Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:01, 15 January 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Hezbollah userbox

Unresolved – moved continuing discussion to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox. slakr

User:Raggz

Unresolved – Moved thread over 50kb to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

slakr

Can someone please have a look at this thread? I appreciate that it's long and tedious, and a lot of crazy claims have been made, but the original complaint (that Raggz has been persistently making false claims in various articles and deleting stuff he doesn't like for false reasons) is quite serious and hasn't been resolved. Some editors are trying to characterise it as a content dispute but it manifestly is not.

So far, the only admin who's commented, Coren, has agreed that this is not a content dispute and that Raggz "is currently a net liability to the project" but no action has been taken and Raggz continues to disrupt the project. Until an administrator intervenes, he will continue to insert blatant lies into Misplaced Pages articles and remove the facts he doesn't like.

Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is stale. You might consider arbitration or another form of dispute resolution if the problem behavior persists; but, for now the user has been warned. --slakr 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the only reason I say it's stale is that it doesn't look like any administrator is going to act on it for the time being, and it looks like it's turning into an arbitration discussion, so it doesn't help to keep it posted here unless the problem involves a seriously pressing issue requiring emergency attention. --slakr 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question but what do you mean by "the user has been warned"? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor note. For those who are interested the longer discussion thread still exists. It is at

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

I noticed that the link to it was struck out higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it was only mean tto strike out the actual "unresolved" tag. I suppose I could just replace it entirely. Anyway, the warning was Coren's post later in the page. I don't know if anything is resolved or not, but it seems like the discussion is considerably more in depth and requires more than a simple discussion on ANI (i.e., it requires dispute resolution, or, if that hasn't worked, the final step arbitration. There's little else that is willing to be done here, else it probably would have been done already. --slakr 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean this? I don't see an actual user warning there, and Raggz certainly didn't interpret it as one. On the contrary, this sends a clear message that he can keep lying in Misplaced Pages articles, edit summaries and discussion pages, and no administrator will ever do anything about it. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Be civil and don't use personal attacks. Jtrainor (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz has told dozens of outright lies in articles, in edit summaries, and on discussion pages. He has told a bunch of outright lies about me personally. I've provided plenty of diffs that demonstrate this, but no-one here seems to be interested.

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I don't think anything in WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL implies that we shouldn't point out when a person is lying. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Can we close this section as a raging content dispute between editors who do not particularly like each other, but none of whom has done anything anywhere near deserving of being blocked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a resolution exactly like the one slakr reports in the post just above User John Celona, called User Raggz. Including the warning to user Raggz part. David in DC (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to procede as Sarcasticidealist proposes. If there is anyone to be warned, it is David in DC, who has looked up my posting history and made often inflamatory posts to over a half dozen articles which he previously had never posted on. One article he completely blanked without discussion. When another user restored the article, David in DC nominated it for deletion-an action which was unianomously overturned. . When he was blocked for trolling on July 23, Administrator Nick issued these apt words- " 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" John celona (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been warned by John. Somebody warn John and let's shut this turkey down as resolved. David in DC (talk) 17:12, 15 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)

Thank you. The situation has presently gone to arbitration: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus

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

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)

moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar. —Random832

Uploads of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

This user has uploaded an undetermined number of fair use files that have fair use rationales consisting of a few words. Needless to say, they do not conform to WP:FURG. I've already tagged three for di, but was unsure whether to continue (Twinkle adds a warning to his talk page every time... flooding etc). There may be a large number of others. --Thinboy00 @087, i.e. 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you do need to explain why these rationales don't conform with WP:FURG, otherwise your contest is without basis. If you think that these rationales are in some way deficient, please feel free to expand them or detail your concerns at the respective image description pages. The primary concern remains whether the current use of these images is consistent with the NFCC, the inadequacy of rationales is secondary. ˉˉ╦╩ 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that he has a large number of these things, none of which provide a valid fair use rationale. The first one was three words long. He is missing entire criteria in all three. None of the three are more than a sentence in length. WP:FURG is a guideline, and execptions are only made when there is an actual (common sense) reason for doing so. Laziness is not a reason. --Thinboy00 @096, i.e. 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think these rationales are not valid? Which specific parts of FURG do they violate? Don't judge a rationale by its length, there is no guideline that requires a set number of paragraphs and most rationales are plagued by redundancy. The concerns that have to be addressed include image quality, replaceability, and purpose for use; Norton's rationale of "low res, dead, no revenue loss" may be concise, but it does address these concerns. And please, don't throw out accusations of laziness. ˉˉ╦╩ 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, ec, late comment) It did not address purpose of use on any occasion. --Thinboy00 @135, i.e. 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of using a photograph to identify a person is self-explanatory. Even so, if the lack of a statement on the purpose is your sole concern, then say so in the tag. ˉˉ╦╩ 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here I echo Wikidemo's comment (further down). --Thinboy00 @192, i.e. 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The guidelines are going to keep evolving, and new templates created. We shouldn't delete the older material, we should fix it each time a new guideline comes out. The purpose is to have a useful reference work. Any new editor can format the rationale to whatever the new standards are, but to delete the material is just silly, and does no service to this reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, rewrote comment) They (the images) are not old enough for that; one of them was uploaded last August: Image:HalRoach 001a.jpg. Did you read WP:FURG before uploading? This is what it looked like at the time. Even then it required a purpose of use. Not sure what you're getting at here. --Thinboy00 @134, i.e. 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The fair use rationale is there, just not formatted pretty. The pretty templates came later. And more changes will come in years to come, the question is ... do we delete what we don't like, or do we fix and upgrade to accommodate new changes. We don't delete articles with old infoboxes, we upgrade the article with the new infobox. Deletion is for ego satisfaction, fixing is for creating a good reference work. Why are we deleting an image because someone doesn't like the format for the rationale, why not fix? If everyone deleted, we would have nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, a little cut-and-paste work will spare the drama. I'm assuming good faith but the tone of the use rationales is a little dismissive. You can at least use a template or something. Also, the article name ought to be associated with the rationale, not the image as a whole (in case it gets used in more than one article someday). One criterion that's missing from your analysis is the explanation of why the image is important to the article (criterion #8) and not replaceable (#1). Neither "low res" nor "dead" explains that, and "no revenue loss" is a conclusion, not a justification. The area in which you're operating, historical photos, is one that is not an obvious case like record covers, logos, or book jackets. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, that would be a good argument, except that there were templates when you uploaded that image. Click on my link. I'm still assuming good faith, but it's becoming more difficult. I still believe that there is a rational explanation for this -- specifically, you forgot to did not read the guideline. That's all I can come up with. Of course, if you have a rational explanation, feel free to post it. --Thinboy00 @918, i.e. 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The good faith explanation you're missing is this: ignoring instruction creep is entirely appropriate in some cases. The phrase "forgot to read the guideline" implies that you think every Wikipedian has your guideline on their watchlist, so they can do things differently every time it changes. Richard Arthur Norton has been improving the encyclopedia, so don't attack him for improving it in what you consider to be slightly the wrong way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be interpreted that way. His explanation implied that he read, or at least skimmed the guideline ("The pretty templates came later"), and I was upset because this was clearly not the case (see my oldid link). --Thinboy00 @966, i.e. 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this was exactly RAN's motivation, but I know that if I were uploading non-free images (I don't) I would write a brief, common sense description instead of wading through the red tape of FURG. That kind of instruction creep is exactly what IAR is for.

One thing about Misplaced Pages is that if you care deeply about something (as you do about every fair-use image using a particular template), you do it yourself. Trying to force other Wikipedians to participate in a process they don't care about and enforcing it with deletion is a destructive way to do things. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One attempt at a template for historical images is Template:Historic fur. I'll suggest Richard uses that (I have an interest in seeing historical images saved as well). Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that many historical images like this will fall into the public domain in five or ten years, and the vast majority of older ones are never likely to cause any problems in any way - there just isn't any copyright holder around any more. Mindlessly tagging and deleting them may be shooting ourselves in the foot a bit. They should be carefully reviewed and some should be given the approriate PD tag. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pats1

I ask that the actions of this editor be reviewed. I still feel threatened and feel like I am being treated in a uncivil manner. I think this editor may have jumped the gun in warnings and threats when he knew that they were not necessary. I think he may have simply done the bidding of another user, chrisjnelson, who has been banned before for uncivil posts. I simply ask that those with power to block be fair and juducicial, rather than what I think may have been a knee-jerk, unfair, abuse of his powers. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

this was Pats1's response to me when I said I wanted this to be reviewed . . . is this acceptable?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 /C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you seem to be very interested in bringing this admin to justice... from reading your talk page and his, I think this is a misunderstanding at best, and an ip troll at worst. Of course we assume best case. I think you should read WP:AGF and objectively look at your actions. I advise you not to continue this dispute, as it may lead to blocking or banning, which we seriously don't want to do, but will if we have to. You might try Mediation. If you disagree with me and believe that there are widespread abuses, then ultimately you should go to Arbitration, but you should know that these cases are not accepted lightly, and you should attempt to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, through venues such as an RFC, or request for comment, which is slightly more formal than talk page discussion, and/or mediation. --Thinboy00 @175, i.e. 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee this is not an "IP" troll, whatever that is. I have contributed to wiki and think I should be valued as much as anyone else. I do disagree with you, but I do not claim widespread abuses. I agree this is a misunderstanding. I think if you look at what happened, I have remained calm and deliberate. Pats1 was been the one who is, in my view, being uncivil and also keeps changing his story. If you would put yourself in my shoes for a moment you would see that this was a "gang-up" situation, where a misunderstanding excalated, due to Pats1, threatening to block me without a valid reason. I have tried to get Pats1 to be reasonable, yet as you can see, he is still defiant and I see no reason why it is me who is under the scrutiny. As you say I need to assume the best, but it seems to me, and this is just my opinion, there seems to be some "editor" protections I am not aware of. It seems that since I choose to be anonymous that my word is not as good as someone else's. I have asked for fairness. I admit that I am not perfect, however, it is I who have followed the rules. At every step it seems I have been blocked, pardon the pun, from what is fair and right. I cannot comment on how arbitration or mediation would be appropriate---I don't know the process of either. RFC is a new thing to me altogether. I guess I think it is fair that those in power are the ones who should help me in this process, rather than hinder it. I think other editors should look at Pats1's action objectively, not look at him as "one of you" are that he is part of a clique. I understand that is natural . . . but when it is Pats1 who overreacted to a request of chrisjnelson, then threatens to block, even though I had asked for a solution prior to that means that he may have been abusing his power. You see, it is easy to get your way when you have power. In that situation I was at Pats1's mercy. Understand? I had asked that the problem go to dispureresolution. Pats1 says that "means nothing" to him. Well, it meant something to me. SO, this is ultimately not up to me. I have zero power here. I cannot make anyone do anything they don't want to. In a sense, as an IP minority, I have no franchise, but I thought I had the protections afforded anyone else. Now, as far as RFC, Arbitration, Mediation I don't know. Clearly, the most informal should be first. However, it is my view that Pats1 will be defensive about ANY of those. I could not get him to talk to me before he threatend to block me, and he's shown his attitude by his posts . . .

