Jéské of Wikistalking, created at least one sockpuppet in an effort to have Jéské banned, has created several other sockpuppets used for other purposes, and has dared Jéské to ban him at several points in time; something that Jéské has refused to do because he is a part of the conflict.

Having observed this conflict from the moment that it started to the present moment, and V-Dash's conduct to other editors prior to his clashes with Jéské, I do not believe that Jéské has harassed V-Dash at all. I am under the impression that Jéské has dealt with the situation admirably considering all that has occurred, at one point even offering to protect V-Dash's userpage from the heavy amounts of vandalism that were occurring from anonymous IPs; an offer that V-Dash was quick to accept. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I think is telling of V-Dash's attitude is his userpage; in it he states that " is always right." Further, other users have come in - I believe them to be GFAQs members - and have stated (with accuracy, as I have noticed) that V-Dash has selective vision and flat-out disregards anything that does not fit with his view or involving his behavior (as can be seen on my TP). Also, as his RfC (and the evidence on it) points out, the assumption of good faith between V-Dash and I was never reciprocal: V-Dash always jumped to conclusions and accused me of sockpuppetry, WikiStalking, and trying to get him banned (while the latter has merit, I only asked for bans because it was, and still is, becoming increasingly apparent that V-Dash is merely being disruptive now).

While I have blocked V-Dash in the past twice - once before the conflict (a 3RR block on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl) and once even more recently (a mistaken block I later rescinded after checkuser confirmed he was not SPD V (talk · contribs) - initially "Inconclusive"), each time I made a mistaken block I rescinded it. Part of this problem is GFAQs user PolluxFrost (Dash Jr (talk · contribs) here), whom seems to know how V-Dash acts and uses this information to successfully impersonate him via sockpuppetry. Not helping the matter is the fact that V-Dash feeds them by cursing them out on his user talk page and their own TPs.

In closing, I have little doubt that this AN/I thread is an attempt to get me sanctioned because I have told him - in no uncertain terms - that he will end up blocked and/or banned if he continues on the way he is now, and he decided to ignore that warning. What little good faith I had in him has vanished, and I thus made the RfC to bring this to wider attention. Any more discussion from me on this matter will take place there. -Jéské 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

True, while I have being a bit harsh to this Pollux and Dash_Jr characters, Jeske's behavior is still a bit questionable as an admin. He's constantly tried to bait me into arguments with him. He even argued me down for weeks about me calling DnD a board game. Now I did NOT even touch the article on DnD, yet he has constantly harassed me about it asking me for these websites and such. He's even cussed at me on his talk page. He's supposed to be an admin, yet he's one of the main ones who tends to incite arguments rather than try to calm them down as other admins like Friday has done. See how he blamed me for being SPD despite me being sick the day those edits happened?V-Dash (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That debate about Dungeons and Dragons happened because of your query on the Dungeons and Dragons talk page, IIRC, which was then continued on the user talk page. Asking for sources to back up a statement =/= harassment. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Melicans, I challenged him on it on Talk:Diamond and Pearl to begin with. However, I still requested proof of his accusations (i.e. "D&D is a Board Game") and all he came up with was a picture of a minis campaign in progress and a board-game website that also sold D&D materials (and a wealth of miniature wargaming materiel); not definitive proof. I have since dropped the argument - V Dash has stated that he hated the game, and I realized then that debating him on it is like debating Jimmy Hoffa on not vanishing into thin air. -Jéské 18:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He admitted it see... I told you Jeske esculated that argument on the DnD Board. It actually started on the Pokemon D/P Board before he incited a debate to occur on the DnD. Afterwards, he's been harassing me since about my statement on DnD.. How can an admin try to calm things down when he's the one who starts them?V-Dash (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

v-dash RAISES a good point. perhaps it woudl bet better if someone else form the editors or another admin come in to mediate this bedispute. i am not assuming bad faith on th epart of Jeske but it owuld be more fair if someone neutral and uninvolvedin the dispute were to enter into this debate. Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I opened the request for comment above. -Jéské 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, you know you were wrong just as much as you accuse me. Remember, you have esculated several of those arguments. I mean, this all stemmed from the DnD incident you went overboard about.V-Dash (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped that argument long ago and have no ill will over it, V-Dash. You, however, seem to think I'm my own cabal (I don't even have the secret password yet!) -Jéské 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An argument is still an argument regardless how old it is Jeske. Or did you forget about the very vague warning you put on my talk page? Sorry, but rules can't apply to one party and not apply to the other.V-Dash (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here can see I apologized for it. The only reason you can't is because you tuned out the warning that went with it and thus the whole paragraph. -Jéské 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske Jeske, let's not even forget about the part where you cussed me just because I questioned your vague warning. See, this could've been avoided had you not came onto my talk page and tried to incite me into an argument with you. Quite frankly, I'm very suspicious of your behavior as an admin. I mean, how can you uphold things when you're the one who causes them? Yes, I am accusing you of something. Remember the DnD arguments? Yes, YOU told ME to go to the discussion page and call it a board game. Then you berated for weeks just because I refused to see it your way.V-Dash (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen, V-Dash. After you call "Admin Abuse" or "Harassment", you need to provide proof. -Jéské 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof? What the fudge did you think I was talking about earlier Jeske? Remember the vague warning? The constant banter at me for calling DnD a Board game?V-Dash (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Jack Sparrow>But where have the diffs gone?</Jack Sparrow> -Jéské 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're referring to movies now Jeske..V-Dash (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Yahtzee>Also, you have one second to name any administrator's noticeboard where coming without evidence is a good idea. Time's up. That's what I thought.</Yahtzee> -Jéské 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See? He's doing it again...V-Dash (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<George Carlin> You show me a guy who's sitting there giving evidence to back up his accusations and I'll show you a guy who's not causing any fucking trouble.</Carlin> I am also going to note that this is the third thread V-Dash has started against me, and, like the last two, he has provided no proof and simply made accusations sans evidence. -Jéské 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys take this somewhere else? There's no plausible case being made that administrator action is needed here. Friday (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You see Friday? We're back at circle one. See, all Jeske had to do was kindly explain his vague warning on my talke page when I asked, and this argument and report wouldn't have been started. I believe he did that warning on post so he can hopefully get me into an argument in order to make it like I'm doing something wrong.V-Dash (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To all those reading this topic, read this diff. -Jéské 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No excuse Jeske. Btw, you said something different than you did here. You said you saw the post and just decided to give me a warning regardless. But it took you like two days to finally answer why I got the warning AFTER someone warned you about it.V-Dash (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. This report is worth a look. (I speak this neutrally). Durova 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But that report cannot be a proof of anything. It is just a collection of unrelated diffs, put together with an obvious purpose. Has anyone tried contacting Ehud and verifying his actual personality? I just received a communication from Ehud, he told me that he is willing to provide any information that admins may require to ascertain that he is a real person, not related to Adil in any way. Grandmaster (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Fedayee's accusations were rejected by the admins at WP:AE board: Grandmaster (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I handled the unblock request in this case. I did not see any evidence linking the two, so I accepted the request. It has sense been overturned after a conversation on my talk page. As I stated there, I do not agree with this method of blocking and did not endorse the reblocking of this user. Lara❤Love 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier if blocking, unblocking or independent administrators simply contact each of the blocked users to verify their identity. I have asked for this earlier at WP:AE as well. After all, the verification of physical identity to determine that Adil Baguirov is not Ehud Lesar is more legitimate than a wholesale assumption, based on nothing but User:Fedayee's speculations, often including simply harassment and attacks on the identity of User:Ehud Lesar. I mean look at this ,, what does the proclaimed Jewish identity of Ehud Lesar have to do with this? Or does it really mater in Wiki what ethnicity the contributor is? Or should any Jew from Azerbaijan editing in Misplaced Pages be assumed and blocked now as a sock of Adil Baguirov, just because User:Fedayee believes so?

But there is more, which has to do with AdilBaguirov than with Ehud Lesar, because User:Khoikhoi was inactive, for several months. Then he suddenly shows up and blocks User:Ehud Lesar, as a sock of User:AdilBaguirov. Checkuser denies any connection, and I would also like to remind that right before getting blocked after the first ArbCom, User:AdilBaguirov attempted to file an RfC - on User:Khoikhoi conduct, which, however, didn't gather enough support. So perhaps, sudden reappearance of User:Khoikhoi and blocking of just anyone as a sock of Adil, based User:Fedayee's speculations, has something to do with their conflict.

As far as User:Alex Bakharev's conclusions go, I shall remind him that previously, he also mistakenly blocked User:Londium on a conviction that it was a sock of User:AdilBaguirov - , an allegation which turned out to be untrue later . On another instance User:Alex Bakharev unblocked the reported and even confirmed by RFCU as a sock User:Pam55 of User:Behmod, against the protests from admin User:Allison - . Yet later User:Behmod was again caught with another sock . So perhaps, assuming good faith, Alex Bakharev's conclusion is mistaken in Ehud Lesar case as well, and needs another review. Regards. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alex and Khoikoi are the two admins who know Adil Baguirov’s way of using socks the best, there is Francis Tyers who comes next and who was an Admin, Francis_Tyers was the first to submit a checkuser because he thought it was Adil and this much before the evidence was accumulated. Then there is Golbez to ask, but since you have ousted him, I doubt you will listen to anything he says.

The evidence provided is not the only one I have. The Church of Kish alone is a giveaway. The Church of Kish doesn’t even qualify as very notable. Less than 5 people have studied it and published anything about the church. One of those who 'studied' it was Adil Baguirov. (from his zerbeijan website he initiated the Albanian nature of the Church) scroll and you will see his picture with the church, and his 'research.' The person who created the church article was a throw away account who created an article on Adil’s OR. That account was created at the beginning of March (the period in which Adil created his other Jewish account ) and was obviously Adil. Ehud was engaged on that article and another which both were also edited by Adil socks in the same period of time. Another giveaway: You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. Here, Ehud Lesar, who claims to be a Jew and uses this to make himself sound neutral, is claiming that another member is obviously impressed by Adil who thinks a lobbyist who acts as an ambassador of Azerbaijan in the United States is someone to be impressed about. He repeats this more recently: I must say that it's rather positive that you're so impressed by Adil Bagirov; so impressed that you happen to follow his life cycle, but I think you should free your mind from the name Ehud Lesar. Ehud knows that we know he is Adil, this comment is the same sort of sarcasm Adil was using or his other socks were using.

Also, all of Ehud’s theories are identical to Adil’s, here in his defence he provides himself more evidence , In the part that starts with secondly you will see the subject of the speeches Adil Baguirov gives whilst his lobbying outside Wiki and at large Azerbaijani-American gatherings. And it was according to him that Misplaced Pages should be edited to balance this myth he believes in.

Putting the emphasis on checkuser when the rest of the evidence is screaming I’m Adil is irresponsible. It would take one user registering an account to proxy for him, and this fixes the issue of open proxy and IP address, checkuser will fail. This was why Vartan and I brought Elsanaturk and from Ehud’s answer it seemed that there was something true in there. The reason we suspect Elsanaturk is that there is evidence that he already proxied for him, but this is another issue and unless it could change anything on the blocking of Adil, I don’t think at this point it is necessary to post the evidences. When we brought the issue, Ehud’s reply was this Neither I or Vartan said this explicitly anything such, we only said that we believe that Elsanaturk might be involved. Not that he was Ehud, Ehud expanded this and insinuated and blew it out of proportion to discredit us.

I am ready to furnish more evidence upon the demand of the administrators.

And BTW, Londium was a sock of Adil, Alex was right; checkuser should not be run to catch Adil, many of the socks of Adil, which were registered the same days as other confirmed socks, failed the checkuser test when they were obviously Adil. Ehud is one example. - Fedayee (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, you're going to furnish evidence that Ehud Lesar is a person Adil Baguirov? Or in statements like "We have Ehud, who we all know is Adil", who is "we", are you claiming you have a group "working on Adil/Ehud case"? Will you also please produce physical evidence that user Ehud Lesar is the identity of Adil?

Your evidence here does not establish such link, it only makes allegations about Adil having used socks. The fact that both users referred to the fact of Zangezur and Geycha republic is not an evidence of sock- or even meatpuppetry. And let me remind you of evidence you did not include in your report, while reciting various usernames in your assumptions of bad faith:

• I, Atabek, was once blocked at Yeprem Khan - , reported for reverting the edit of one of those sock accounts attributed to User:AdilBaguirov - .

And again, what does the ethnicity of Ehud Lesar or your conclusions about them have to do with Misplaced Pages? I believe pursuing someone's identity or attempting to expose their ethnicity, especially when you're not an administrator in Misplaced Pages authorized to do so, is considered falling under WP:HARASS policy. I recall there was another user "blocked indefinitely" for doing so, see first block comment.Atabek (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=62#copyright

ibe leive that this issue is a simple makstake, but i must cuation all the admins involved to avoid any esemalance of impropriety. when problems go wrong its easy to just round up and get rid of all the jews but history should so now that its the wrong decison to make. ethnic claims sould not be used solely as a deicsion whether or not to blok or unlblock a user, since even if the block was otherwise justified sit makes it seem like itwas an expression of racial hatred REGARDLESS of the admins' intent. i would recomend having this case looked over by a panel of admins to make surethat there were no mistakes or fualty assumptiosn makes on the behalf of any of hte usurers hereon this bebopard. Smith Jones (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Fedayee's evidence carefully. There was no ethnic motive behind the block at all. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, just my 2 cents, I don't know Ehud or Adil, just general thoughts. The checkuser uses IP address, so once changed it doesn't work. Now to detect user by his behaviour can only humans that knew him for some time and his style of communication, and humans are pretty good at it. So Fadayee and Vartan, who knew Adil confirm Ehud to be Adil based on the little clues lie type of communication etc. And they are pretty confident that he is Adil. They didn't accuse any other user, like Grandmaster or Atabek or me to ne Adil, the specifically targeted Ehud, so there is a reason why. Now what are the reasons for anybody else to believe that he is not Adil other then failed checkuser? I didn't find any. It looks like evrybody knows that he is Adil and Azeri side is interested to keep this user Adil even under different name... Steelmate (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also this Adil is blocked in "Misplaced Pages for a period ending August 23, 2008" so only 8 more month and he is free? Shouldn't there be more harsh mathods applied to this user who is using sockpuppets? Steelmate (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Steelmate, your question is very illogical. How can anyone accuse me of being Adil’s sock, if I was here long before Adil joined? I’ve been editing for more than 2 years and have more than 10,000 edits, accusing a long time editor will not work. Same with Atabek, he is a long time user and he is well known to everyone involved in editing region related articles. Ehud was targeted for a simple reason that he is a relatively new user with a very limited number of contribs. So it is relatively easy to link him to a banned user and get him banned. This happened despite no real evidence being presented and cu returning negative results. Grandmaster (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, in such cases a questioning admin may contact individual contributors and ask them to identify themselves instead of blocking contributors based solely on the report of the individual from another side of conflict. Fedayee's evidence as well as list of users he cites in his report is based on ethnic motive, which is already known and defined in two relevant ArbCom cases, to which he was a participant. I believe if there is continuous assumption on behalf of some admins that Ehud is Adil based on Fedayee's report only, while others ask for additional review, then it may be expedient to perhaps request User:Jimbo Wales to investigate the issue and identify whether Ehud is Adil or not. Atabek (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was posted by an individual on the other side of the conflict. Three neutral administrators familiar with the AA situation evaluated Fedayee's evidence. Furthermore, Jimbo is human, so asking him is just the same as asking any other administrator. They have their own take on the evidence, which means they have no real way of knowing the truth. Also, I contacted Ehud and asked him what proof of identity he was willing to give (Grandmaster mentioned above that Ehud could confirm his identity). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, at least 3 other admins, including those handling reports at WP:AE on a regular basis did not find Fedayee's evidence compelling. Clearly, there's no consensus among the admins that this user is a sock and that Fedayee's evidence can be taken seriously. And Khoikhoi's sudden appearance looks very strange. Have you personally tried contacting Ehud and verify his real life identity? If not, why haven’t you done so? Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, returning to Misplaced Pages after a two-month break to block a contributor based on Fedayee's report or attributing several socks to a banned user, when they're found later not to be such, is not quite neutral. And especially this past mistake shows that evidence needs to be reviewed again by another administrator. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi was asked to review this user's edits a while ago. He took his time, but he finally reached a conclusion and then issued a block. As a neutral administrator, I reviewed the evidence posted by Fedayee and other stuff brought to my attention. I re-blocked because I believe the evidence shows that Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I apologize, I did realise that an element of the evidence seems just that. It was perhaps my fault since I did not develop about the relevancy of that bit about Jews. What is questioned here is that Ehud is a Jew to begin with. If you browse the evidence you will see that Adil pretended to be several ethnic groups with several names. The evidence about the ethnicity was that Lesar is Sephardic, even the thesis that he was from Azerbaijan does not make sense, most Jews in Azerbaijan are not Sephardic, and most names are Russianized, Lesar can not be an Azerbaijani Jewish name (which would have been the only escape route). The point here is that he falsified an identity like he did previously and even after he created that account.

The other evidence about the Algerians and Jews also is not meant to have any ethnic motive. The claim of Algerian Genocide is mostly defended in the international arena by lobbyists of the Turkish republic, one of the most active ones on the web run a journal in which Adil contributes in.

Atabek’s request on the identity of Lesar should be considered as invalid given that in the past an obvious sock and throw away account has requested such and was unbanned. Adil has relations across the globe and would have anyone proxy for him giving fake identity, he is not just some user. The Lesar family (David Lesar at its head) runs Halliburton which has a major contract in the Baku-Tbilisi Ceyhan main oil export pipeline project, Adil work for those projects too. The sock created the name by association (the Israeli prime ministers name, and the president of the Halliburton familly name).

Also Atabek, unlike what you write, Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil, there is no published material anywhere which claims a republic such as Geycha. Ehud dismissing it qualifies as evidence and on several occasion when this was brought he failed to provide any source. Having failed to do such, this remains specific to Adil Baguirov.

One more thing which fails comprehension. Grandmaster, how in the world did Ehud contact you when it is impossible to email him, because he did not provide an email address. He could not have emailed you unless both of you communicate elsewhere and he would have known your email address off wiki. Please provide some explanations here as someone can not contact if that person does not have an email address set. - Fedayee (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, I don't believe Misplaced Pages registration anywhere says that new user needs to ask approval of Fedayee to register a certain name. Ehud has a right for his name as well as his claimed identity. I don't know what makes you believe that you're granted a right to question someone's ethnicity and use that as a justification for blocking him. There are thousands of Jews and mixed people living in Azerbaijan, often under Azerbaijani, Jewish, Russian, or mixture of names. And I believe you need to one more time review WP:HARASS. Adil Baguirov has a publicly available profile, major webpage, publications, which everyone can view, read and interpret, and already have been discussed across various articles in Misplaced Pages, such as Azerbaijan for example. Where is your proof that everyone reciting his writing is just him? Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And Fedayee, per your claim from your report that "Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil Baguirov" - here . Is this also Adil Baguirov? Again, I believe administrators need to be seriously familiar with the topic of the conflict, before reading your report and making conclusions over it to block people. Atabek (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s not his claimed identity which is given justification, but the fact that he created sockpuppets to sound as neutral non-Azeri or non-Armenian contributors. There are thousands of Jews living in Azerbaijan, but Lesar is not an Azerbaijani Jew name and Fedayee proved that in his evidence.

This is becoming ridiculous, do you really think that the claim that Ehud might be reciting Adil publications hold water? No one bothered reading or reciting his work on Geycha alleged republic here on Misplaced Pages, but Ehud Lesar, who happens to have registered hours after it was a confirmed that Adil will be banned. This same person who happens to have read something which was not used by any other contributor, also was the only one who was missing when Adil's sockpuppets were at their pick, and the sockpuppets only stopped when Ehud reappeared. There was a clear correlation between Ehud's presence and the end of the sockpuppetry issue. Also the Church of Kish, which was again obviously created using Adil’s OR and you guys continued editing it. Then when it was questioned, Ehud came in and defended using Adil’s OR or the other socks which were at the time just recently blocked.

Also Atabek, you misunderstood Ehud's claims. The link you provide relates to 1992, where few Azeris near Sevan and Zangezur created a flag claiming independence as opposition to the declaration of the NKR. Adil Baguirov's claim has nothing to do with that flag, his claims are pre Soviet Union. In fact, the only claim on the web coming close to it, is from Adil’s website. VartanM (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, there was a South-West Caucasus Republic in 1918, an unrecognized Muslim Turkic state created for few months on the territory of Erivan governorate, what's now called Armenia. There is a reference and as far as I remember a whole paragraph or two about it in Firuz Kazemzadeh, Struggle for Transcaucasia: 1917-1921, New York Philosophical Library, 1951. Also, there were 200,000 Azeris prior to final exodus from Armenia in 1988, and the historical name of "Sevan" is Lake Goycha (Gokcha), that's how it's recorded on maps in references of that period. What Adil was doing with Zangezur and Goycha, and whether Ehud was reading his material online or not, is the separate business. But you can't claim that this was Adil also. Atabek (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This case can be easily resolved. One of the admins needs to contact Ehud and verify that he is a real person, and not a sock. This can be done by phone call, chat or even a webcam chat. There are many ways of doing it. So far none of the admins even attempted to do that, and this shows that no serious investigation has been conducted. Strange appearance of Khoikhoi after many months of absence also shows that he was apparently contacted off wiki and given misleading info. There were too many arbitration cases covering Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, do we really need another one? Why this issue cannot be resolved without the need to get involved in a lengthy litigation? Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi independently reviewed the contributions of this user over a long period of time. I was informed that Khoikhoi was reading through this user's contributions more than a month ago. This tells me that he did not make some quick decision. He examined the user's contributions, and found evidence of a connection to AdilBaguirov. I contacted Ehud about confirming his identity. He suggested a webcam chat. A webcam chat or a phone call would not prove anything. How would I know from a webcam chat or a phone call that I am talking to the real "Ehud Lesar"? Also, put aside the AA differences (doubt this will happen, but it's worth the suggestion). It seems this whole issue has escalated to mudslinging from both sides. I will ask some other uninvoled administrators to review the evidence and make their judgments. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is what I'm asking for, a real investigation, and not a block based on personal assumptions. Webcam is not the only way of proof, Ehud can give you more personal details proving that he is a real person. Just ask him for whatever proof you need. It is no good that you don't even attempt to make any real check. Also, I find it very strange how some admins handle this sort of issues. Just a few days ago a compelling evidence of disruptive activity of User:Andranikpasha across multiple wikimedia projects, English wikipedia included, was presented, but no action has been taken against that user. At the same time Ehud was blocked without any real evidence or investigation. Is this a proper way of dealing with this sort of issues? Grandmaster (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

• Ehud account was created the same day it was confirmed that AdilBaguriov will be blocked for a year by AA1
• Ehud Lesar claims to be Askeranzi Jew from Azerbaijan, but the last name is not Azkeranzi and neither it is Azerbaijani Jewish
• Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do
• Ehud edit warred in the Church of Kish article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic and has writen about it extensivly.
• Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.
• Ehud never contributed when there were other Adil socks and only came back when others were blocked.
• Adil's socks so far impersonated Armenians, Jews, Russians and English.

There are way to many coincidences to AGF and think otehrwise. VartanM (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the above is a proof that Ehud is a sock and does not exist in real life. Admins need to verify his personality, and Ehud is willing to cooperate. Grandmaster (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another non-confirmed, blocked as a SPA, then unblocked, most likely Adil account , Batabat also claimed that his not an Azerbaijani, voted in support of Atabek and Grandmaster and pressured administrators that he wanted to call them and that he can prove it on webcam. We've been habituated with Adil's tricks long enough. There should be limits to all of this. VartanM (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look at you arguments.

Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do

And you and Andranikpasha edited the same articles, to which most of other Armenian users did not contribute, does it mean that you two are socks? Of course not.

Ehud edit warred in the Church of Kish article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic and has writen about it extensivly.

Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.