] (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 /C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

....So, if I am wasting my time by asking for a review, formal or informal, then so be it. Then it may be the above statement is considered CIVIL. In my book it is not. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read about this whole issue, it seems to be about an incredibly minor issue. The whole conflict between 72.0.36.36 and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) I think could've been avoided. Based on my observations, correct me if I'm wrong, when Pats1 (talk · contribs) got involved with the revert war between 72~ and Chrisjnelson, I understand the basis of which Chrisjnelson, and later Pats1, made the reverts. I won't say who I believe was right or wrong.

Now, for 72~'s claim that he was unfairly warned/threatened. The two warnings visible on his talk page right now cite that 72~ had deleted portions of "page content, templates or other materials." The only thing that I've seen that 72~ did was remove {{trivia}} from the Ted Ginn, Jr. article. Now, here is my view of how the situation was handled.

I think that Pats1 knew that the edits that 72~ was making were disputed. The warnings that Pats1 gave out are generally used for users deliberately blanking all or part of an article in a deliberate act of vandalism. There is nothing that indicates to me that 72~ was vandalizing the article. It is my belief that the warnings Pats1 gave to 72~ were not necessary, and made the conflict into more than what it needed to.

In either case, Pats1 is a great contributor and a good admin. I don't think that anybody's behavior needs to be reviewed. But I do side with 72~ about the "unfair warnings", and that has nothing to do with my previous conflicts with Chrisjnelson or Pats1. I think that the best way to resolve this would be for both sides to just go their separate ways and try not to make this issue anything more than it needs to be. I see no reason why any action needs to be taken because this is just one incident. It's not indicative of anybody's overall behavior. Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Pats1 attitude

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 /C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, if that's the ruling, I can abide by that. I posted Pats1 most recent post to my talk page. It is not what I call civil, but there are often different standards. Like I said, I can abide this, no problem. I will go my separate way he Pats1 can go his. It is enough for me that there was some sort of review process and now Pats1 is aware that I will assume good faith, but not to a fault. Thanks Ksy92003 I appreciate the review.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 /C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and Politik426. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pats 1 uncivil?

Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Misplaced Pages processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. Pats1 /C 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that Pats1 tried to help at all. I don't think that is truthful. He clearly does not thinkKsy92003's opinion is worthy of his attention. I find Pats1 attitude to be uncivil . . . however, if WIKI rules cannot do anything and other admins are not "peer reviewed" as it were then I can kind of understand why this kind of abuse can go on. The very fact that he has such contempt for the process is quite interesting in that it goes unchecked. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this from the beginning and it's absolutely silly. Pats1 has done nothing inappropriate. --B (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

17-0. Wait, no, I mean I don't see what exactly the problem is here. The posting of other people's messages here is making this extremely difficult to read, and if this is just a problem one user has with an admin, then it's really no big deal. J-ſtan_{User page} 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a simple matter - don't block people you're in a content dispute with. That's straight from WP:BLOCK. If Pats1 has not blocked, then no problem. If he has, it'd be challengeable. However, it does not appear he has, so there's nothing for us to do here. I broadly agree with Ksy's summary. Orderinchaos 12:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orderinchaos.. not the "agreeing with me" part. User warnings are not meant to "threaten" people for making certain actions that are the basis of a content dispute. If you know that something is in a content dispute, it's not really very helpful to warm them and threaten them with a block.

Also, to extend on the WP:BLOCK point Orderinchaos brought up. WP:BLOCK says "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." This pretty much applies to threatening to block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. That is there for good reason. Without this rule in place, any administrator can virtually trick somebody into getting themselves blocked. That's something that I think any admin needs to keep in mind when getting involved in conflicts.

There is something else that I think is worth noting. This may be a conflict of interest on Pats1's part. In the past, he and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) have had a friendly history in the past, and whether he was right or not, it's not a good idea for somebody who has the power to hand out a block to get involved with an incident between two other users and take the side of somebody they consider a friend, and then threaten the other user with a block. This could be seen as a major of conflict of interest if a block was, indeed, handed out. Ksy92003(talk) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive quote

There has been much discussion about the Hezbollah userbox, and it has been deleted because it is offensive. I tried to bring up this issue there, but it was suggested I take it elsewhere.

However, there is another message that many would find offensive. It's on User:Boris_1991, one of the quotes that reads:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So inflammatory was this quote, that it incited the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Even His Holiness says he found the quote "unacceptable".

Why then is wikipedia, after cracking down upon those who support Hezbollah, allowing others to label Islam (and by extension all Muslims) as "evil and inhuman"? Should we not ban this as we banned the Hezbollah userbox?Bless sins (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Boris 1991's user page does not violate Misplaced Pages:User page. Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages. Jecowa (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Asked him to remove it: , which should have been your first stop. Viridae 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages". I've heard this from another user. What if someone merely copied and pasted the contents of a userbox into a quote? I don't see the difference it'd make.Bless sins (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(The following is as one user remembers and may be skewed by time and memory degregation.)

• Short answer: Offensive content is not allowed in userboxes to prevent Misplaced Pages from looking poorly.
• Long answer: Userboxes were first created to tag the language skills of Wikipedians so translators could easily be found. Userboxes were then expanded to be used to identify other useful information about editors, such as which editors are biology experts. In these days userboxes were stored in the template namespace. Then userboxes began to be created as jokes or to express users' opinions, such as "this user is an extraterrestrial" or "this user loves dogs". Some userboxes were offensive to some people, such as "this user eats infants" or "this user hates black people". Naturally, people protested this controversial use of userboxes. Since userboxes were stored in template namespace and reflected on Misplaced Pages as well as the individual users, controversial and potentially offensive userboxes were banned after much discussion. Even though divisive content had been banned, many people were still against userboxes. A long time later after much discussion, all userboxes deemed not useful for building an encyclopaedia were removed from the template namespace. Today, even though personal userboxes are restricted to existing in user space, they are still under the rule that prohibits free expression of offensive content, even though it doesn't make as much sense anymore, seeing that these userboxes would have to be stored in the user namespace. The only reason it could be said now that offensive content is allowed on user pages and not userboxes is that content in userboxes could be misconstrued as being representative of Misplaced Pages's opinion. Oh, by the way, the Hezbollah userbox you mentioned was stored in the main namespace, so that definitely had to be deleted. Jecowa (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really an incident, so perhaps we should continue the discussion elsewhere, however the page has been previously nominated for deletion. Given the user has stopped editing, if the page was renominated, I would 'vote' delete as his user page doesn't help promote a cooperative atmosphere. Addhoc (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages" is flat-out incorrect. A userbox, either in userspace or substed onto a user page, is part of a user page and subject to the exact same standards as other userpages. There are additional requirements on pages in the Template namespace, which is where the Hezbollah userbox was deleted. —Random832 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Userboxes prohibits anything divisive. Under this criteria User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad would not be allowed in a userbox as it was definitely divisive. As far as I can find in Misplaced Pages:User page, the closest thing that comes to prohibiting User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad in a user page is its prohibition of extensive use of polemical statements. One sentence is definitely not extensive. Jecowa (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(FYP) This is WP:BURO run amok. He can say that, but just not in a box? What if it was a big box containing other things, like his entire user page? Is it our policy that rectangles have magic powers, or do we a policy on statements written inside pentagrams that I've just never run across? -- Kendrick7 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing putting that statement in any size box would be okay as long as it's not using one of the userbox templates. Jecowa (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Kendrick7, I too find the policy "standards for userboxes are different from standards for userpages" to be very peculiar. If this policy is indeed true, then it should be changed.Bless sins (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that since "If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes, and vice versa," the rules against incivility, personal attacks, inflammatory content, divisiveness, propaganda, advocacy, recruitment, opinion pieces, self-promotion, and advertising carry over from userboxes to userpages. A restriction on one venue automatically places a restriction on the other. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess it should be removed, as inflammatory userboxes are.Bless sins (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sarsaparilla, it does indeed say "vise vera". This is because User:Kendrick7 just added that "vise vera" bit yesterday. The Userbox page, however, doesn't seem to be the best place to list restrictions on user pages. If these userboxes and user pages are to share content restrictions, perhaps these restrictions should be listed on the same page. Maybe a page called Misplaced Pages:Content restrictions that all other pages could link to. It would be nice to have standard guidelines for everything on this matter. Jecowa (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the section on content restrictions dates back to before subst:'ed and userspace userboxes were commonplace, and is therefore written from the assumption that any userbox is a template. —Random832 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

IP abuse at Arbcom workshop

There's an anonymous IP user, 69.76.37.158, attacking other users at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop (in multiple sections of the page). This user's posts, both there and at Talk:Matt Sanchez, make me suspect it is banned User:Pwok. Would someone run a checkuser to try to confirm or deny this identity and semi-protect the workshop page? Thanks. Aleta (Sing) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page, after waiting a little while for the IP to withdraw the attack. I would also like to know if the IP is a regular user, in case the user is related to the arbcom case. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. One of the issues in the case is long term baiting by single purpose IPs and accounts, usually short lived. Durova 07:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the language is strikingly similar, I don't think this is banned User:Pwok at work here. Pwok was infamous for a dozen or so changes at once, as he refused to use the preview button and tweaked his posts a word or two at a time. Also, he used a Comcast IP address in Seattle, while this is a RoadRunner IP address in Wisconsin. A checkuser would be nice, but I don't think it will reveal much, since there are no other addresses with which to compare; I don't think it is any of the regular editors editing under an IP address. Horologium (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for your insight, Horologium. Whoever this IP is, s/he is continuing to post comments very insulting to any editor who has ever worked on the Matt Sanchez article at Talk:Matt Sanchez, essentially accusing all of us of conspiring to lie about Matt and censor the truth about his "40 videos". Aleta (Sing) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's not likely to be Pwok, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the handful of contributors to his attack site. (Exercising editorial restraint; it's not the first description that ran through my mind.) Can we just temp-block to IP to make him go away while we are running the arbitration case? I had not planned to continue adding evidence, but I may reconsider if Sanchez (and good-faith editors who disagree with the IP) continue to be attacked by halfwit unregistered editors. Horologium (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Durova has removed the comment with the note that it *is* Pwok. I find that highly irregular. Do we routinely remove IP-comments even critical of Misplaced Pages on the presumption that they might be a banned user? I would also point out that this constant attack on Pwok who *cannot defend himself* here is pointless and without any merit. Wjhonson (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Surrounding inflammatory IP posts had already been removed by another editor as Pwok ban evasion. Furthermore, I have made no attack on Pwok. If you wish to take issue with my conduct, I would gladly see both our names added to this case where you will be expected to support aspersions with evidence. Durova 10:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)

User has reverted my edits 5 minutes and 3 minutes after I made my edits. These were the users 2nd and 3rd edits today - rather unusual. Blanking of episode lists and character lists is common practice at the moment.

User has also voted on FLRC just 13 minutes after myself.

-- Cat 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat has redirected the lists after TTN merged the characters to the list. This is an obvious WP:POINT. As to the timing, I had not even realized it, I just fired up laptop and looked at what was going on. --Jack Merridew 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Coincidences... I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. So why is it that TTN is allowed to make such edits and why is it that I am not allowed? -- Cat 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reference to the movie Magnolia? --Jack Merridew 10:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's quoting Elim Garak. --EEMIV (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take contested redirects to AfD; all these edit wars are getting to be more than a bit disruptive. We have AfD for a reason. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All Oh My Goddess! character articles (nominated for redirectification by Jack Merridew and redirectified by TTN) and episode articles (nominated for redirectification by TTN and redirectified by Jack Merridew) were bulk redirectified.

As visible with this edit TTN makes such edits. Special:Contributions/TTN has more examples of mass rectifying. User has over 1000 edits this month - almost all mass redirectifying. If there is nothing wring with that, there is nothing wrong with my edits.

-- Cat 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting articles, in itself, not generally a problem; edit warring over that redirect, potentially far more problematic. I'm not intending to single you out in particular, I've seen more than a few people doing this recently. Contested redirects should be discussed, not brute forced. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted. Not once. Jack Merridew reverted twice on this particular case. If you check TTNs past 5000 or 500 or even 50 edits you will see plenty of examples of brute forcing. -- Cat 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think the articles should be deleted, AfD is freely available; other than that, what's the issue, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN is mass blanking articles had been doing so for months. The problem is me trying to commit similar edits which upset Jack Merridew. -- Cat 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset, I just undid your disruptive edits (on two different lists). --Jack Merridew 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you revert similar edits by TTN? -- Cat 11:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If he restores your redirects, at this point, I would probably talk about it; here, where ever. --Jack Merridew 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this? -- Cat 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the feck that is. --Jack Merridew 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a diff where TTN recently blanked the content of an entire "list of characters" article. -- Cat 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm rarely wins folks to your point of view. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He redirected the merge targets, removing everything out of pique. I don't think anyone was advocating that. --Jack Merridew 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw you mentioned that (haven't taken too close a look, but assuming your description is accurate that sounds worth discussion) -- I figure the AfD onus should be on those who want article(s) removed, similar to the situation with contested prods. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? TTN, Jack Merridew and other members of the club vote together manipulating AfDs. Happened before many times. -- Cat 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his disruptive behavior is the issue here and should be the focus of this discussion. This is far from the first instance of such conduct by this user. --Jack Merridew 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I redirectify articles thats "disruption" if you or TTN does it thats good conduct? -- Cat 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the perceived intent that is the determinative factor. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Belldandy for the prior fit. And note that it went to DRV, too. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yet Belldandy is now a redirect along with every other character. Why can't I make edits such as this yet TTN can? -- Cat 10:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, it's pretty clear that those redirects you made was an attempt at scorching the Earth because you couldn't get your way. This isn't the first time you've done this either.

Also, if you have been paid any attention to WT:ANIME, you will find that there has been discussion about merging episode, and to a lesser extent character, articles that are unable to independently establish their notability. Neither TTN nor Jack Merridew have been a significant party to either of those discussions nor are they members to WP:ANIME.

As for the Beck article, I've reverted the redirect because the content of the article had not been merged into the target article, no equivalent content exists on the target article, and there has been no discussion to simply blank the redirected article either. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I make edits like TTN and people yell at me! I do not believe TTN has even read those articles. No human being can read that fast. I did merge it in a TTN-like manner. I removed the crufty non-notable material off. Link article has all the "notable" material which may also be redirectified. -- Cat 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are gaming the system. Seraphim 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

well since the redirectors have been doing it for months without sanction it would appear to be the aproved method.Geni 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This behaviour is childish and WP:POINTY. If you believe the method that has been used, to be wrong (like White Cat has made clear), then you do not use the same method yourself. When have two wrong's ever made a right? Seraphim 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you view their method as wrong? If so why are you not takeing action against it?Genisock2 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no, I don't view their method as wrong. They are fixing a problem that just wasn't recognised unitl now...or rather it was recognised but no action was taken. There are two sides to this and believe me, I can sympathise with both. Many argue, "people come to wikipedia for tv episode articles and that's why our encylopedia is popular and useful". I can appreciate that and it has occurred to me that if we destroy the usefulness of our encylopedia, then in turn, do we de-value it? But on the other hand, making these articles comply with our policies is a good thing and there's a very good argument that, by removing non-compliant material (non-comliant because it is a WP:NOT#PLOT regurgitation), we increase the quality and respectability of wikipedia. Did you see the Smallville (season 1) page that Bignole wrote? That is the sort of high quality content we should be aiming for.

My point was that White Cat views their methods as wrong, so for him to use them, shows he is making a point. That does not benefit the encylopedia. Seraphim 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried talking and discussing it for months. My counterparts in return insulted me. The issue was taken to arbcom. Now we know how that ended. If what TTN is doing is right you cannot complain about my behavior. If it isn't right then why the heck is the community ignoring the problem? I am not making a point here. I am merely blanking "low quality" articles I wrote since TTN or Jack Merridew will do it anyways. I merely did not wait for a few months before their eventual blanking to save time. -- Cat 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Find specific diffs in which your counterparts insulted you, and show them to them. Try to resolve your differences with them on a personal level (as users rather than your stances) and make a fresh start. Even though you created the articles, it doesn't mean they are yours to blank without discussion. The redirectors/mergers always leave tags and then notices and start conversation where possible. I can understand that you and others are upset that articles you put time into, have been removed from sight, but try to put your personal feelings aside and think about doing what's best for the project i.e. collaborate/compromise. If you think TTN's method is wrong and you want to redirect or merge articles, use a different method. The best thing to do when in a dialogue with those you disagree with (or disagree with you), is act in absolute civility and with as much understanding as you can muster. Even if someone does not show you the respect or civility you showed them, you can at least know that you behaved well with dignity. Seraphim 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What best for the project? Oh yeah I forgot about that. TTN and others have made no real attempt to reach a consensus on whats best for the project. Instead they brute forced their will so far and are continuing to do so. A few sections below they are trying to silence the opposition with blocks. they even have a nice poll. It seems like a game to them perhaps, who knows.

There are many instances of TTN mass blanking category full of articles without even giving hint of discussion or tagging. I committed their behavior only and only twice. Seems like the system does not like this kind of edits. So why is it that TTN is continuing to make them?

The best I got out of from my counterparts was a "How can you expect anyone, on either side of this debate, to have any

respect for your views when you disrespect us with this rubbish?" That was in response to my post containing my arguments and stuff like "I value your opinions on the matter greatly". If they make no effort to construct a meaningful discussion by constantly avoiding the discussion and going into personal attacks without provocation, how is that my fault? Can you say that I have not tried to discuss this? Can you say that TTN has made a meaningful effort to discuss the general problem? Well?

WP:DR was tried to its fullest. So please save me the lecture.

-- Cat 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you followed my point about being civil by labelling my post as a "lecture". Why would you alienate someone who is trying to understand? I won't post anymore. Seraphim 18:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea; if you take your two lists to Afd, I'll abide by the consensus reached there. I promise to not oppose deletion. (not promising not to comment; this offer good for a limited time only. Batteries not included. Void on Texas.) --Jack Merridew 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like stalking to me. I'd ban on sight, this could be a security compromise. --Gp75motorsports 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Useerpage

This user supports the independence of Tibet.

This user supports the independence of Chechnya.