There are plenty of publications about both church and Geycha in Azerbaijani press, the fact that you are not aware of any is not a proof that Ehud is a sock. I mean how can anyone seriously consider such arguments as a basis for a permanent block? And Batabat was not a sock either, the allegations about him were proven false. Grandmaster (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord, where is this going to end. Grandmaster, if Batabat is not Adil, then he is some clone. These are his first four contributions on Misplaced Pages. , , , . Very Adil (we can actually use his name as a verb now) of him to replace Persian with Turkic. Then the next thing he does is to go to Khoikhoi's talkpage to defend Adil, ehmmm…, I mean "Dr. Baguirov" from his words. , . Then the next thing he does, he votes to keep the FORK article , , which was deleted regardless after you guys voted en mass by coordination to keep it. Then he voted with you guys to oppose an FA article. He becomes member of the Azerbaijan Wikiproject. Then he pushes Adil’s sarcasm to its end, with a 100% Adil comment on his userpage. After that comment he is blocked as a sock. This obvious sock then wants to be unblocked. , he emails an Admin and wants the email to be posted here. Check the similarities, he proposed to call him or webcam him to prove his identity. Batabat after being unblocked claims that he has to finish two books excusing his future absence. This was on March 13, two days after the Church of Kish article was created. The logical explanation would be that the email to the Admin was made hours or a day or two later, which closes the gap for those two days. Fedayee’s assertions are without a doubt correct, such obvious cases with a mountain of evidence would nomrlaly not even require a checkuser. Also Gm, your claim as well as Atabeks on so called "Geycha" does not make sense. Firuz Kazamzadeh's reference was regarding the Ottoman backed territory, which was away from "Geycha", "Geycha" wasn’t even included in the maps of the Azeri representatives at the Paris Peace Conference. Only Adil came up with these bogus claims. -- Ευπάτωρ 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Appropriate action taken

 + and anyone guide me a little? 
 + i just want to make a page with eonon and sbo2 information 
 + i didnt want to advertise or anything like that. I just want people 
 + not to get confused with eonon and sbo2~ 
 + i just want to put some facts.. i didnt even put anything about eonon's product.. 
 + *crys* 
 +  
 + i just wanted to make a simple page of the existence and sbo2~ 
 + i the deletation is ok but why block me.. i will write a better one.. 
 + i mean it took me the whole night figuring out how wikipedia works with  
 + the scripts and everything.. 
 + please please i bag of anyone with power here give me a chance.. to repair  
 + my page.. i need guidance and tips 

i think i am starting to understand.. ok i should have read more about the information 
 + but i am not really good at writing.. i will not edit or create any pages for now 
 + but how can i be unblocked? i will look for someone else with better understanding to  
 + write the page without sugar coating everthing.. because some thing like meizu i guess is  
 + good enough i just want people around the world to understand our company when they search on wikipedia 
 + because if you type the name eonon in google there are alot of people in forums asking about eonon 
 + ive seen people mistake Sbo2 and eonon.. when they are the same company~ i just want to provide information 
 + but maybe its my love for the company i beautified it alittle. is there a way i can look for someone to write  
 + about eonon in a right way?  

This user supports the independence of Tibet.

This user supports the independence of Chechnya.

Resolved – I say thee (and Wuggy) nay! -Jéské 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

1. IP talk page warnings
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Will_Turner&diff=prev&oldid=183970993 latest incident - Will Turner

3. The IP hasn't edited since your last warning. Next time, please take these reports to WP:AIV. —Kurykh 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks Kurykh, sorry to trouble you with this one, I'll repost there. Edit Centric (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Um...my implicit message was that a block isn't needed at this juncture. Block at next offense. —Kurykh 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Um...I respectfully disagree. If you look again, you'll see that this same IP user comes back every few days, and removes the same content from the same articles. The latest two incidents were performed after the level-4 warning. After reverting these changes, I issued the 4-im. So in essence, the IP has received five warnings for the month so far. However, I do respect your position and opinion, whatever becomes of this one is kosher by me. Edit Centric (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Just noting, the IP is currently blocked for 31 hours by User:C.Fred. It doesn't appear to be shared or dynamic (or at any rate, it's been static for several days). I might be willing to apply longer blocks, in the event they continue. Seems a compromise? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Barack Obama described as negro?

   Resolved – Blocked as a vandal—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:TheOnlyJason is insistent on using the term negro to describe Barack Obama in the opening 'graph of that article. When warned, user simply replaces it. Additionally, user repeatedly blanks his talk page after warnings (presumably so that editors would not see how many warnings he has had). When final warning is noted on the vandalism page, an admin calls it a content dispute, and dismisses it out of hand (though TheOnlyJason was warned on 3RR).

   Will someone explain to me why his edits are not considered vandalism? --Mhking (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   They are considered vandalism; he was just blocked for 48 hours. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Thanks. --Mhking (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Two days ago he added an image to the Hal Turner article and also vandalized that article. For those that don't know Hal Turner is a well-known racist radio host here in Northern New Jersey. Also putting down British PM Gordon Brown as "Jewish". --Jersey Devil (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Wait a sec...do you see the pattern? Edits to Habbo, Hal Turner, insisting on putting down Obama as a "negro"....It all points in one direction.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Add Habbo Hotel to that list. We've been dealing with hordes of vandals adding in references to "negroes", "AIDS" and "pool's closed" for quite a long time now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I just did a search, it is a video at a video site. TableManners 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Masive article deletion by Delaware Valley Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

   Resolved

   Little help here, please? HalfShadow (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Blocked by Slakr. PS you shouldn't really remove posts from this page; a bot will archive it later.--CastAStone/ 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Request for unprotection of Condensed matter nuclear science

   At WP:RPP it was suggested that this request be posted here:

   Administrator User:JzG ("Guy") redirected and then immediately indefinitely protected Condensed matter nuclear science, while involved in a content dispute and an edit war which had repeatedly previously, and also has since, resulted in a different admin protecting the article to which Guy redirected. This violated two parts of the Misplaced Pages:Protection policy:

   • "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people;" and
   • "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

   When asked to recognize this error and unprotect the page, Guy refused in a flippant reply. Because the protection violated two aspects of the policy, the article should be unprotected. MigFP (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   • • I would agree this situation needs eyes of more admins. JzG is clearly involved in editing the Cold Fusion article, and should have avoided protecting the articles in question. I have no idea whether or not such protection was justified, only that he probably should not have done it. Any other opinions? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   THe problem isn't that JZG protected it as much as it's that every time it's unprotected, the FRINGE rises, and there are few admins willing to deal with it, and fewer among those who have any mastery of an area. Thus, we have this vicious cycle wherein an admin fights the cranks and fringe, they wiki-laywer everything that person does, demanding outside admins. Any admin coming in thus becomes 'tainted' against any further actions, calls out for admins who know the subject matter, and they're back to the first admin, who they counter with 'but he's involved already, we want a NEW outside admin'. pretty soon there are two pools of admins. those who won't touch the mess with someoen else's pole, and those who touched it, and are wiki-layer injunctioned from ever touching again. JZG decides to cut the crap, fight's the FRINGE, and time after time, gets brought here for it. Full support for JZG's actions, based on all he does to keep the FRINGE from purporting that 'the man' is keeping down the perfect source of free energy. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Good point. I looked closer at the articles in question. Protection WAS probably needed, and you are probably right in your assesment of the situation. If the end result is that the article should have been protected, JzG probably acted correctly. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Seems to be an excellent application of IAR by JzG here. henrik•talk 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   No, I'm sorry, but personal attacks do not nullify policy, the ends do not justify the means, and two wrongs don't make a right. What JzG did was wrong, in any case. Jayron32 had already determined this based on all of the relevant evidence. (The actions of JzG in relation to policy.) JzG acted incorrectly in respect to wikipedia policy, in that:

   • "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people;" and
   • "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

   Unless you're saying that this was a case of "simple vandalism or libel issues against living people" and "clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation", because those are the only two exceptions to these policies. Kevin Baas 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   So, let me get this straight. You propose that we unprotect the article and then instantly protect it again, just so that the last to act on the protection would be someone uninvolved in the article? What would be the point in that? Seems like a needless move to me... As I said above, regardless of whether JzG should have been the one to do the protection, it should have been protected... As for dealing with JzG, what should we do, send him to his room without supper? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   How about have him unprotect the page and acknowledge that he violated those two policies and that on account of them he shouldn't have protected it, and is not allowed to protect pages that he is involved in disputes on, and thus cannot protect the C.F. article and related articles that are now (by minority rule) redirects to it. and if he doesn't do those things he gets his admin privileges revoked, or is banned from editing C.F. related articles, or some other measure that is relevant and sufficient in that it prevents it from happening again, since if JzG were unwilling or unable to do those things, he would have demonstrated that he is incapable of preventing himself from doing it again. and then the page should be left unprotected until there's reason to protect it, in which case, JzG, or any other administrator involved in a dispute(s) there, can't be the one to protect it. I don't see why the page should need to be protected, especially on the right version, unless the criteria for page protection is met (such as edit waring), and in which case it should be temporarily protected, with an appropriate expiration date. And if JzG, or anyone else, thinks that the article, or any article for that matter, is a "POV fork", then, rather than using his admin powers to strong-arm the article in contravention of policy (and to the consternation of contributors who follow the rules), he should let the community decide by filling an RfD. Kevin Baas 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Were there ever complaints about the "fringe" on Condensed matter nuclear science before wholesale redirection started in November? (article history) MigFP (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I believe the entire existence has been an exercise in FRINGE, as the entire article's a pro-cold fusion POV fork of Cold Fusion, intended to get around the constant anti-Fringe protections. As such, the page really ought to be permanently locked up as a redirect, but that's nigh impossible to achieve true consensus for. That said, IF we could really make the case plain, it'd be on the 100 list and probably the 200 and 500. ZBut it's a POV fork from day one, so yes, complaints about. a check of the history shows it as a POV fork over and over. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Minor's userpage with personal details

   User:Cap.J.D.I. has a name, age (13), street address (w/o city), and email. My understanding is that we strongly encourage (enforce?) that minors do not divulge their address. MB83 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Especially with minors.  Done by East718. miranda 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I believe this correction, how ever well-intentioned, is in violation of the GFDL. I believe the page needs to be deleted to achieve the desired result. Perhaps a note on the talk page is appropriate to avoid biting the newcomer. Frongle (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   BigHaz

   He violated the blocking policy (he blocked an IP address indefinitely, and the blocking policy clearly states that you cannot do that). He keeps telling a user that they do not understand the policies, but I think he is the one not understanding. Indefinite IP blocks are not allowed. Could you please check this out. 124.180.63.58 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC) BigHaz notified. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Indefinate IP blocks are discouraged, but not expressly prevented. There can be cases where such moves are justified. COuld you provide us with the specific IP address so that we all can judge for ourselves the specifics of this situation? Without any evidence to go on, we cannot decide if BigHaz did anything wrong... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   121.219.34.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Note also the comment by BigHaz in the block log. James086 06:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks. I changed the block to 1 year. The IP had less than 50 edits, not enough justification in my mind for a "forever" block, but in deference to BigHaz, and he seems to know more about this case than I, he is probably justified in a long-term block. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   • I should probably explain what's going on here. The user complaining about me has - under a series of different usernames and IP addresses (yes, I can provide all or most of these if anyone wants) - spent most of the past year wilfully misunderstanding policies and generally proving a disruptive influence. He initially contacted me asking if I could lift a block on a school-based IP which had been done for vandalism. I told him that I wouldn't (I didn't enact the ban and the vandalism was pretty blatant) and, for several months, he argued with me and claimed that I was unreasonable, despite the fact that he was perfectly capable of creating an account and using it.
   • During our long interaction, I noticed that he was vandalising a number of articles and at least one AfD. I began by reverting this vandalism and warning him about it, which did not seem to result in a change in his behaviour. Rather, he created accounts specifically to vandalise and move pages, for which I eventually blocked him for a short time. On his return, he began the same behaviours once again, including creating accounts designed to insult me. I was prepared to block him for a longer time than before (I think I gave him a 6-month or 12-month ban, can't remember), but another admin in fact extended that to an indefinite one, something I don't dispute at all.
   • The user has, since that time, continued to create accounts and use his (apparently dynamic) IP addresses either to harrass me, vandalise various places (most recently threatening to kill people at a DRV discussion) or both. The reference to my repeatedly telling him that he doesn't understand the policies is because he has shown that he does not believe that the indefinite block applies to him personally, but seems to think that if he creates an account every couple of weeks - and tells me about it, which is baffling - people will eventually give up. Again, all the relevant diffs and so forth can be provided here if need be, but I'm heading off shortly so I can't do it right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but if the IP address is dynamic, then there is a decent chance that sometime in the future, another person may attempt to use it to edit. Forever is a long time... If this same IP starts the same behavior in 1 year, then it will be a quick block. Indeed, playing whack-a-mole may be pointless. It sucks, it really does, but maybe a rangeblock may be better than the whack-a-mole method. If the user is editing from a truly random set of IPs, then I am not sure that ANY blocks will end up solving this problem at all... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm happy enough with that as a solution, as I said on my Talk page earlier today (my time). My theory was that blocking the existing IP until collateral damage came to pass was an equally valid solution, since it still sends the same unequivocal message to the long-term vandal, but a long enough finite block makes just as much sense to me. Bags I not waiting by the rabbit hole in a year if at all possible, though, since I'm sick to death of having to explain to this kid that the rules continue to apply to him and that vandalism is still vandalism, even when separated by a month or so of inactivity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:Prezronpaul2008