This two inflammatory userboxes are present in different userpages. I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. A discussion is going on in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You know the 2005 userbox war happened for a reason. Political userboxes and religions userboxes are not allowed. That was the consensus back then and I see no evidence of a change in consensus. People have started creating political userboxes in their userspace. I however heavly doubt ANI will offer a solution. -- Cat 10:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Smoth 007 has a userbox supporting independence of Palestine and the above-=mentioned userboxes are present in User:Noor Aalam. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You would think that someone who complains daily about userboxes (yet wanted to create controversial ones himself) would have learned about deletion process by now rather than complain here everytime something bugs him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. Yet you link to a MfD that you are aware of. Given that, what do you think the proper procedure would be? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that this two userboxes are not constructed in one particular page. The userpages on which the userboxes are present, are written in raw codes. There is no specific template of these two userboxes. So what I need to do now? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot use MfD here because the userboxes are not constructed in a specific page. So in which process these will be deleted? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing as long as it isn't worse than it is now. If larger parts of the user pages turn into campaign posters then use MfD. You are very unlikely to get more out of this than sympathy for the idea that user pages shouldn't be used for this. Lots of people have the suppoprt for Israel boxes yet nothing happens to them - it takes more than that when they aren't transcluded on there - mainly because the lack of transclusion makes it harder to quickly list everyone who believes this or that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't much wrong here. Sure, they could be considered inflamatory, but they aren't as badd as some. Though I would watch that userpage to make sure it doesn't get worse.--Phoenix-wiki 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think this kind of thing is the definition of gaming the system. -- Cat 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh FFS give it a freakin' rest. If there are support of <insert faction here> userboxes then it should be okay to have userboxes supporting the other side. WP does not take a political side, if you continually delete one side without the other then you are in effect determining a WP bias. So quit with the userbox posse and go do some editing. --WebHamster 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. According to your argument, a userbox can be created with a text "This user support nuclear war". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are telling that it should not biased, i.e. it should not be biased towards peace, or disruption. So the equation becomes:

• Peace = biased
• Disruption = biased
• Not supporting peace, not supporting disruption = Neutrality. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This two userboxes are definitely inflammatory. Who occupied Tibet? Who occupied Chechnya? What is going on in Tibet and Chechnya are sucsessionist movement and userboxes supporting them can not be tolerated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be tolerated by you, the rest of the editorship seems remarkably unconcerned. Look, they aren't hate boxes they are expressions of belief. They doen't say they are right, they don't say what should happen, they don't say kill the ruskies or the chinks. They say that the user believes in whatever they are saying. That is not inflammatory. Now please get off your high-horse and do something useful with your time. --WebHamster 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The practice is that a userbox can speak against, but only in favor. "This user supports GW Bush" is an acceptable userbox. "This user supports the impeachment of GW Bush" is not acceptable asa userbox. A userbox can support the american Army, or for that matter the Iraqi insurgents. We have no business deciding which one is an instrument of oppression. A user can not say: I support killing the American invaders" -- or for that matter "I support killing the Iraqi terrorists". DGG (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks an awful lot like User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is trying to make a WP:POINT about the deletion of several of his userboxes here. Which is a bad idea. MastCell 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I expressed the same concern (though not quite as directly) last week on his talk page; my comment was deleted without response. —Random832 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2006 called, they want their userbox drama back – Gurch 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html discussing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The podcast opens suggesting using google to search for evolution or intelligent design, and you'll find Misplaced Pages near the top results, "But let me tell you, there's an incredible liberal bias there" then describes WP as being mostly edited by students and academics who don't need to spend their time trying to make a living, filling their heads with "liberal mush". Near the end of the podcast he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... The first thing you can do, on the issue of intelligent design, is go to wikipedia.org and go to, say, the section on intelligent design, and read it, and see if you could improve it. Or maybe it's the page on evolution, or creationism. Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it. Anyone is allowed to edit it. There's a little bit of a learning curve, but really, it's supposed to be their premises, be bold, go right in there and improve it, but within five minutes, what you have written will be completely reworded, or kicked out. If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed. And if you get a little bit out of hand, because it's easy to get upset about these kind of things, you'll be kicked out. You're history. But you know what? Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" ... dave souza, talk 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case - is the identity with User:Profg proven? In that case, a good long block/ban is in order, as he was apparently already under parole for previous disruption, and this is as clear a case of disruptive behaviour as you can get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

- it's self-admitted. Adam Cuerden 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, and considering the existing parole imposed by User:B after a previous ban proposal (see User talk:Profg), I'd be willing to block for a longish period. How long shall we say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Still no block, though. And to make this perfectly clear, the precise nature of this person's ideology is irrelevant. It's the attempt to canvass for a POV push that's important. Durova 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just waiting for a bit of further input. There's no hurry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last ANI discussion Adam Cuerden 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action and don't really care one way or another what anyone does here except to say (1) by linking the podcast here, you've probably substantially increased his listenership, (2) a block would be punitive not preventative (not that I'm expressing an opinion on whether or not there is anything wrong with that, just that it is what it is), (3) if he is blocked, do a checkuser, and (4) if a block is made, make sure that it is for actions, not for bias - there are other Wikipedians that run attack sites sites that criticize Wikipedians or Misplaced Pages (google "nonbovine" for instance). --B (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about criticising Misplaced Pages. It's about solliciting meatpuppets. A block isn't any more punitive than any other block that is imposed based on past behaviour. You take past behaviour as a measure of the likelihood that future behaviour will be disruptive, and calculate block length accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to post both relevant podcast links: http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/9A7C2A76-9F89-11DC-880E-000A959E8368.html --Filll (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

• A block won't stop the damage. Misplaced Pages does not need editors who declare war against NPOV and canvass for meat puppets. This is a cooperative project, not an exercise in unlimited free speech. He must be excluded until he agrees to work cooperatively. Jehochman 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't edit the articles in question. I haven't even looked at the articles in question. I don't know the guy on the radio. However, the description in the first paragraph suggests that the article is POV and needs correction. So the assertion that the person is anti-NPOV is an attack. Whether it's an attack that can be justified is a different question. It's possible that the radio guy is looney. The fundamental question would be to put yourself in his shoes and ask "are there sections which are biased"? We should examine the fundamental question about whether this radio announcer has valid ideas that are being reverted. If so, then the talk of banning, blocking, and other steps are wrong. If the radio announcer has wacky ideas, that's a different story. Does the radio announcer's edits have reliable sources and are properly referenced? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• A short sprotect of any article that appears to have been edited vexatiously following the podcast would resolve any problem with undue weight/vandalism. Re Profg, although they may have violated the terms of a parole the effect can be easily mitigated and blocking them from editing Misplaced Pages is not going to stop them from their off-Wiki activities (and may encourage them). A month block may suffice to persuade the editor we are serious about countering disruption of articles, but provided the carrot of a return to editing should they not canvas further for disruptive editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are correct that the block may encourage more warring. That is why I have proposed a social construction: a ban. If Profg sees that we are unanimously against his methods, he may stop. If however, he sees support from any faction, he may view this as just another liberal-conservative battle, which is hopefully not the case. Jehochman 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, its certainly not a lib/con consideration; the template on Profg's page mentions a block rather than ban as sanction for parole violation, so I am being consistent with that. If the block is indefinite pending cessation of canvassing for POV pushing, with a month minimum tariff, then I could support. I would comment that the template doesn't directly address canvassing, but if the net result is to violate the terms of the parole by meatpuppetry then I think sanction on violation of parole is justified - it just depends whether we are considering keeping the key or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• We don't need to split hairs over what's a ban and what's a block. If a block gets imposed on the basis of admin consensus after a discussion like this, it will by definition be a ban. A temporal one; I too would consider indef overkill in this situation, and possibly counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• We are not limited to the probation remedies. If he has done something else wrong, which appears to be the case, we are free to impose whatever remedies are necessary to protect the project and deter future disruption. That said, if he were to come here now or later and say, "Oops, I didn't realize this was wrong, I will issue a retraction," then the remedy could be lifted. Jehochman 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could I propose an initial block of one month, to be reviewed at the end of tariff for evidence of continued off-Wiki canvassing for POV pushing - which would then attract the indef tariff until such time as they agree to comply with the communities wishes - as a compromise? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree and I would support a ban. This isn't just a case of seeking external input; Profg is explicitly seeking to recruit a large number of supporters of his POV and to use them to impose that POV in violation of NPOV. I'd call that unacceptably disruptive conduct, regardless of the effect it actually has in practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Given that a block or ban might encourage him, can we think of another option? Can we reason him out of this approach? And if that fails, then move to other thing?--Filll (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• How about we ban and block him now, and if he wants to come back, he has to stop actively trying to sabotage the project, and then we can talk. This is a project, not a public service. Editing is a privilege, not a right. You are certainly welcome to reason with him. I think a block by an individual administrator is problematic. We need a statement by the community that this behavior is highly objectionable, and that we will exclude him so long as it continues. Jehochman 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that banning people for telling others to edit and use Misplaced Pages would be a terribly productive use of anyone's time. Regards, ]
• A block/ban will simply turn him into a martyr, further enhancing his status with his constituency. And it won't help us because he can return as a sockpuppet anyway. Regarding edits by his audience, it's not necessary to respond instantly. The "slow revert" is a wonderful thing. So what if the article is lousy for a few hours, or maybe a day or two, before we roll back -- lots of our articles are lousy for much longer periods than that. They want to provoke a newsworthy reaction and the best thing we can do is not react accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps some administrator can be appointed to have a discussion with him explaining why what he did was out of line with Misplaced Pages community standards. Pending the results of that discussion, the administrator would report back what he/she thinks is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. If it seems like there was good understanding and remorse (and perhaps even a correction made on the next podcast), take no action. If there is no remorse or no willingness to engage in discussion, take some action. Antelan 17:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose the ban but could support it if there is a proper explanation. What is the offense that causes the ban? Wikipedians don't like wikilawyering and neither do I. However, we need Wikiprecision.

What is the behavior causing ban?

1. Is it "mention of Misplaced Pages to others will cause you to be banned"?

2. Is it "mention of Misplaced Pages in the radio will cause you to be banned"?

3. Is it "disruptive editing because of diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is causing your ban."?

4. Is it "asserting that there is a bias in Misplaced Pages causing you to be banned."?

5. Something else?

This could be a clear cut and easy decision. However, it's not adequately explained here. Maybe it's because you know what is going on. Others don't. I haven't read the articles. So if you want a community ban and not just a ban from you and your fellow editor, then you should be more specific. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Off-wiki Canvassing for meat puppets to support a particular point of view is an illegitimate way to deal with a content dispute. A ban of this user would allow us to swiftly block any sock or meat puppet accounts that answer his call to disruptively edit the target articles. Jehochman 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have never even looked at the articles in question so I am questioning the process more than the edits. In Misplaced Pages, calling someone a meat or sockpuppet is too convenient an excuse to block someone. Ideas, not number of editors, is of more importance. Does the edits have reliable sources? If so, they are not POV or can be made NPOV. "Others contend that .... < ref >" is the way to do it. The biggest question I have that needs to be answered for me to support a ban would be to show the diffs to demonstrate that they seem like POV and wouldn't likely have any reliable sources. A review of the opposing sides edits that have reliable sources would also be necessary. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban. In the time I've been familiar with him, something like a year now, he's been an inveterate POV pusher. This latest demarche of his demonstrates a clear contempt of this community and the project's goals. Don't see a talking to making much of an impression on someone who holds such strong views and is willing to make such public calls to recruit meat puppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban. -- Fyslee / talk 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Profg hasn't actually edited much for some time. I'd suggest that we run a few checkusers over the next month in case of sockpuppetry vandalism, and watch his account, but if we ban him at this moment, realise the gesture will probably end up being symbolic rather than particularly useful. Adam Cuerden 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is senseless. People are not AFD'ed. A one-line "support a ban" or "oppose a ban" type discussion is unhelpful. There were admins willing to unblock him before (I was the one that implemented it.) Is there any admin who would be willing to unblock him this time? I'm guessing the answer is no (as it probably should be), but if any admin would be willing to unblock him, that is what it is. Community bans are when no admin is willing to unblock someone - you can't treat people like articles and vote them in or out of existence based on whoever shows up. And for the record, I would (obviously) not be willing to unblock him this time. Canvassing on-wiki or off-wiki is obviously not an acceptable behavior. The issue before was that nobody could actually provide examples of Profg behaving in any way that would warrant an indefinite ban and no uninvolved user even supported the ban. Now, that's changed and I seriously doubt any admin would unblock him if he is blocked. I agree with Adam that it would be somewhat symbolic since he has not edited (at least not that we know of) in some time. But there's nothing inherently wrong with a symbolic action when it is a symbol that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. --B (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1 Month Block

I have implemented a 1 month block and informed Profg that this can be shortened if the canvassing is stopped, or lengthened if we observe continuing problems. This seems to be the most appropriate remedy at this time. Jehochman 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose We are acting like the thugs that killed Wei Wenhua. Even Jimbo Wales is against this. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statements_of_support We are acting like the mob trying to ban User:Profg. All he said was to edit Misplaced Pages to improve it. He did not say to write POV. His previous behavior is not the issue. Read the complaint at the top. They don't like him promoting Misplaced Pages. These people seem to only want POV, anti-creationist to edit WP. I am not a fanatic. See my edits. They are very reasonable. They call for fairness (including criticism of the film) and not POV one way or the other.

Other wikipedians do the same thing. IRC is one big canvassing media. So are talk pages and e-mail. As long as we are fair in what we edit, it is ok. So I support unblocking of Profg for his webcast. If he edits POV, then he can be blocked. Let's not do the same thing as the mob did to Wei Wenhua. Fairchoice (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On sprotects of the pages Profg suggests be targeted (per above discussion)

Probably unnecessary at the moment. Evolution has been sprotected for months, if not years (It used to be one of the biggest vandalism targets. A few persistent vandals may mean that it still is...) However, for the unprotected articles he mentions, there's hardly been a flood of new, problematic users. The only edits I can find that have a half-decent chance of coming from this are two edits by new user Sonseeker007 (talk · contribs) to Intelligent design. They were reverted, and that was it. There was also a little anon vandalism of Creationism ( - but this is pretty standard "Hi, X!" vandalism and probably unrelated. Adam Cuerden 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, his announcement is of what he plans to organize in the future.--Filll (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the very first paragraph, a podcast quote says "If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed". Yet we are trying to ban him. A more productive discussion may be "Let's not slam newbies. Let's get all editors to use reliable sources for every statement, particularly controversial statements." I find it disturbing that we are trying to ban editors. I would find it more comfortable if we are banning editors for failure to use reliable sources and citations. We have to be careful because most articles, even non-controversial ones, are full of uncited statements. If we are banning him because of clearly POV statements and lack of citations (diffs needed) and failure to cooperate in fixing this problem, then that's a different story. If I were to give Easter eggs only to perfect kids, no kids would get Easter eggs. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but think of the reduction in cavities! On the other hand there is not always a benefit in numbers, sometimes WP can do without certain editors. --WebHamster 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

True, we don't want certain editors in WP! I don't want anti-Easter Bunny editors but would allow them if the anti-Easter Bunny edits had citation and were written in an encyclopedic tone. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear: this is relating to the above discussion of Profg , not the users cited in the examples. Basically, if he was really that major of a force against Misplaced Pages, we'd probably have seen a bit more trouble by now on the articles he mentioned by name. I've changed the title of this section appropriately. Adam Cuerden 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how blocking him would prevent his solicitation of meat puppets via his blog. DGG (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I too don't see how banning him would prevent meatpuppetry, all he would do is use the incident to say that it proves his point. However, from my experience in other controversial topics, new editors who come in and try to change an article to support their POV almost never become good editors. They either get blocked for disruption, POV pushing, edit warring, incivility/attacks, sockpuppetry, etc. or they give up after a few weeks of not being able to get their way. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, User:Profg was disruptive and unconstructive in the best of times, and was most recently unblocked on fairly strict terms of parole. Now he's soliciting a large group of editors of a particular POV to swarm and "overwhelm" a contentious article? Block the account indefinitely. He's already got his red meat on how he's been censored by the leftist hordes; an indefinite block won't materially change that. If he changes his approach convincingly, or if some admin wants to unblock him, then we can reopen a discussion. If the articles become problems, we'll semi-protect them as needed. MastCell 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup. I propose we do absolutely nothing. If we have a large number of newbie POV editors then we semiprotect, and revert to the last stqable version. But unless he is very influential, I doubt it will amount to anything anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF. I am for reason and civility. As mentioned above, the movie article hasn't been subject to attacks yet censorship exists because it is protected. Fairchoice (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, is there any reason you aren't using your main account? MastCell 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion. Jehochman 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Would someone mind telling this user not to maintain list of users s/he doesn't like? The user claims it's not insulting, but it's clearly meant to be. Mønobi 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i just warned him for you. Smith Jones (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I told him to remove it and he renamed from "Worst admin ever" to what it is now, then told me he'd added me. I don't mind really with the way it is now, but it was bad before.--Phoenix-wiki 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I made a mistake calling it "worst admins", which of course was very offending, which I did not meant it to be. I was just a list for my own convenience, and for other users who either have had the same run-ins with those users, or who simply just needed to find someone who knew how the things work here. Besides, who can really define what is "offensive"? Is a list of random user-names offensive?? If you do not like to be on the list, fine. Write me and I'll remove you. I didn't say you were assholes or anything like that, just said the guys on the list were "attentive", and then defined what the word meant (someone who pays attention). Nothing offensive about that, unless you just WANT it to be so. -Which apparently many of you do. So I've had to remove the list from my page, which is a violation of my freedom of speech, but who cares about that anyway. If you ban/block me from the site for something as banal as this, then my point has been proven.KnatLouie (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing harrassment, vote rigging and sockpuppetery by User:Coloane

I'm being harassed by User:Coloane for making an unfavorable review at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Macau. The first step of his retaliation was to nominate one of the FA articles I've worked on at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Indonesia/archive1. That approach failed with the review being quickly closed with the issues raised being dismissed outright, but he then threatened to renominate the same article again at WP:Featured article review on February 1st, 2008 (). The editor clearly states their motive for renominating Indonesia is revenge here: (). Another editor also unfavorably reviewed the Macau article, and the response from User:Coloane was the same: a threat to vote against one of the articles written by the reviewer at WP:FAC (). There may also be a violation of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing by this editor - they have asked a number of other like-minded editors to vote at the Macau FA review : , , , , . Blackmailing other editors and gaming the system to achieve FA status for articles should be a serious cause for concern.

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior with this editor. User:Coloane was recently blocked for violating the 3RR on Russia (). Another editor expressed frustration that the editor was also being disruptive on the Singaporean articles: . If you examine the edits made by User:Coloane, User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan there is a superficial case that they may all be sockpuppets controlled by the same individual. There is an overlap in the articles they edit and the style of their edit comments - all editors have a habit of writing "+" a lot in their edit comments, specifically "+ comment" or "+ com" for adding comments at talk pages, "+ ref" or "+ reference" for adding references, etc. Indeed, User:Coloane has previously been blocked for block-evasion (), and User:Coloane and User:Fbmmsu have played tag team in reverting at Programme for International Student Assessment to force a 3RR violation block of another editor. A checkuser on these accounts would be helpful in understanding exactly what is going on.