   Political spam of some kind, thrice. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   User has not edited since being warned. Use AIV for problems like this in the future. I see nothing to do here... I gave him another warning, awaiting further action... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oops, yep I should've put this at WP:AIV, sorry and thanks for watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Episodes and WP:POINT

   • Special:Contributions/Wilhelmina Will
   • User talk:Wilhelmina Will#episodes
   • User talk:Ned Scott#Good point!
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_South_Park_episodes&action=history

   Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) seems to be on a South Part episode redirection spree, in retaliation to TTN's own redirects of episode articles. Say what you will about TTN, but he at least places notices on the talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   She seems to be transwiki'ing to the southparkwiki. A better palce for the articles, and then redirecting. Drop her a note asking for notices, but it's a net plus for the project, esp. as shes' got fairly liberal standards for notability, and is examining each one one at a time. Maybe I'm missing something, but i doubt it.ThuranX (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I left a comment on his/her talk page. S/he should have used a discussion to gain consensus. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Note - I left a 3RR warning earlier today, and then another revert was made. Another editor recently left another 3RR warning, but technically, it's already a 3RR violation. initial redirect revert #1 revert #2 revert #3 AliveFreeHappy (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:Stone put to sky

   After seeing a posting made by Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this noticeboard a few days ago in which he claims myself and others are part of a "cabal", I responded (full thread) and then asked him to cease with these allegations if he couldn't prove them. In fact, two of the editors he mentions as being part of this "cabal" haven't edited for some time now. Previously, Stone put to sky commented on an AFD that those who wished to see the article now titled Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States deleted were "fascists". ...when that issue was brought up with him again (full thread), he reserved the right to continue to label myself and others with this word. "Until such time, however, that the Oxford Dictionary singularly labels this particular word as a "pejorative epithet" (those big words are what we linguists use to mean "insult"), then you must simply deal with the fact that you are not allowed to stop people from using it when referring to you." When asked by User:JungleCat to not use that word to describe those he disagrees with his retort was no more civil.. It's pretty obvious Stone puts to sky feels I am part of a cabal (which I have asked him to prove but won't/can't), that myself and others are fascists and that I am "lying" and that I have "sockpuppeteers" and "kiddie-thugs" I assume to supposedly do my nefarious actions for me, of course. Would a neutral admin please remind Stone put to sky about our policies regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA...I and others tried to do so, but it seems to have failed.--MONGO 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   This interaction took place on my talk page, and was occasioned by MONGO's appearance and declaration that i was not to make any mention of a publicly available admission published on this site by a former partner of his. Following that, he made a thinly-veiled threat that he would seek administrative intervention should i choose to do so. MONGO's rhetoric and choice of words were unambiguous violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; coupled with past disciplinary actions taken against him as well as his active pursuit of me, independent of any pages on which he or i am currently editing, then i must protest that the root problem here are his actions -- not mine.

   The exchange took place on my talk page, and would never have happened had it not been initiated by him. None of it has been nor ever will be used in any of the pages where i am editing. MONGO pursued the exchange even though i made it quite clear that i considered his activity to be tantamount to bullying threats. In an extremely surreal move, JungleCat suddenly appeared -- i have had virtually no interaction with this poster ever, so far as i can remember -- and began asserting that MONGO was correct. Why this person appeared i have no idea, but the distinct impression was that there was some sort of set-up or collaboration taking place. Regardless, i politely rejected their interpretation of the word "fascist" and -- again, politely -- referred them to any common dictionary or other reference for proof.

   MONGO was quite upset, apparently, that i had referred to admissions made by NuclearUmpf -- a former, long-term poster and editing partner of MONGO's -- that were made here on the Misplaced Pages website and are freely available to all. Regarding the specific accusations made against MONGO, i would like to point out that it was he who appeared on my talk page and engaged me in this course of conversation. I did not seek him out, nor did i press the issue publicly (i.e. -- on a public page frequented by many, nor in a formal administrative move, nor on a page's talk-page). I find it hard to understand why any objections should arise when mention is made of a public admission by a former, long-term user. NuclearUmpf's revelations outlined a modus operandi that has been openly commented upon and observed by many users from all across the website. I believe that this is usually referred to as "The Elephant in the Room", but in this instance these were published admissions and revelations, not mere accusations made by me, and it seems rather beyond the pale for someone to insist that they be stricken from the public record. My characterization of the members of such cabals as "kiddie thugs" may be mildly distasteful, but it is not inaccurate and was not directed at any particular person or group. A general observation made about a class of people universally rejected by all wikipedia policies and administrators certanly can not be considered a personal insult, can it?

   I would further like to point out that we would not be discussing any of this in the public section of the site were it not for MONGO's own pursuit of the matter, as well as the implicit threats and incivility of his entire comportment throughout this entire affair.

   Finally, most of the "incivility" that MONGO claims occurred was nothing more than a discussion of whether the word "fascist" is a pejorative epithet or a neutral descriptive. I maintain the latter; MONGO feels it is, however, an insult. Nowhere in that particular discussion did i use invective, and throughout the exchange i re-iterated repeatedly that A) I have friends who self-identify as fascists, B) fascism as a mainstream political movement is still quite alive and kicking, and C) the implication was clearly that, insofar as i have friends who call themselves fascists, i can hardly be accused of considering the word an ipso facto insult. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   In all fairness, many today proudly call themselves Nazi, but to suggest being called a Nazi is therefore not insulting sounds a bit naive to me. Nomen Nescio 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   And i agree. But "fascism" does not espouse openly racist beliefs, nor does it promote social darwinism, eugenics, or genocide. Fascism is one aspect of Nazism; but it was also espoused by high-ranking members of the U.S. and British government, powerful businessmen in both of those countries, and of course by the governments of Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek and Franco. Franco and Chiang Kai-shek were close allies of the U.S. for many years, all the way up until their respective deaths. There are fascist groups openly at work in Italy, Germany, France and Britain even today. So while calling someone a "Nazi" is, i admit, an insult, saying that someone is a "fascist" is -- for me, at least -- just a descriptive term.

   I'd also add that i have never taunted MONGO -- or anyone else, for that matter -- with this term; i do, however, strongly object to demands that i excise it from my vocabulary. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   You will excise it from your vocabulary when you refer to me again. If you don't agree that most would see it as an epithet, then maybe you need some familiarization as can be seen at our own article......Fascist (epithet).--MONGO 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry -- was that a threat that you just made? Some sort of ultimatum you think you have the power to issue? Obviously, MONGO, you have some personal issues you need to work through, because you most assuredly do not possess the authority to dictate to me how i use language. And, in that vein -- having just pointed out your authoritarian tendencies and the general lack of civility they imply -- i suggest that you check out the entry here . The first paragraph seems particularly apropos. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Okay...thats very nice. Thanks.--MONGO 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Out of the blue, you brought up the issue of this illusionary cabal some days ago by posting here and I responded here and you didn't. I had had zero interaction with you for a long time until I saw this bogus report. I have no idea what compelled you to suddenly make these false acusations. I then asked you on your talkpage to refrain from making these unsubstantiated allegations and have asked you repeatedly to not call me a fascist, yet you persist. You also persist in posting incorrect allusions regarding my involvement in some cabal. I have asked you to furnish proof and you won't or can't. I even suggested you request a checkuser on me and these other editors and you won't do that either.--MONGO 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   MONGO, walk away per WP:DENY. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Would it be reasonable to either provide sufficient support for the cabal allegation, or stop this unproductive exchange of, what I remember to be nothing more than, hearsay? Nomen Nescio 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Stone put to sky is referring I believe to this posting made by User:NuclearUmpf (aka User:SevenOfDiamonds shortly before he was banned. It was never proven of course. I guess since Stone put to sky is now in edit conflicts with a User:Raggz, he assumes that this newer editor has some connection with me or others who also disagreed with his contributions in the past. Nevertheless, I certainly don't appreciate being brought up out of the blue based on some unsubstantiated allegation made by an editor in imminent threat of being banned, nor do I appreciate the insult of being called a fascist.--MONGO 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you, I am aware of that statement by Zer0faults (talk · contribs) (yet another aka), however, his reliability around the time of his indef ban appears to be somewhat less than 100%.:) Certainly Stone should be smarter than to use this as evidence. Personally I am not convinced and urge people to ignore that statement by what I consider a disruptive element. Especially since that statement is a decade old. Again I ask Stone to provide more compelling evidence or stop making wild accusations. Second, eventhough he sees things defferently I think using fascist to describe other editors is not a constructive way of communicating. Nomen Nescio 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I think it odd that i be asked to provide evidence for something that speaks for itself. All i have done -- and i think it not unreasonable nor uncivil -- is point out that a long-term compadre of MONGO's has admitted to behavior that i myself have outlined elsewhere (pointedly without reference, i might add, to any sort of off-site coordination or leadership). In that admission my name was specifically mentioned as one of the objects of this behavior. Other posters and other contributors -- not to mention other websites -- have long insisted that this behavior is rampant across all of Misplaced Pages. I am not advocating any action specifically based upon these revelations or admissions; all i have done is point out that, in light of these admissions, certain behavior by certain posters on the State Terrorism thread is reasonably suspect.

   If evidence is being asked for, then i would suggest somebody just pop in over there and watch the merry-go-round i've been on these last few days with one particular poster there. I have asked -- repeatedly -- to be accorded the simple courtesy of discussing edits before they are posted on the page. Yet for some reason the poster in question cannot figure out that really, that's all i want. I have suffered a lot of ham-fisted wikilawyering and been the object of a lot of accusations, but even up to now the poster insists that there is only one answer to the page's problems: his introduction (part of which is patently untrue, and the other part of which has already been made an explicit foundation of the article), and massive deletions.

   In the past this sort of behavior has served as the prelude to an AfD nomination, preceded and/or followed by the appearance of MONGO, Harrison, and a host of other, less well-known posters. In each case repeated attempts to delete large portions of reliably sourced, relevant material are made. NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults/etc was often at the forefront of this activity. Are you suggesting, Nomen, that when a poster who has been the cause of so much destructive activity admits that he was not working alone, explains how it was coordinated and for what reasons, and then points a finger at me -- are you actually suggesting that it is uncivil of me to make mention of that?

   Need i add that this behavior -- this JungleCat/MONGO tag-team that suddenly appeared on my talk page -- is circumstantial corroboration? I don't understand what the problem is with pointing out something that all long-term posters here already understand to be true. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Zer0Faults/NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds was never a compadre of mine. Your ongoing insinuations that content disputes you are having with Raggz have something to do with myself and or others you have previously been in disputes with are ridiculous. I haven't touched that page in over 6 months. As I have pointed out, that post about some cabal was made by an editor in bad standing in the community and was banned, repeatedly. It was unsubstantiated and your conspiracy theory on this matter is laughable. Surely, you're not so sheltered to assume that only a few people would oppose your content additions? You really think that just myself and other editors are the only ones on earth that would? How preposterous. Cease with your unsubstantiated allegations and wikilawyering about why it is "okay" to call myself and others fascist, please.--MONGO 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well, we shall agree to disagree about your relationship with Zerofaults. From my position it seemed quite clear that you, he and others were supporting each others' edits and defending each others' deletions, even in the face of vociferous disapproval from the vast majority of regular editors. IIRC, there was often considerable backslapping amongst you all. Would you like me to go find a bit of evidence to support these observations?