Can someone help solve the ongoing disruption this editor is causing? (Caniago (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your message you wrote me in my talk page. Excuse me, for what you claimed about sockpuppet(s) is groundless. Admin can check it. There is nothing wrong to notify my friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote and give me comment over the FAC page as long as I didn't force them to vote either support or oppose. The original spirit for blocking is to quench edit war and I don't think there is edit war over the page of PISA and it passed long time ago inlcuding Russia. For the article Singapore I already compromised with other editors like Huaiwei. For what you claimed about my first block evasion last year because I had used anyo. with Mobile IP, that is why the admin blocked me after I created my account. Caniago, there is nothing wrong for me to put the article Indonesia over the page of FAR. Actually that article is not in FA standard. Lead has no citation, I am not completely wrong. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not in the business, if you do this for me I will do that for you! There are people I do not like, but I do not go to articles conserning them imparting my opinion. We must follow WP:NPOV and supress the evil WP:COI as much as posible to preserve WP:Notable, respect WP:WEIGHT and WP:AGF. Igor Berger (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed something wrong to notify friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote, for that can amoung to WP:MEAT if their sole purpose to be here is just that...engaging in revert-wars. And I do not consider him as having reached any "compromise" with me, after his failed attempt to abuse the WP:3RR policy . which was the last time he chose to be disruptive in Singapore-related articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that WP:MEAT only applies to the recruitment of new editors, no? Josuechan (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are not completely wrong. There is no absolute black and white area in canvassing. It depends on the sitution. I invited them to give me comment. They can give me pos or neg comment; or they can even vote oppose. It seems to me I reported your case of abuse 3RR policy to noticeboard first, am I right? and at the same time, you got a warning message as well, am I right? well, I am not going to argue with you this matter because I forgot it and I am too lazy (unlike you) to find out from my edit history. It seems there is some differences and you changed something after the edit warring. Well, but I just don't care!! Coloane (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloane also harassed me after I made an unfavourable review on the Macau FAC and after I exposed his lying on another issue. User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing." and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay". He encouraged other users to vote oppose to the Russia FAC that I nominated as revenge (please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately. His article is almost failed!!!! just give him a last bullet. I will come back and check it tomorrow!!) and here (I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. T) . He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc . Furthermore, see the comments written by other users about Coloane when he was reported for 3RR recently.--Miyokan (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, last time you copied and pasted this message on 3RR noticeboard the day before yesterday. Then you copied and pasted on the FAC page. And again, now you pasted it over here. Your speed in writing is much faster than before but not much improvement has been made. Coloane (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I once again question this user's intentions on Misplaced Pages. His actions are centered on disrupting highly valued contributors, for the sake of pushing his national interests. I cannot see how he may bring anything constructive to the project. (p.s., this is charming, no?) Bogdan 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

so? this is my IP from Ottawa, Canada. I don't mind much if you want to get more info from me. I am currently a neurosurgeon working in Ottawa. What else do you want to know? Coloane (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently on vacation, so I am limited in what I can write, but Coloane does have a limited fluency in English which restricts some of his editor interaction (and also wounds his ego when it is pointed out as a mitigation for some of his behaviour). If Wikipedians study the deleted portions of Coloane's talk page (visible in the History) it will become plain that Coloane's agenda is not always coterminous with that of our encyclopedia.

Nevertheless he does have useful contributions to make and I would suggest that outright blocks of whatever duration would be counterproductive and only give him a perverse incentive for puppetry. Better would be a voluntary undertaking from him to only edit Macau articles for 2 months while he learns a less vindictive style and that he seeks mentorship. Alice 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I am not interested in you. I wrote you already on your talk page. If you are seeking a boyfriend or husband, please refer to related classified online. You just disturbed me a lot. If you think your English is wonderful (though this is not your native language), congratulations! please go to ask some one if they can offer you a place as an ESL teacher. Good Luck!!! Coloane (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above is a blatant and very public display of highly unacceptable behaviour, and a clear cut example of his tendency to launch personal attacks against others (and I find it difficult to imagine that he is doing so due to his lack of proficiency in the language). That he even chose to do this right here shows his contempt towards wikipedia policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Having seen Coloane repeatedly cause disruption on Singapore-related articles, I am not surprised to learn about his conduct at the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In a discussion at Talk:2007 Southeast Asian Games, he made an anti-Singaporean personal attack, claiming that "Singaporeans... basically semi-handicapped". He also edit warred with Huaiwei on Singapore Changi Airport. After both users broke 3RR, he apparently resorted to sock puppetry; the IP should be added to his CheckUser case. Communicating with this user is difficult, as he frequently blanks his talk page. Perhaps a RFC or arbitration case is needed to further investigate his conduct and determine what sanctions, if any, should be imposed on him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

well, you are still holding the grudge. I nearly forgot this incident which happaned long time ago. I think that I didn't go back to that article for sometime. Actually I did nothing wrong. For what I did is made sure the information up-to-date(i.e. report from 2007). I remember you Huaiwei also got warning of 3RR policy, am I right? of course I can blank or archive all conservation in my talk page, it is my account. For what you talked about sockpuppets is completely groundless. The IP you provided from above is from Malaysia. My IP is from Ottawa, Canada. Anyway, I just don't want to waste my time to talk about this. Regards! Coloane (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Coloane (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not I still hold a grudge against you or not, I feel it is important to elaborate on your history of disruption on Singapore-related articles. The more evidence we provide, the easier it is for administrators to investigate your conduct. Note my use of the word "apparently", which indicates that I suspect, but am not sure, that you are behind that anoynymous edit. If you are innocent, CheckUser will help clear your name; however, if you are found guilty of sockpuppetry, prepare to face the music. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is no owner in wiki. It is not your private and Huaiwei's properties. Everyone can go to that page (i.e. Singapore or Singaporean topics) and edit. "Disruption" is not an excuse to block other editors to improve these articles. Coloane (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Coloane has made substantial contributions to various Macau-related articles. Given that few editors are involved in those articles, his contributions are much appreciated. His unfavorable vote against Russia FAC is said to be triggered by an editor's critical review on Macau FAC. But this cannot be the case as Coloane made his review on January 1, 2008 . while the other editor made his on January 9, 2008 . He is also accused of sockpuppetery controlling the accounts User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan. But the evidences being raised so far are: 1) there is an overlap in the articles they edit; and 2) they use "+" and "-" in the edit summary. It appears to me that the evidences are pretty filmy. Josuechan (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane may be disruptive (some of the diffs liked to above are troublesome), but after looking at the edit patterns of the three users -- Coloane, Josuechan, & Fbmmsu -- I wouldn't assume that they are socks of one person. First Fbmmsu has very few edits, so nothing definite can be said about that account -- although it is surprising that Coloane knows this user by name. Next, the periods that Coloane & Josuechan do not edit (assumably, when they sleep) is clearly different, & I identified one period of time when they both were online. While this does not provide definite proof that they aren't all socks controlled by one person, unless someone can provide better evidence than editting habits (as for using the "+" in comments, I do that too & my edit history would show that I'm not another sock), I'm satisfied that they are 3 different people at the moment. -- llywrch (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets or not, Coloane alone is still disruptive and doesn't seem to understand what is required in this project. It seems to be about tit-for-tat combat, rather than collaboration. User:Caniago's opening post describes the problem clearly. He doesn't like opinion provided on the FAC for his home town of Macau, and he "retaliates" by putting other countries (in this case Indonesia) up for FARC with very flimsy reasoning. When the reasoning was adequately rebutted and FARC is closed, he promised to put it back later (Feb 1st) with additional reasons. Thus, would I be wrong if I no longer assumed good faith with this editor? --Merbabu (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are really care the quality of that article, I don't think you would care if this article appears on FAR. To have a star on that article is not that important. Why do you feel so sensitive? Coloane (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse

I came across Cculber007 (talk · contribs) after another user reported him for incivility. I responded with two instances of AGF/NPA-vios, and was greeted today by a rather harsh reply.

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. Cculber007 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for incivility and legal threats. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:

• : Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against WP:VANDAL.
• Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per WP:AGF.
• Creative reuse of a header.
• Ditto.
• (the second message)
• E-mail from Cculber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Misplaced Pages about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Misplaced Pages. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
• E-mail from Culber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Misplaced Pages is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

He was given "one more chance" for legal threats.

Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: . I thought of just keeping this on the respective talk pages and working out a better solution, but after receiving the rather disturbing e-mails in successive fashion and after seeing the prior blocks, I thought this venue would be more appropriate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cculber007 additionally — and anonymously — posted threats and insults on my talk page here, threatening an edit war calling me "Coward dolt" and promising, "I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting dolt. ... Get lost". I hope he will not be allowed continued this pattern of abuse to multiple editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned User:Cculber007 for the message left at User talk:Tenebrae. I confess I didn't check the block log prior to doing so. Hiding T 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's your response: . Appearantly, anyone who disagrees with him is somehow opposed to deaf people in general, per an e-mail I received yesterday and the comment he left in reply to your notice. His reply. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Cculer007's motiviation is for acting in the way he has, so I wrote a message offering some advice in my most authoritative, yet friendly, voice; I hope I did not dump too many credentials on him. I am willing to work with him to smooth off his rought edges, but if he does not respond productively any other Admin -- senir or otherwise -- is welcome to interpret my message as his last warning -- or review & criticize my language. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock assistance

Over about a month's time, there have been a number of disruptive POV edits made to Serb-related articles. All have been made from IP addresses, with the vast majority from either the 195.29.96.x - 195.29.105.x range and 217.68.80.50 (talk · contribs) (the latter account has been blocked). The edits were spread over about thirty pages, with protections up to a week in length having little effect. User:Cheeser1, who initially noticed the edits and has been monitoring it since then, has documented most of the pertinent information at User:Cheeser1/Vandalism, which I will not duplicate here.

As protection has been ineffective and this user shows no sign of stopping, I think it's time to look at a rangeblock. I'd like to solicit others' opinions before doing so, however. Also, would it be wise to request a checkuser to determine any collateral damage such a block would incur? Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that the IPvandal has made it clear that the 192.29.96-105 range and 217.68.80.50 is definitely the same user, and has explicitly made it clear that s/he has no intention of contributing constructively to these articles or any other part of Misplaced Pages. The user seems to think vandalism is humorous (most easily gleaned from these two page histories). No other contributions seem to have been made from this IP range as far as I can tell (I haven't checked all 2560 of them though). Anything I can do to help, since I've been doing the bulk of the work and have documented this case, just ask. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a rangeblock for the 192 addresses. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request input on topic ban

Hello. I'd like to strongly suggest a topic ban for User:Gp75motorsports, restricting him to article space with talk edits only relating to those articles, and a specific restriction on discussing one Pee Wee Herman vandal. He spends the majority of his time in userspace or talk space, rarely actually writing articles, and generally making mountains out of molehills. This type of behavior stretches back to his beginnings on the project. However, despite him having months of experience, this behavior has not waned, rather, it has increased greatly. I do feel that if he were restricted to articlespace, they could channel this energy into improving the encyclopedia.

According to Interiot's counter, Gp75motorsports has made only 109 edits to the mainspace since he joined the project in July. Most of these edits are minor, such as removing links and tagging. Also according to Interiot, he has made 665 edits to usertalk space, which accounts for more than 53% of his edits, in contrast to his mainspace edits, accounting for less than 9% of his edits. Finally, about 10% of his edits are to his userspace. GP75motorsports also frequently threatens blocks in a very argumentative, BITEy, and bossy manner, such as here: , also speaking in very combative tones. He has also taunted banned users, running very contrary to WP:FEED. He also propagates instruction creep, as shown by these myriad examples (some admin-only): His WikiProject for the purpose of giving him and his friends power, their meeting room, and their requests page; more are visible here. He has created titles for his friends, proposed it as a WikiProject duplicate of the CVU, tries to deceive people about the nature of his project, canvasses for support in debates, canvasses against deletion of his pet project, gets very standoffish when it is nominated for deletion, canvasses for support in his deletion debate, creates "secret pages", and just generally creates busywork for people. The entire debate may hold interest. If you look at his contribs from the October 15-22 period, you will see a lot of wikilawyering and instruction creep, there are many more diffs, and this behavior has not ceased. He's also been blocked () and received warnings on his behavior (see , and). GP75 also harassed retired user RickK, posting on his talk page his purported new identity, using very inflammatory edit summaries, spreading it around, mounting an apparent investigation, and finally requests checkuser on him, but doesn't drop the issue. He has created other Wikiprojects mired in bureaucracy; 6 of them have been through MfD: AccInsure, ChampionMart, PeeWee Hurman, The Misplaced Pages User's Alliance, Misplaced Pages User's Alliance 2, and The Great Wikigame. GP is, along with User:Blow of Light, obsessed with the "Pee Wee Herman" vandal, culminating in this thread on Jimbo's talk page regarding a puerile threat from said vandal. Recently, they created a list of possible names he could take, resulting in this MfD. He posted on Blow's talk page regarding this vandal two days ago, stating that the vandal's IP "should be indeffed". He also takes a very militant approach, adding to Pee Wee's encouragement. He worked with Blow on User:Pee wee maury povich as a place to identify Pee Wee sockpuppets, see Special:Prefixindex/User:Pee wee maury povich. Also regarding Pee Wee actions, he asks repeatedly about his activities. Finally, he doesn't understand the purpose of CheckUser despite multiple reminders, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gp75motorsports, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/NikhtaSt, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/RickK. Finally, he promised once before to stop editing userspace, but obviously has not. His last 500 contribs may be of note. I hope that the community will consider this request. Regards, Keilana 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I would also support a block. Keilana 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about him too, and I've already been working back on mainspace. So, yeah, I don't really want or need to deal with PeeWee anymore, and I don't say why. —BoL 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And the alternate account I worked on was all by myself, and it's a doppleganger. If you want to, delete it. In fact, I've already tagged it. —BoL 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this topic restriction for GP, and think that it should serve as a very strong and clear warning to BoL (Blow of Light) that he is headed in the same direction at a slower pace. Some have advocated (see WP:EM) a less restrictive treatment of editors who focus a great deal of attention on their userspace at the expense of other contributions, but at this point their userspace activity has begun to contribute to disruption of the wider community. 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I present my caveats. —BoL 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, your warnings? You present your warnings? Metros (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my warnings, my contribs. You notice I've been working on Mainspace lately. —BoL 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Without turning this thread into a grammar debate, but take a look at caveat. "Let him beware" is essentially what it means. Metros (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully support any action against this user in the form of topic ban or probation. Metros (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

its sgenerally a clear sine of a single-issue editor (or a vandal) that they spend more of this time warring on the user page rather than actually working on the encycloepdia. i eprsonally think that a restriction is in order, aidn if he tries to violate that by abusing the articles throughe edit warring or rude edit summaries then he should be banned permanently. Smith Jones (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully support this topic ban. I'd also completely support a similar ban for User:Blow of Light, mentioned to a lesser extent in Keilana's explanation above, but no less worrying in my eyes. Both of these two have long histories of rather less than exemplary behavior. GlassCobra 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? Dude, I'm willing to stop. I aint' working on that anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop then. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support such a topic block on gp75 - suggest we hold him to what he requested (ie. protect stuff, just like he asked). If it's possible to salt userspace (using a prefixindex, perhaps, not sure....), then salting his userpsace may be a good idea, for a while at least. BoL has been contributing a bit lately, but is reminded that he's being watched. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

if you really want to stop, User:Blow of Light, you shoudl just stop and not protest your punishment. Smith Jones (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(after a bunch of ec's) This says otherwise (admin-only unfortunately). east.718 at 00:49, January 13, 2008

I don't see why we shouldn't ban him (GP) all together. It doesn't seem that he understands what Misplaced Pages is for, and has generally become a hindrance to the project in several situations. Are his article edits that helpful that we think he should be allowed to only edit them? Blow of Light, I don't know what to say, as I haven't really noticed anything good or bad about his presence. All I do know is that he seems to be fixated on this Peewee Herman nonsense a bit, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to banning GP75, although some others may cherish his {{trivia}} tagging more than we do. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And is that really what we want him to solely do from now on? It seems like a task that can be done by anyone, not someone who continues to fill his user space with unnecessary content.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As per GlassCobra, I think some sort of final warning is needed for both Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports. Mønobi 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd second the suggestion of a warning, at least in the case of Blow of Light. Blocks are intended to be preventative, either in preventing current and active disruption, or in preventing long-term cumulative disruption. If the user has stopped the behavior (as he/she claims to have done by editing more in the mainspace), and if the user states his/her intent to refrain from the disruptive behavior, then I think that's all we would need. If, after such a warning, the disruption begins again, then a block is absolutely warranted. I haven't looked into the case of GP, and reserve comment pending his response to this thread. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, hi, I just want to check. Is this going to be in ARBCOM or something? —BoL 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment. Hopefully that can be avoided with a voluntary community supported topic ban. Nick (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a topic restriction for Gp and I strongly urge him not to run to Jimbo or Arbcom every time he finds a threat or a vandal, not only does this tend to propagate additional unwanted drama as those unfamiliar with the situation begin to panic and make unwise knee jerk reactions, but also, as no active and experienced editors or administrators are aware of the situation, we're unable to deal with it. Nick (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blow of Light

I figured I'd create a sub-section to separate out discussion for Blow of Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since he seems to be getting a decent amount of discussion here too. What are thoughts on actions regarding him? He claims above he's cleaning up, but it's obvious he's still not doing well. Case in point is this response on his talk page. He spent an entire conversation accusing an IP user of having a conflict of interest, telling the user to go read the policy....only to be wrong and admit he, himself, had no clue what the policy meant. What are thoughts we might have on Blow of Light? Metros (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I'm not perfect, but so is no one. I'm trying to improve, but I am having a very hard time. —BoL 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's not hard to drop certain topics. Mønobi 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I do CSD work and improving San Francisco-related articles. —BoL 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a similar restriction to Gp above. Nick (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Just to clarify, I am supporting a similar restriction to the one being proposed for Gp in the section above for Blow of Light. I don't know nor care about PWeeHurman, especially as until now, it was not even part of this conversation Nick (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah isn't it weird how it works like that Nick? You don't bring up PWeeHurman, yet, Blow of Light brings it up. Metros (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As strange as it sounds, I actually support the topic ban on PWeeHurman. The reason why I'm freaking out about this is for a reason I can't explain unless you want me to. —BoL 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP. Does it not get through to you to leave the PWeeHurman shit alone? Seriously. I'm sorry if I'm being incivil here, but my god cannot it not get through to you hard enough? Metros (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're being uncivil, and yes, I want to stop, but guess what? It's getting through me all right. Just... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 02:40 UTC (UTC)