   For the moment, however, i am content to point out that MONGO is, most assuredly, not "assuming good faith". I do acknowledge that yes, it is quite possible that MONGO and Raggz have no relationship whatsoever; it's easy for me to say that. I have never sought to push this issue and nothing i have said so far has suggested that it's a problem for me. I have not been running around, willy-nilly, tossing out accusations and/or demanding action. The inference that MONGO has drawn is that i am pointing a finger at him and drawing a target. I am not. I am, however, drawing attention to the behavior of Raggz and suggesting that now may be a good time for conscientious Misplaced Pages administrators to pay attention to what's happening over on the State Terrorism page; and there is a reason for my concern: the admission by NuclearUmpf that i have often been the target of coordinated group activity. I have not demanded that anyone be banned, nor have i demanded any recognition of the truth or falsehood of this accusation. I have, however, pointed out that there is a great deal of corroborating evidence on the "State Terrorism by United States" page and that there is good justification for concern. My only desire is to improve the page, nothing else. Yet out of this simple observation MONGO has -- through clearly aggressive, uncivil behavior -- provoked a confrontation and convinced himself that it is in fact i who am attacking him.

   Finally, i'd like to point out that i haven't ever labled MONGO a fascist! Even so i do insist that, were i to do so, it would remain a neutral term, entirely less of an invective than his own usage of words like "liberal", "democrats", "defeatocrats", or whatever ("conspiracy nut", anyone?). MONGO has repeatedly demonstrated a penchant for hurling epithets and insults at others, and i doubt a day passes that doesn't see him utilizing this particular skill of his. With the exception of a few, extremely rare instances, i do not. When i have transgressed those boundaries, i have apologized. Thus, i find it ironic that i am suffering the ire of MONGO for the use of a term that was never directed at him personally, and -- moreover -- which i consider to be both neutral and trivial. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   All I am asking Stone not to do is use the word "fascist" to describe me or anyone else that objects to that term, it's as simple as that. To me, someone calling me that is assuming bad faith about me and I see it as a personal attack. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   This is unacceptable. By any ordinary standard, calling someone a fascist is a personal attack. The target of that statement objects to it as such. End of story. The lengthy rebuttal is a waste of perfectly good electrons. Civil discourse does not consist of forcing a label onto someone who rejects it. Durova 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Whether or not Stone expressly used the word fascist to describe a particular editor (clearly a personal attack to my mind) his line of argument here is not fruitful and I suggest that he drop it. The ZeroFaults "cabal" accusations are very old news and ZF/NucleaUmpf is hardly a reliable source. Stone is wrong to bring these up again (it accomplishes nothing, even if it were true) and MONGO is completely justified in taking issue with being associated with "cabalism." I would say to Stone that the crazy drama over at the "Allegations" article has died down a great deal in the last few months and I don't think stirring up these old battles (as MONGO points out a couple of the editors in question are not editing anymore, and others just are not participating over there very much or at all) is useful. I would also say to Stone (and to anyone else) that I am one who has been critical of MONGO in the past for what I saw as issues relating to civility, but comments he made recently during some ArbCom drama have convinced me that he is very much working on that {call it the "MONGO margarita before editing" strategy :) } and since MONGO is not creating any problems over at the "Allegations" article I don't see any reason to bring him up. Try to work out your issues with User:Raggz without dredging up a lot of old nonsense that really does not bear on the present situation and if that happens I think we can close this thread and move on to more important matters.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I would like to note in this venue that Stone put to sky has consistently failed to assume good faith with regards to any edits that are not in line with his own POV (note blanket reversions of all of User:Raggz's edits to controversial articles concerning the US, and accusations of bad faith, tendetious/disruptive editing, etc etc etc) and now these wild accusations against MONGO, who isn't even involved in the ongoing dispute concerning Raggz at all except as a spectator. If this crap continues, we're going to have to shuffle the whole larger mess concering the edit warring, incivility, puppet accusations and so forth across all these articles up to Arbcom. Jtrainor (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Admin User:Sarsaparilla blatantly violating WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE

   Look at her userpage and contributions: Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs)

   Here's a recent one. Also, aside from her own edits, it's important to see the final product she signed off on. Also, here's another great page she recently created. No matter what country you live in, there clearly is no genuine political debate over private highways anymore than there is over public toilets. Tossing unnecessary politics in there as a justification to toss in a CATO reference is not acceptable behavior. The term "theistic rationalism" seems to be a POV fork of Objectivism, that is, specifically it's one rogue Objectivist's original research about the religious views of the Founding Fathers of America. Her attempts at regularly attempting to get pages supportive of Libertarianism featured (something I helped her with myself) suggests she's using Misplaced Pages as propaganda, something I refuse to help her with. I made this charge in the past under a poor assumption of bad faith, then apologized for it. She never commented on my claim, either way, whether, "I assure you, I'm a good editor!" or "You're a jerk for assuming bad faith!" Silence on such things is the sure sign of a troll.

   From what I've seen now -- and I think a careful review of her contributions will confirm -- the bad faith allegation is justified. I don't request anything in particular -- just that the admins here give it a look.

   As a specific example, see my own talk page:

   • And why "POV" instead of "biased"?

   Anyone want to tell me the difference, there? Any members of the Libertarian cabal that engage in personal attacks shall be ignored. If you are strongly pro-Libertarian or anti-Libertarian to the point that you think it will affect your better judgment, please do not respond. Zenwhat (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I created a page on theistic rationalism because I went on Facebook yesterday, saw that an acquaintance of mine was listed as a "theistic rationalist," and I noticed there was no wiki page on it. So, I did some cursory research to find out what it was and created a stub. Please quit calling me "she" by the way; I guess people assume I'm female because my username ends in an "a," so if I ever change my identity I suppose the next one will be "The He-Man of Capitalism" or something. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Totally off topic, but I get called a she because of the ending "a" in my username all the time (and I've had this name for about ten years or so). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe I should change it to Sarsaparille? But "-lle" endings still sound feminine. Sarsaparillo? Then people will think I wandered here from the Spanish Misplaced Pages, though. I could go the Italian route and change it to Sarsaparilli. What about Sarsaparillu? Sarsaparilly? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Your edits look fine. Theistic rationalism could obviously use a lot more information and references, but that edit to Private highway has references and avoids weasel words. And what's wrong with "He-Man of Capitalism"? Natalie (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   User talk:Lucy-marie

   Resolved – Angelriver given a warning about civility by Phoenix-wiki. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   On my own talk page there is a discussion over a very minor section of very minor article which has got completly out of hand. I feel the civility code has been broken, with regards to perspnal comments directed towards my self. Please also see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance)# Merging of 24 (TV Series) Characters for further evidence of incivility. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I have warned Angelriver to assume good faith (here). Wouldn't worry too much about it though, even though he/she did get a bit incivil.--Phoenix-wiki 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   squabbling elephants

   Resolved – As said below, no admin action is necessary here. -Rjd0060 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 strikes me as an utterly unencyclopedic article, at least till the top elephant has been safely chosen. But for better or worse the article does exist and even a successful AfD would take a few days. Meanwhile, it's causing great excitement (see this edit), but I'm going to bed and therefore can't keep an eye on it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   How does this require administrator action? Take it to AfD if it is truly awful and let the process sort it out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   (ec)Wow. Politicruft. yeah, AfD it, and put a link here if this hasn't archived out. ThuranX (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Third party required at Talk:Sabah

   Resolved – User taken elsewhere for a third opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:Othmanskn is making edits that consists of value judgment (violating WP:NPOV), adding his own blog as sources (violating WP:RS) and citing sources that does not back his value judgment. I have tried to explain to him of all the things but he seems to take it personal, even to the extent of accusing me of having nationalistic agenda and vandalism. I seem to be losing patience with him, especially with those personal attack. 3RR may have been broken by both of us too. So, maybe, if somebody talk to him, things will cool down a bit. __earth 15:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   You may be looking for RfC, not ANI. --- tqbf 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you but I've brought it to WP:3O. __earth 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Spammer - Static IP

   Resolved – Anon blocked for one week

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

   Spam promoting Trading software. L3 warning & reverted. Spammed again. See their talk page. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Converting distances and weights

   Resolved – Not a problem after all

   Today I noticed that Lightmouse is running an editing program that converts distances and weight measurments to metric. While this is fine for many articles I think that, based on this section of the manuel of style, this a mistake on any articles about US subjects. A look at this editors recent contributions shows the changes being made to a large number of articles about US subjects (note: I understand that the ones on Canadian articles should stay metric). Now, I don't know whether a consensus was reached to change all articles to metric before this editor started making these changes, but, if it was then the manual of style needs to be updated.

   My apologies if this is the wrong venue (and please feel free to move it to the correct spot) for posting this, but, I thought that this needed attention as quickly as possible. I have also made a post on the editors page so that they will be aware of this discussion, please let them know where it has been moved if you do change the page that this is posted on. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, what I see is the {{convert}} template being inserted in article, which leaves the original values and units intact, but adding metric values in parenthesis. I think that is a good thing; nowhere does it say that an article should use only one unit system. — Edokter • Talk • 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Gosh you are correct. I missed the fact that the original units were still in the two articles that I looked at. Many apologies to all for taking up your time and please feel free to mark this as resolved. Thanks for setting me straight Edoktor. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   ip ban request for death threat

   Resolved – Stale complaint. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I request that you ban 60.48.176.96 for adding "kill him.reward" to the end of the article on Archbishop Jibrail Kassab.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Archbishop_Jibrail_Kassab&oldid=182750011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtom1 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Looks like vandalism. It happened nearly a week ago so a block would be of little use now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yup, too late to do any good. For all we know, the person who made that edit is on a different IP now, making such a block both useless and destructive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   (cur) (last) 12:00, January 13, 2008 EVula (Talk | contribs | block) (480,481 bytes) (→ip ban request for death threat - too late) (undo)

   Dood, don't do that again. :I east.718 at 18:44, January 13, 2008

   Do you look at the page history before you look at the page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Admin defyed by user Dahn

   In the article Romanians the user Dahn sistematicaly defyes other one opinions and even the administrator AndonicO who wrote in the dublink :

   This page is currently protected from editing until January 12, 2008 (UTC) or until disputes have been resolved.

   The guy removed the dublink even tho the disputes are not resolved.

   Evidence

   Here and

   Here

   
   The user Dahn together with the biased administrator bogdan are sistematicaly reverting the article , fact which is against the rules of Misplaced Pages, mainly against this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Distinguish

   I demand rough investigation of this case. Adrianzax (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Just to point out the protection tag was rightfully removed, as the page is not protected. It probably should be though, as there is an active edit war going on. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   And I've put in a request for protection. (See ). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you but those guys are acting like this in the past 3 weeks without exception . They are defying everyone and ignoring that rule, I demand actions against this type of behaviour Adrianzax (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Please don't "demand" action from unpaid volunteers. Request it instead. I'll take a look Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I've fully protected the page for 1 week due to these actions. The latest dispute is over the wording of something in the infobox. I find it a bit ABF that the creator of this thread demands actions as said above. Edit summaries like this are unacceptable. Rudget. 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Am I getting this right? There appears to be an edit war over adding a dab link to romani people and an alterantive spelling of the word Romanian? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I think so. Rudget. 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   This has been going on for some time. Probably WP:LAME-able at this point. There have been several users blocked for 3RR and other bullshit on this one, full protections, etc. etc. It has been rather amusing to watch from a distance... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Dahn is an invaluable and highly dedicated, scrupulous editor, with a marked flair for clear and precise prose, something his adversary Adrianzax unfortunately lacks, and the consequent difficulties in getting over to the latter points that require a grasp of English niceties Adrianzax appears to lack, inform, as far as I can see, much of his complaint laid here, and the obstructionism which has troubled the page. When nugatory niggling disrupts commonsense, a quick word should suffice to avert the uncomprehending troublemaker, and free up the page. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Or people could stop removing a harmless DAB link and an alternate spelling couldn't they. This seems so trivial. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Nishidani. Are they, the "dedicated and scrupulous editors" above the rules? Aren't this rules the same for everyone ? Adrianzax (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Bizarrenes at RfA

   See this claims to be a bot opposing RfA, possibly anti-semitic too. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    Done - Blocked indefinitely. Rudget. 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Don't thank me. Thank Keilana. She's always first on the scene! :) Rudget. 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I seem to remember another vandal who had a strange obsession with Kate McAuliffe... whoever that is. JuJube (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Same guy, he does this periodically. Keilana 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Vandal fighters being accused of vandalism by twinkle

   A while ago I reverted somebody who moved Brian Eno to Brian Emo. Today I receioved a template accusing of vandalism. When asking for an explanation the user said it was automatically generated by TWINKLE an automatic system,. Surely any automatic that makes such basic false accusations against good faith users who revert obvious vandalism moves needs disabling until the problem is fixed. Any input would be appreciated but if we scare our vandal fighters away because of badly designed automated processes we are in serious trouble. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Users hold responsibility for all edits they make with scripts - also, automatically warning somebody is only an option and shouldn't be used unless you know what warning it's going to spit out. east.718 at 18:56, January 13, 2008

   Whilst the problem certainly needs to be fixed, I don't think it is serious enough to actually disable the script that so many people clearly find useful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   FYI, Twinkle isn't an automated process. It's a wikitool that helps out with placing templates, reporting pages, vandalism reverting, rollbacks, etc. It appears that this was a simple misunderstanding. You caught the ridiculous page move and reverted it, then some vandal fighter came along and requested a speedy deletion of the nonsense page. You might have gotten templated in the process because of the user clicking on the wrong link in the page history, or because there's a minor error in Twinkle's processing that had it incorrectly identifying the last person to edit the page (you) as the person who created it. You might want to check out the info on Twinkle and drop its creator a note about what happened. If the problem was with Twinkle, he'll probably take a look at it and get it fixed. Gromlakh (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well as long as we aren't chasing good faith users away. Perhaps I should post it at the TWINKLE talk page, I am experienced enough to figure something was wrong but many a new user won't be, its not something I have ever used myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   That sounds like a good idea. Ever since the recent uproar over twinkle usage, people have been very sensitive about this topic. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   What uproar? Gromlakh (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive116#Sod AGF, I've got TWINKLE installed and can bite who I like!, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive119#New Page Patrolling and WP:BITE and one more back on 28 November that I can't find. Plus at least two after them. All about TWINKLE users failing to take responsibility for their edits. The ultimate consensus was: if a TWINKLE user repeatedly miswarns, mistags or otherwise misuses their automated editing script, their monobook.js is to be blanked and protected for a period of time. TWINKLE (et al) users need to learn that you don't install automated editing tools and deinstall your brain at the same time. If anyone was to template warn me as SqueakBox was warned - for correctly undoing vandalism - then I imagine they would be sorry afterwards; I have some degree of sympathy for the warning in question as it's of a speedy delete template, but a simple single click would have revealed what had happened and that not being done is a "TWINKLE-in, brains-out" symptom. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'll note, for the record, that CSD G3 is specifically recommended for "redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." - does TW have an obvious way to suppress the warnings in cases like this when they are otherwise activated? —Random832 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   It's as easy as unchecking "Notify if possible" on the CSD criteria selection screen. shoy 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Which just makes the crime worse: editors using automated tools are often not checking the edit history, and then not bothering to untick a box that, in effect, means "I have checked the edit history and am sure about what I'm doing". TWINKLE-in, brains-out. It's made worse by how defensive editors using automated tools are when challenged. They demand that TWINKLE be modified so they don't make the mistake again, rather than promising to be more careful. Or they say that the rules they are using TWINKLE to enforce are not clear enough and should be clarified or, even better, changed so they can carry on. How on earth people can enforce rules they don't understand in the first place is a mystery - but one that automated tools are making happen a disturbing number of times. My sneaking suspicion is that a lot of our (dare I say it: younger, newer) editors are seeing the idea of patrolling for new pages and recent changes as some sort of role-playing game, and leap in with their special mod to hand, ready to blast the baddies and reach Level 5 of Grand Theft Misplaced Pages. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Do we really need to talk about this again? I thought it was well known by the admins that if a user is abusing TW, take it away. That simple. No questions, no debates. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm going to keep talking about it until TWINKLE (et al) users start taking responsibility for their edits - which is, in effect, the subject of this thread. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   OK, well I agree with that point. But how can this happen? - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   You have just increased your skill in reverting by one point. I use twinkle, and I use a number of other tools to solve a particular problem, or assist in what is basically a tedious task. They all do what is possible using the "native" web interface, but they just make it easier. Twinkle isn't the problem, the problem is a lack of education for new users, or more likely, showing the ability to act responsibly in using tools. There are several other tools similar to twinkle (VP, ircmon of AWB), but those have a registration process. Solve the problem, don't cover the symptom. Yngvarr 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   The same thing just happened to User:Aitias. Except in this case, he was the one who moved the page and then warned himself now to create such pages. Pretty funny. Metros (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   To be honest, I've done that to myself too. But I knew it would happen. That was before they gave the "Notify if possible" option and it just did it automatically. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Duchy of Pless

   Two users, Molobo and Space Cadet, who have a history of disruptive POV edits, are removing English names at the article Duchy of Pless and are forcing Polish language names which were not used in English for the Duchy . At first, one user was so insistent on removing "Pless" that he changed "dukes, later princes, of Pless" to "dukes, later princes, of this Duchy", a construction not used in English (dukes of the duchy? princes of the duchy?). I feel that they are trying to force their POV. A recent RM passed to move that article to Pless because an admin determined that evidence supported that title. I ask that an admin inform for the users of NPOV, UE and ask that they utilize the talk page first before making disruptive changes which are not backed up by majority usage. Charles 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   if its a polish related article ist here a reason why they cant make it polish names?Smith Jones (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Because this is English Misplaced Pages and an English name does exist for the article and is majority usage. This is an issue of editor behaviour being exercised through changes in content. Charles 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Introduction to Evolution

   Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

   Would it possible to get an Admin. to insert extra spacing or perhaps a header on the FA discussion page. Specifically at the lower 1/3rd beginning with the strong oppose based on accusations of personal attacks. This section probably should not even be there; but perhaps a section header might separate the accusation of editor ownership from the section dealing with the entry itself. If nothing else a break will allow future concerns not to be lost in that maze of personal attacks. With out some sort of separator, the FA Director may overlook commentary specific to the article as opposed to specific to the editors of the article. When you go there; my concerns will be painfully obvious. Sorry to trouble you here; but I am somewhat at a loss as to what to do --- my first involvement with an FA attempt. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Why is an administrator needed to do this? Just add it yourself – Gurch 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Just wait for Raul to do fix it, if there is indeed a problem. I see that you have left a note on his talkpage. There is little that an admin can do here. Woody (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Jersy devil has moved the discussion to the talk page. That should solve the problem. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I moved the "discussion" to the talk page as it contributed nothing to the actual discussion. I've also warned all parties involved to stop it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   editor's odd actions at List of banned users

   WHEN_I_WAS_A_YOUNG_BOY, a week old account, has been over at the list today, changing filing dates, links for the cases, and so on. He's rewritten some cases and more. It seems unusual for a new editor to go right to an administrative page like this and begin editing the cases and data. I reverted once, but as he continues, i'm bringing it here instead. ThuranX (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Edit warring on episodes articles

   Pointless meta-debate, the lot of it. Improve the articles, don't edit war. Any edit-warring will not be looked kindly upon. Will 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well I would say it was pointless to take this to ANI, and I've stopped removing the redirects from Scrubs articles, but I really don't appreciate people trying to stop me from editing articles like this. I've unarchived this thread. If it's decided this thread should be moved to Talk:List of Scrubs episodes later on, so be it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Pixelface (talk · contribs) is reverting all of TTN (talk · contribs)'s edits. I don't know who's right here, I just know this needs to stop. Corvus cornix_talk 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Pixelface is wrong. There was a discussion that came out with a unanimous consensus to merge. Will 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well, not unanimous. Still, there was a discussion about merging. I smell reverting just because TTN edited the page. Will 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't know who redirected the Scrubs episodes when I started undoing the reverts. All I knew was that Talk:List of Scrubs episodes showed that there is clearly no consensus for those articles to be redirects. I've stopped undoing the redirects. Can we move this discussion there now instead of clogging up this page? I think it's clear there is no imminent harm to the project. --Pixelface (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:TTN made a series of controversial edits over a period of a couple weeks to get rid of articles for individual episodes of TV series. These edits, while well supported by WP:N and WP:RS, have brought out a small but vocal group of editors opposing his actions, and apparently disrupting efforts to build consensus so as to maintain the status quo. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   If either of you took the time to actually read Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, there is no consensus to redirect those episode articles. I will continue to revert those redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I can count my signature six times in the actual discussion. I have that particular LOE on my watchlist. Try again. Will 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, so I guess you can count yourself six times? There is no consensus those articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   You're saying I didn't read the talk page? I just showed you I did. There was a consensus that the vast majority of episodes were non-notable. If you want the episodes back, show a consensus that they are notable per the general notability guideline, not that the articles should not be redirects. Will 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   There may have been consensus at one time but there isn't consensus now. I don't have to show that the episodes are notable per WP:N. That's not how television episode articles are handled. See Bart the General for proof of that. --Pixelface (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Burden of proof is on those wishing to include. And can you stop bringing up the Simpsons into these arguments every single time? Leniency is given to The Simpsons because it is one of only three shows to have a featured topic (the other two are Lost and Carnivale). Will 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oh I see. So the Bart the General article is okay because The Joy of Sect is a featured article. It all makes sense now. The information in episode articles is verifiable by watching the episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   You keep on setting up straw men. I said leniency, not immunity. If editors of a WikiProject show that they can make a large number of articles of a good quality, we should assume that they are improving other articles in the project's scope and just haven't got to some yet. And the link to the verifiability policy was supposed to direct you to WP:PROVEIT. Will 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   No, it's clear from the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes that episode articles do not each have to assert individual notability. You're saying that editors "just haven't gotten" to The Simpsons episode articles yet, articles like Bart the General, the 5th episode of The Simpsons, but why is that same courtesy not extended to editors who work on Scrubs episode articles? WP:PROVEIT does apply here. Eusebeus has to show that there is consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that the Scrubs articles should be redirects. There isn't. --Pixelface (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   The Simpsons has, by my count, eighty episodes that are GA and above, out of 408 that have aired. Scrubs has one out of about 150. In actual fact, I think Simpsons articles like Bart the General are in the minority here. Will 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oh I see, so The Simpsons episodes inherit notability from the Good Articles. Why didn't you just say so? How about Love and Rocket or Smug Alert!? --Pixelface (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the project will do them in time. With Love and Rocket and Smug Alert, fine. I personally think they should be redirected. Will 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oh I see, so the project will do The Simpsons episode articles in time, but nobody will ever improve a Scrubs episode article. --Pixelface (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   • Now Eusebeus (talk · contribs) has reverted Pixelfaces reverts, this is all very juvenile. RMHED (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   They are both edit warring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Undoing an edit is not edit warring. My edits reflect the consensus at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. There is no consensus there that the episode articles should be redirects. Eusebeus's edits do not reflect consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Being "right" does not give one a waiver on edit-warring. Cut it out. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   And they've both been warned to stop, but it looks like they are continuing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   • What rot. There has been plenty of discussion back and forth and no-one has suggested that the Scrubs episodes amounted to anything like the standard required by QP:N or QP:RS as elaborated at WP:FICT. I have rv'd some; this is disruptive, pointy and tendentious. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
     • There is no consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that those articles should be redirects. Bart the General doesn't comply to WP:N or WP:RS and it's been around for 4 1/2 years. THAT is the actual consensus among editors who edit episode articles. I'm not being disruptive and I have no axe to grind. There may have been consensus at one time to turn Scrubs episdoe articles into redirects, but there isn't now. Consensus can change. I'm removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles because there is currently no consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that the episode articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
   • I have asked Pixelface to stop immediately. Regardless of the pros and cons, this is stalking and edit warring. BLACKKITE 22:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
     • And the accusation of stalking, which Black Kite explained on my talk page, is totally ridiculous. He claimed I was following an editor's contributions around and undoing their edits. That is false. I went to each Scrubs episode article in order of airdate, ignored the redirect, looked at the history, and undid the redirect — because there is no consensus for those articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
     • Stalking? That's laughable. Look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and tell me there is consensus that the episode articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
       • It's still edit-warring. Since then, I've looked at some of the edits you reverted and saw episode articles which violated multiple Misplaced Pages policies, and I don't think I need to point out that policy trumps consensus every time. Do we really need to go back to ArbCom here? BLACKKITE 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
         • I'm sorry for asking, but which policies do those articles violate? --Pixelface (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
           • What Misplaced Pages is not – plot summaries. Why don't you just try and add some real-world context to the articles instead of blindly reverting? In fact, I've told you that once today. Will 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
           • WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOR, for a start; notability also seems to be lacking (I know that's a guideline, not a policy, but still). BLACKKITE 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
             • The articles contain more than plot summaries so WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't apply. How does WP:NOR apply to those articles? --Pixelface (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
               • An example of NOR would be this one . See the last two paragraphs. And yes, a LOT of those articles are nothing put plot summary. BLACKKITE 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
                 • If the article contains original research, remove it. If an article has an infobox, it's not a mere plot summary. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
                   • Infobox information does not "cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance". It is appropriate to include, but not does satisfy PLOT. --MASEM 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
                     • WP:NOT#INFO says "current consensus is that Misplaced Pages articles are not simply...plot summaries". An article with an infobox is not simply a plot summary. Infoboxes do provide real-world context. --Pixelface (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
           • This is yet another of my many votes supporting the trim/merge/redirecting of individual episode summaries. I noted on the Scrubs Talk page some excellent examples of notable individiual episodes, including Simpsons and a Friends episode. I do wonder if we can't create a section on WP:EPISODE of examples to follow, and perhaps, rather than merge EPISODE to MoS, create an EMoS ...(or some other name not so likely to be mocked for regular crying about angst) , which would guide people in the dos and don'ts of Episode article writing. I will post this suggestion at that conversation as well. ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, given the level of angst over episodes, EMoS would be a perfect name. Will 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   You're a funny guy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I support Pixelface. TTN's has reverted these episodes many times and WP:EPISODE is under dispute. Catchpole (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Sounds like a stock reply. TTN hasn't even touched half of the episodes. And you're the first to bring up WP:EPISODE - everyone else is using WP:N and WP:NOT. Will 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm gonna go out on a bit of a limb, here. This whole drama needs to calm down a notch. This edit warring needs to stop. Boldly redirecting is fine; edit warring to silence objections by brute force is not fine. Send contested redirect candidates to AfD or other forums for discussion, in smallish groups if needed for practicality. Allow for community input and discussion. Stop edit warring when discussion forums are freely available. I am prepared to issue blocks or protections as needed to allow for discussion. Edit warring is bad, period. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I've stopped turning Scrubs episode articles into redirects. The question is whether other editors have stopped reverting those edits. There has been discussion at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and there is no consensus those episode articles should be redirects. That is why I removed the redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   • I'd agree with the basic point here, though views are so polarised that I have my doubt as to how useful any discussion would be. AfD is probably the best way to go here, but even that may cause problems. (1) AfD isn't really for cleanup. (2) There are a HUGE amount of episode articles that qualify for merging. (3) What happens if different bundles of AfDs get different results? We'd just be back to square 1. BLACKKITE 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   • I think you need to look at the arbitration case related to episode articles before you suggest these articles be taken to AfD. The remedy issued by the arbitration committee was "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." I was not a party to that case, but I did edit the Workshop and I have discussed the issue on WT:EPISODE and Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. There is no consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes for those episode articles to be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
   • Certainly some views are polarized; I'm hoping a clear forum will invite others to participate, hopefully with clear heads. Agree AfD isn't quite ideal, but barring some really good alternative, it seems to be the port of choice in this situation. The goodness or badness of bundling probably depends on how the bundling is done; going case-by-case isn't necessarily a bad idea, provided there's a clear link between discussions and someplace to mention overarching issues. Mainly I want the edit warring to stop, the other details can be worked out. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   • I've stopped removing the redirects from Scrubs episode articles. The place to discuss Scrubs episode articles is Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. The place for discussion about episode articles in general is probably WT:EPISODE. I do not think AfD is the port of choice in light of the recent arbitration case. --Pixelface (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Sidetrack for a minute here

   • I haven't been involved in the others but I don't see any discussion of Open All Hours episodes having taken place at AfD or anywhere. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
     • Again, as I pointed out yesterday, those articles weren't currently encyclopedic, though the sources for them to be so almost certainly exist. BLACKKITE 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   OK then, seriously we're bypassing AfD now? In the interests of building an encyclopedia, the best chance any article has of being sourced and improved is by being there in the first place - AfD will give a 7 day timeframe of urgency for this to be done and consensus to be obtained. Removing it and removing links does not allow for this. BK you even said yourself you were surprised by Open All Hours being there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Articles should not be sent to AfD for the sole purpose of cleanup. Will 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I should add - a Speedy Deletion tag would be the next step then not just blanket removal. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   CSD does not apply to TV episode articles. Bold redirection is correct here, I think, until those articles are up to scratch. My surprise was only that the articles were so poor given the sources that must be available, unlike many other TV series.BLACKKITE 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yea, lack of notability should never be a reason to CSD. And I'm trying to get a rewrite of WP:FICT that encourages more discussion and collobration than just throwing the article to the AfD wolves. --MASEM 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   So someone can write a hoax which gives a few days grace as it is PRODded or AfD but an episode article is different? How does that make sense? This is what unsourced tags are forcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   • Hang on - AfD and PROD are about deletion. These episode articles have not been deleted but merged. BLACKKITE 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   No, no. An AfD debate is about whether an article stands on its own as such, which is the debate in question here. They are not being merged but changed to redirects which for all intents and purposes deletion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Disagree - a Delete at AfD is basically saying "this can never be a viable article", whereas Merge/Redirect can mean "this isn't a viable article now, but could be improved to be so". BLACKKITE 00:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Erm (?) ok, to me all merge means is that the article as such has some link to a notable one already in the 'pedia. In which case merged material should be incorporated into a parent article not dropped out of the loop as it were. Reinforced by AfD being a discussion on a single article/page as such. But anyway....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Such as thus cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Can we just block the resurrectors for a while?

   It's become clear to me from watching that if User:White Cat, User:Pixelface, User:VivianDarkbloom, User:Vivian Darkbloom, and a handful of others were blocked for a couple of months, much of the sturm and drang about the redirection would disappear. TTN, Jack Merridew, and Eusebus are pretty resistant to blocking because most editors recognize that they have policy on their side. The others don't.Kww (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Give me a break. You think my removal of the redirects from Scrubs episode articles was disruptive? Take a look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and tell me there is consensus for those episode articles to be redirects. The idea that users you don't agree with should be blocked is ridiculous. The Scrubs episodes articles do not violate policy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Absolutely I would block you, and absolutely the articles that were redirected violate policy. No one in those discussions were able to come up with policy-based reasons to keep the articles, and those are the only reasons that count when judging consensus. Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen.Kww (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Block me for what? Those Scrubs articles don't violate policy anymore than Bart the General violates policy. Policy flows from consensus, not the other way around. If you ever make a request for adminship, I'll be sure to oppose since you obviously don't know what blocks are used for. --Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Support blocking all three. Been warned enough times. Actual collaboration on the topics would be useful, but those listed just debate for the sake of debating. Will 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   You support a block of me on what grounds? --Pixelface (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Noise-to-signal ratio is too high. I don't need to tell you a third time in twelve hours to stop blindly reverting. Will 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I stopped removing redirects over 2 hours ago. --Pixelface (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose blocking at this time, but issuing final warnings and blocking after that. Note that User:Pixelface has already issued a threat to re-undo all the redirects () that he undid earlier, an action I have warned him against, without any sign that the message is getting through. BLACKKITE 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   It's not a threat. It's to inform the editors on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that the redirects will be removed from the articles in a week because there is no consensus on that page that those episode articles should be redirects. If you want to block me for editing according to consensus, go ahead. --Pixelface (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, you've said that about eight times on this thread now, and it's still wrong, because there isn't consensus for them not to be redirects either - there isn't any consensus at all. Policy, however, would indicate otherwise. BLACKKITE 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   But BK, wouldn't you agree it is easier for the community as a whole to come to a consensus if they are visible vs. being invisible? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   In general, yes I would; but in the case of community disagreement, we have policies, and what policy says here is that at the moment many (not all) of these episode articles should be merged, until they can be improved. Otherwise we will have a massive problem of notability creep that we are already seeing in the arguments presented above. BLACKKITE 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   No, it's not wrong that there is no consensus for those articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. There may have been consensus at one time for those articles to be redirects, but the consensus changed. If there is no consensus for those articles to be redirects, the redirects should be removed, which I did and stopped doing, over 2 hours ago. Policy does not say those articles should be merged. And if policy did say that, it would need to be changed. Policy documents consensus. The article Bart the General has existed for 4 1/2 years and that is the actual consensus among editors. Individual episodes do not have to assert individual notability. And WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose becaus ei think that they have some serious emotional and personal isues that are blocking their reason in this about this issue. it would be better to simply restrict them form edditing the articles in questrion rather than permanently banning them from the internet. i also recomend that someone mediate between the editors ro resolve this issue before it escalates even wrose than it dies now. Smith Jones (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   As detailed above, I'm prepared to hand out short blocks to anybody who continues edit warring. I'll be turning a blind eye to whether they're redirecting or restoring. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   its not fair to blcok them because they might have a serious diesgareement and need help to resolve this issu ebefore it blows up into an edit war. 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Support, while I don't tend to like the idea of blocking a group of people, the group has cause some insanely huge disruptions among TV articles, in WP:Notability (fiction), and in WP:EPISODE, including actions that are borderline vandalism excused as "being bold" and editing existing guidelines to fit their own views against consensus and with a lack of consensus supporting their changes. Several have stated point blank that they do not care what the existing policies and guidelines are because they disagree with them, they get into frequent edit wars, and some repeatedly push the civility border in dealing with other editors (including making unfounded accusations, using the "deletionist" label as an insult, making personal attacks, etc). Perhaps a block might help them take a much needed breather, though I believe some of them have already been blocked before so maybe it won't. Collectonian (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Editors are not to be blocked just because you disagree with them. I was not an involved party of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. I removed 2 edits from WP:EPISODE because those edits did not document current practice. As long as you're painting a group of users with a broad brush, it would help if you specified who you were referring to. The idea that the "resurrectors" should be blocked and not the redirectors as well is ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   • Oppose. Block users per Luna Santin. We have plenty of guidance and policies to cover this situation. They are at dispute resolution, consensus, editing policy, civility, assume good faith, verification, neutal point of view, no original research and what we are not. Those are our methods of dealing with these situations. Our methods do not include disruption, gaming the system or edit warring. They do not include instruction creep. Our methods include accepting that sometimes things go against you. They include collaborating. They include compromise, give and take and listening to the other side. they include reaching the best outcome. They include writing an encyclopedia. As the arbitration committee declared, we have plenty of guidance on handling the merging/redirection situation. It's called discussing to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. If that means an article with a lot of citation needed tags in it and a couple of templates on it, then so be it. If that's what the consensus is, then that's what the consensus is. For me, how some people handle the situation of merging/ redirecting shows a lack of respect for WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. Both sides need to keep talking to other collaborators and to edit the articles with respect to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Tag things as needing citations. Wait a month. If they haven't been cited, remove them. Remove speculation. Remove peacock terms and weasel words. Remember, WP:BRD. Remember, we can be gradual as well as bold. Hiding T 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
   • Oppose as per Hiding who summed it up and saved me a few minutes. Let's keep it focussed on articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
   • I'm with Luna. Block whoever's at fault on any given page. However, that means looking at lots and lots of pages, and frankly, policy's on TTN's side, not on the resurrectionists' side. This does effectively mean they'll be blocked first. I don't support long blocks though. 24 hours should be enough to get the point across, and it can go up from there as/if needed. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
     • The idea that the arbitration committee did not find it necessary to issue any blocks but people are discussing potential blocks here like a mob is a little disconcerting. --Pixelface (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
   • Er, right. If you block everyone who opposes your actions, there won't be anyone left opposing your actions, and you can therefore declare consensus. I'm afraid it's not that simple. Can't we all just work on improving the articles, instead of merging them aggressively wherever possible? --Conti|✉ 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Barring that, can we take this somewhere else, please?

   This has dragged out way more than it should have. HalfShadow (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I would support it if this thread was moved to Talk:List of Scrubs episodes (or even my talk page or a sub-page of my talk page) or I suppose even WT:EPISODE or just archived at this time. I stopped removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles over 2 hours ago so I think it's clear no intervention by administrators is needed. I've been trying to clear my name here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Its getting bigger than just scrubs though...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oh I'm well aware of that. I helped work on the Workshop at the arbitration case. I see there are at least two other threads on this page related to episode articles and that's quite unfortunate. These things need to be discussed at WT:EPISODE. --Pixelface (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I agree moving this elsewhere is good, but this is a larger issue than just tv episodes - or more specifically, if something "special" is done for TV episodes that conflicts with PLOT/NOTE/FICT, we're going to have to repeat this whole process for any other serialized work (individual comic books, etc.). I would suggest helping with input at the present revision that is going on at WP:FICT (eg where we've been trying to determine the consensus for a good couple of months now).

   Or at least to some degree harmonizing the discussion (I have notified WP:TV of the current version we're trying to get more eyes on and have mentioned such on WT:EPISODE, among other places); I understand the need that WP:EPISODE likely needs further guidance beyond what NOTE/FICT can provide, and thus there are some different issues that come up, but the end result is that language in a possible rewrite of EPISODE has to agree with NOTE/FICT or else we repeat this progress ad nasuem. --MASEM 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oh boy!

   

   I do not have a single revert regarding any fiction related content in months. NONE. You want to block me for discussing things? I got news for you: WP:CCC is part of a CORE official policy (Misplaced Pages:Consensus) which happens to be "Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". TTN and others have not adequately discussed this matter prior to taking action. TTNs first 20 edits has evidence of blanking content like he is doing now.

   "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it" (Misplaced Pages:Consensus). Consensus means majority of opinion; a general agreement or concord; harmony if you will. I see no evidence of harmony in what TTN is doing. I want to see at least 100 people in that discussion since this involves thousands of articles, pronto. Make it 50 people. OK how about 25 people? This shouldn't be hard as some people seem to be sure of this consensus. After all smaller matters had greater participation by the community. I want to also see many users including notable wikipedians who had been on wikipedia for a while in that discussion so I know the issue is fully discussed.

   How episode articles are currently handled is not in line with that QUOTE from Misplaced Pages:Consensus in a nutshell. The consensus comes BEFORE the policy. Not the other way around. We lack a consensus that supports episode articles and character articles are to be mass blanked.

   This problem had been around for a while now and it will not be resolved so long as the community ignores it.a

   -- Cat 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I don't quite follow you but this might have some bearing. There is a major re-write and discussion taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   TTNs mass blankings can only be considered OK per WP:BOLD. They become not OK the second they are reverted. Clearly mass reverting TTNs edits isn't helpful but perhaps those reverts would not have been necesary had TTN participate in discussions and seek a compromise. How many posts did TTN have on the episode RfAr? How many posts did TTN have here? Lets do a little statistic:

   TTN
   Namespace	Edits	Namespace	Edits
   (Main)	21341	Talk	3340
   User	113	User talk	1860
   Misplaced Pages	559	Misplaced Pages talk	767
   Image	98	Image talk	0
   Template	231	Template talk	24
   Category	12	Category talk	0
   Move	57	Move Redirect	26

   What does that mean? Now I have 40,430 total edits and I had been here for about 3 years. Wow, time flies. Anyways I have 3543 "talk" edits and 8752 "user talk" edits 6642 "wikipedia" edits and 1505 "wikipedia talk" edits. Thats 3,543+8,752+6,642+1,505=20,442 3,543 + 8,752 + 6,642 + 1,505 = 20,442. And I often discuss matters on IRC. 20442 / 12086 = ~1.69... which means for every mainspace edit I made 1.69 average talk page edits and I was a hardcore vandal fighter. Now thats just me.

   As for TTN he has a total of [28,345 edits. 3,340 + 1,860 + 559 + 767 = 6,526. 6,526 / 21,341 = ~0.31 which means he has less than half an edit average per namespace edit.

   Now I well know its quality not quantity but when you are blanking an article that ought to be at least worth a talk page edit. The rate he is editing is proof that he isn't actually reading the articles he is allegedly merging. I'd think it is difficult to merge an article without ever reading it.

   I am sure there are many other interesting statistics that can be derived from the data I linked to on the toolserv. Something to think about before blocking I would hope. Has this guy done anything but mass removing fiction related content?

   -- Cat 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   So now it's a penis contest? come off it. The articles have had ample time for improvement, and the content has not been lost, so the opportunity to improve the articles is still there. But in the meantime, why should we have thousands of article of cruft? There's nothing at all in many of these articles that meets ANY of a half dozen policies. We keep saying that, and all the responses amount to 'but I love that fuckin show' and 'Fuck TTN for fuckin my favorite show's episodes, now I can't relive them in my mind by reading the scripts as preserved on Misplaced Pages'. That's all that's in so many of these articles - fat, blow by blow plots, quotes, trivia, and citations that amount to citing the official fan book, which is sponsored by the show. Circular reasoning. TTN's got policy and plenty of support, and you've got a bigger dick, apparently, and a 'OTHERCRAPEXISTS' and "ILIKEIT' response. TTN is bringing respect to the project by reducing the ratio of episodes:other content. And for the last time, the sports analogy falls on its' face for one reason over all else: Sports are played by real people and have immediate, tangible, real world consequences in local and national economies and related news stories. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Penis contest! What? Oh, you were kidding. Man, don't tempt me out of retirement like that! -- Kendrick7 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages doesn't care how much time one devotes to one area or not. Also, statistics without context do little to help a discussion like this. I always get a kick when I check my own stats, since oh-so-often I'll have a huge number of edits on one page for some very minor reason, and yet some other page I spent a huge amount of time on isn't even listed. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:Sophroniscus

   I just wanted to post here a notice that I am concerned about User:Sophroniscus' talk page and edits. Via another article I came upon the article Alphonsa Muttathupadathu, created by this user. I tried to clean up the WP:POV (), but the problem is the article in question relies exlusively on non-neutral, religious apologeticist external links, making claims such as "miraculously" which are inherently unencyclopaedic. I made both of the last two clean-up edits, but the most recent time, having somehow logged myself out w/o realizing it, only reflects an anonymous IP.

   The language on this user's talk page () is almost wholly confessional and disturbingly fundamentalist in nature (i.e. "It is better to let the nations rage than to be dragged down into their errors. For God has abandoned the world to its darkness.") I have not contacted him directly because his/her talk page contains a section called "Garbage In, Garbage Out", which is what I suspect he would regard anything I had to say.

   I am not a religious bigot and I know that he/she is entitled to hold any and all religious belief. But, given that this user has created scores of articles and edited scores of articles (at least some reviewed by User:Essjay), and given the presence of other religious apologists and propagandists on Misplaced Pages in the past I felt compelled to bring this to the attention of WP:AN/I for fear that this user may be attempting to use Misplaced Pages to engage in religious propaganda. I hope an objective administrator can review and decide. Thanks. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   link to attack site being posted

   Resolved – Case closed. Bring in the dancing lobsters.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
   • Nobidecus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting a link to an attack site on Talk:Chip Berlet . I have warned him, but I am approaching 3rr. Perhaps an administrator could talk to him? Like A Rainbow (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   One admin blocked another user for criticism of Chip Berlet, that link is accurate. --Nobidecus (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm moderately certain 3RR doesn't count if it's something like this. Attack sites are frowned upon here; it's technically reverting vandalism. HalfShadow (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   That link has to go. If Nobidecus continues to post it, he/she should be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Considering that Nobidecus's only edits are in regards to this link, I smell troll. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Threats of physical violence

   What can be done for threats of physical violence? I am continually being physically threatened by sockpuppets of User:TougHHead. See today's recent example at User talk:Quacker 77. This has happened with at least 5 accounts/IPs at this point. I have contacted the abuse addresses for a couple of Internet service providers of those IPs, but I'm wondering what more can be done either by users or the foundation. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Metros (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Has an IP check been done to try and block the underlying IP or IP range(s)? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   AWB edits

   I have encountered a number of editors using AWB to make thousands of edits. Although editing for other reasons, they also do AWB's "general fixes", which include converting <references /> to {{reflist}} always. Per {{reflist}}, however, "there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references". (I didn't add it, though I had something to do with that note being there.) Basically, making this edit over thousands of pages is tantamount to enacting policy. Presumably we wouldn't tolerate someone using a script which orphaned reflist; this should be the same situation.

   I've pointed this out to the editors and most have either turned off AWB's "general fixes", or used an of the "unstable" versions which doesn't have this "feature". (The next release version of AWB will not do this.) My problem is not with AWB, but with editors using AWB who don't agree to leave this part of articles alone. What to do? Gimmetrow 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   While I have never made an edit to an article simply to change <references /> to {{reflist}}, any time I do a major edit to an entire page (such as adding an infobox or a significant number of references), I will switch to {{reflist}}. While there is no consensus to use reflist, there likewise is no consensus to use <references /> either, and getting mad at users for switching to a standardized template is a mite counterproductive, since your arguments don't really have any justification other than personal preference. Your suggestion to users to switch to an unstable newer version of AWB is not realistic. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   It's not a "standardized template", that's the point: there is no requirement to use it, and the other form is considered acceptable. And we're talking about edits which include . Frankly, I don't see how this would ever be approved as a bot. The problem here is using automated tools to enact de facto policy. Gimmetrow 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   To quote AWB user rules "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." The diff you cite is just that, it should be reported to Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser in my opinion. I see you brought the issue up there, but not as an abuse of the program, but a program issue. I suspect that if the coders aren't concerned about it, a user conduct RFC might also be appropriate if it is a small number of editors making a large number of edits on the exact model you cite. MBisanz 04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   The coders are going to change this point. In the current situation, an editor is making a very substantial recategorization. Most edits do, in fact, involve some category change, but if bot approval were sought for recategorization, I highly doubt BAG would authorize doing any debatable "general fixes". Gimmetrow 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Even though I don't think we've cross paths, I am one of those editors who uses AWB to make hundreds of edits with General Fixes turned on. Now I won't save an article just because of a general fix (I only search for Regex typos to begin with), but since general fixes also does stuff like re-arranging inter-wiki links, cats, and tags, I leave it in place. I've heard this position before and would gladly turn it off or upgrade to a stable version of AWB, to respect policy, but until that happens, I don't know how to reconcile it. MBisanz 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   If there is no preference given to EITHER version, while it may be of marginal value to change it, it is completely WP:LAME to editwar over it. While you and I might find it a waste of time, it is an equal waste of time to change it back. Let it go, is my advice... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I was under the impression automated tools should only be used to perform edits with consensus. Am I wrong in that? Gimmetrow 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Gimmetrow, perhaps you should start a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser or Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests instead of here. There doesn't seem to be any actionable item for any admins here. --Bobblehead 05:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:Shadowbot3

   This bot is supposedly operated by User:Shadow1, whose user page and contributions indicate that he has retired as a Misplaced Pages editor. If the editor who is in charge of the bot retires, shouldn't the bot be shut off? This is particularly true given that the bot appears to be archiving some pages too hastily (see the more recent entries on User talk:Shadowbot3) and there is no editor who is going to respond to complaints. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   it may have been taken over by someone else. Viridae 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   If so, that needs to be made clear. If it's running loose without a leash responsive owner, it should be blocked. Grandmasterka 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I just blocked it. There are several unanswered complaints on the talk page. Grandmasterka 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   The list of pages archived by this bot is at Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere, they should probably be converted to use MiszaBot. —Random832 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I've went ahead and added a notice to the top of this bots talk page telling users it is inactive, with a link to MiszaBot. Nothing else to do here really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   User:Jayjg

   The incident regarding Jayjg has been archived here without resolution and in fact before receiving any input from an administrator. I respectfully request this issue to be resolved or at least receive administrative attention as quickly as possible due to the nature of the complaint. Wayne (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   In my opinion, this matter should be put on hold. There is currently an ongoing arbitration case related to Israel-Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles). Jayjg is not a party to the case, but hopefully the remedy proposed here, or something similar, will be passed, thereby paving the way for a (hopefully) comprehensive solution to the trouble that constantly brews around certain areas of articles (including Israel-Palestine articles). -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Likewise. The issue seems to have played out. I read it over, and saw no need for a block or page protection at this time, pending the ArbCom case, which may do so for unrelated reasons. What action should admins take?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Category:
   • Misplaced Pages noticeboards