Look, BoL, I don't want to say this again. All of us do not want to say this again. Stop, and I mean STOP, all mention of PeeWee from this moment forward. —Kurykh 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why there's this. I don't know how words turn into black or red bars. —BoL 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

yes STOP IT. JUST STOP IT. !!! Smith Jones (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

if you sant something else to do, please visit and improve the article Battle of Mediolanum Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for Gp, Just stop, Gp. You know what, I don't ever want to ever mention anything about socks. From now on, I'm just going to try mainspace, like improve San Francisco-related areas. In fact, the reason why I even came back was I wanted a clean start, and apparently, I don't think I'm getting it. —BoL 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you worry about yourself first? Stop worrying about specks in other people's eyes with that plank in yours. —Kurykh 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want pompous proclamations of intended reform. You gave too much of that already. Actual change is what we want, what we demand. —Kurykh 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You got a clean start. Taking and utilizing it appropriately is another story all together. Metros (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

to fulyl take advantage of your clean start, please visit and improve Battle of Mediolanum or Bronwen Mantel as soon as possible. Smith Jones (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's because I got stressed out. Every time I get stressed out, I start getting really cranky and this is what usually happens and that's what got me blocked last time. I am sick and tired of this scrutiny over me, that's why I didn't want to come back, but I realized once I left, vandalism went up. Now I'm back, and it's still the same ol' same ol'. Can't you guys just leave me alone? And I don't mean a block. —BoL 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man! You mean alllllllll that vandalism we saw after you left was solely because you weren't here to stop the vandals?! Damn. Get this man a barnstar. Seriously, though...we wouldn't be scrutinizing you if you were making good, wise choices here would we? If you were editing appropriately and not obsessing over particular users and code shops, would we be calling your edits into question? Definitely not. So make the necessary changes and you won't have issues. Don't ask us to stop watching your edits. PROVE to use we can stop. Metros (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for Battle of Mediolanum, I've already started. —BoL 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Metros grow up and stop bulying other usrs its a violation of WP: No Personal Attacks and probably WP:Civil. if you have problems with BLowofLgihts' edits you should phrase them in apolite and respectful maner and offer encouragements for him to imrpove to meet your standards. doing otherwise makes it seem like your trying to bully him which is unfair and unhelpful. if you go to the article Battle of Mediolanum (which all of you should) you will see that BLow of Light has started to make construcitve non-PeeWee related edits and that's a trend that we hould be encouraging isntead of criticizing. Smith Jones (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I agree with him. I have created pages that are contributing to the project, both new and old accounts, like Carmen Chu, the Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project, and Cody's Books. —BoL 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop kicking BoL while he's down. —Kurykh 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm down, but not out. There's something going on, Wen Weihua got jumped, and now Jimbo Wales, and others, including me, have blanked their userpages and replaced it with something. —BoL 02:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, just edit articles, okay? We don't need up-to-the-minute reports of your reform agenda. —Kurykh 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The? OK, then I guess it's resolved, huh? —BoL 02:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that provided you don't start going on more sockpuppet hunting, and you edit articles fairly regularly, then we can accept this situation looks like it's resolved. Nick (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Gp75motorsports? —BoL 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, worry about yourself. —Kurykh 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is intolerable, please, do not concern yourself with the affairs of other users when discussion on your behaviour has narrowly avoided veering towards a formal ban. I really don't wish to see you concerning yourself with matters that do not concern you any time in the near future, as it is such behaviour that resulted in this discussion in the first place. Administrators are not unfair, we deal with each and every situation as best we can. I suspect we a similar satisfactory agreement with Gp too, but I'm afraid you're actually getting in the way here now. Move on from here and go edit whatever article you wish to. Nick (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for both users (BoL and Gp75) restricting them to articles, article talk, and user talk, except for each other's talk page. I would also support deletion and/or full protection of most of their userspace. Perhaps a regex could be added to the Titleblacklist to prevent creation of any new pages in their userspace. This behavior has to end. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally. If someone can dig out the link for the last admonishment given to Blow of Light on this noticeboard - from only a handful of weeks ago - for assuming bad faith in relation to this PeeWee vandal, it'd be much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to add my support to a topic for both of these editors, restricting them to article space, article talk, and user talk. I don't believe gentle advice has worked in either case; if either of these editors is genuinely interested in helping the project, they may so demonstrate by abiding under the terms of the ban. Xoloz (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree with a namespace ban for both these users. In my opinion, they have had enough warnings, and I would think after numerous MFDs they would get the idea that this is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Never mind the fact that they have spent a great deal of time provoking an indefinitely blocked user to create sockpuppets. If they do not plan to contribute constructively, then they should not be here, but we should at least see if they will contribute if they are unable to continue to use Misplaced Pages as a bureaucratic playground. --Coredesat 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also note that continuing to provoke the blocked user is essentially disruption in itself, and if it continues despite this discussion (which I have a feeling it could), a block for Blow of Light should definitely be considered. --Coredesat 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Final proposal

I'm thinking something that reads like this:

Per community consensus, Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) and Blow of Light (talk · contribs) are restricted to editing the article-, talk- and user talk-space only for six months. Furthermore, any interaction in the talk- or user talk-space must not relate to, mention, or infer mention of the vandal formerly known as "PeeWee". Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of these users, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions.

Futhermore, Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports are limited to one account only. Breaches of these conditions can result in blocks, up to 48 hours for the first offence (or up to one month for using alternate accounts), and then scaling upwards for further offences at the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sane. M-ercury at 23:04, January 13, 2008

Has my full support, as it did above before, for some completely unfathomable reason I still cannot get my head around a day later, Blow of Light thought I was talking about PeeWeeHurman and the discussion wandered dangerously off-topic. It might be worthwhile enforcing this topic ban through the title blacklist. Nick (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support it fully; I'd also be willing to do the protection, if it's not too deep into COI. Best, Keilana 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I also support this final proposal. Xoloz (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Full support. Seems we have a consensus here. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as well, would it be too late to add a provision that they can't edit each other's user talk page? Mr.Z-man 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should to start off with, in case they want to collaborate (you never know). Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I object on one point. The first remedy applies to the condition that mostly involves Gp75motorsports, as Blow of Light has engaged in many aspects of article writing, and it would be undue to impose such restrictions on BoL for nothing. However, I agree to the rest at this juncture. —Kurykh 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected Gp75's userspace for 3 months and BoL's userpage for the same expiry time. BoL appears to be engaged in some constructive editing lately and I would not wish to hinder this. Gp75's monobooks and sandbox have been left unprotected. Hope this is satisfactory to all. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also blocked Gp75's alternative account, Gp76motorsport for 3 months. Nick (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... there's no reason to keep them out of, say, the template space, is there? —Random832 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary proposals

Per community consensus, Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) is restricted to editing the article-, talk- and user talk-space only for six months. Furthermore, any interaction in the talk- or user talk-space must not relate to, mention, or infer mention of the vandal formerly known as "PeeWee". Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions.

Futhermore, Gp75motorsports is limited to one account only. Breaches of these conditions can result in blocking, up to 48 hours for the first offence (or up to one month for using alternate accounts), and then scaling upwards for further offences at the discretion of the blocking administrator.

...and...

Per community consensus, any edit made by Blow of Light (talk · contribs) must not relate to, mention, or infer mention of the vandal formerly known as "PeeWee". Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned condition.

Futhermore, Blow of Light is limited to one account only. Breaches of these conditions can result in blocking, up to 48 hours for the first offence (or up to one month for using alternate accounts), and then scaling upwards for further offences at the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Per Kurykh's 01:01 comment. The Gp75motorsports restriction has consensus and has been implemented, so this is basically a proposal to amend the Blow of Light restriction. Should this gain consensus support to change it, I believe it should supercede the prior proposal as related to Blow of Light. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If he continues to be productive in the mainspace, then this is fine; if he starts to mess around again, the harsher restriction should be imposed. However, as he's currently being productive, we shouldn't hinder that, so this seems to be fine. Keilana 13:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It again, makes sense and sounds sane. M-ercury at 13:19, January 14, 2008

I'll support the new proposal as sound, although I don't think the original proposal would have hindered BoL's article writing. Xoloz (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Considering BoL's previous history with creating masses of user subpages under his previous name, it may be worth a ban on userspace. GlassCobra 16:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything short of a full community ban is fine with me, any initiatives to keep this guy on the straight and narrow are to be applauded. Nick (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is okay, but a stern warning to BoL to not abuse userspace should also be included as he has had problems with this before. Mr.Z-man 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not protected BoL's userspace, just his userpage. If he wishes for it to be changed he can send the contents he wishes to change it to to an administrator. I'm not tempted to give him an outlet for his userspace energy, sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to AGF on BoL here (also see Random832's comment in the prior section - template and cat: namespaces should be allowed), so this seems fine to me (with the "you're being watched..." message dangling just overhead). Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is unnecessary

I have not seen any evidence that either of these users has done anything disruptive. "Messing around" in userspace is not disruptive; it does not prevent others from working on the encyclopedia. This proposal is more likely to drive away two potentially productive editors than to achieve anything good. I have no idea why no one has defended them up until this point. Walton 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no one defending them because they have indeed been disruptive. Posting nonsensical allegations on a routine vandal notice thread here on ANI, therefore distracting others from the subject at hand, overblowing a lame perennial vandal threat and then throwing it in everyone's faces...how is it not disruptive? I, and many others, have told them to stop such behavior for at least a month, if not longer. I protested against BoL's restriction because he actually contributed to the encyclopedia to a certain extent (we have overlapping interests), but at the time before the restrictions, I have not seen one shred of evidence that Gp75motorsports was even using this place as a collaborative encyclopedia and not as a playground. So yes, these restrictions are harsh, yes, these restrictions are tight, but they are necessary to get these two editors to understand that we stand by what this place is supposed to be: an encyclopedia. —Kurykh 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement?

Here we are less than 20 hours into the topic ban and Gp75motorsports has already violated the ban one, two, three times. In addition, his four non-violating edits have been unconstructive. Three of them are based around him warning a user for blanking a user page that user blanked over 10 months ago. What should be done about this? It is in clear violation of the topic ban. Metros (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just leave him alone. Please. He is a good-faith user, and hounding him like this is not going to help. (I'm not criticising you specifically, but rather all the members of the community who have commented here.) This was not in any way an unconstructive edit, for example. There is no reason to stop a good-faith editor from making constructive edits. Walton 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See more discussion at User_talk:Metros#*ahem* and his actions at Misplaced Pages:Request_an_account#Patrick_Maun. He doesn't seem to grasp creating accounts at all which he thinks he should be allowed to do even with his topic ban in place. Metros (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, we can't make it too, well, draconian - it's pretty hard to get by completely staying away from the project space. I'm not saying we should let him look for loopholes, but it's pretty hard to restrict someone entirely from doing something. We'll all keep an eye out, but let's be fairly reasonable about it. I think a ban on creating accounts is appropriate though, it's a process which he doesn't quite seem to get yet and it may be better to keep him away from it at thep resent time. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think people are going to fully object to reporting vandals to AIV (when appropriate because I'm not 100% he'd have a grasp on that quite fully) but edits like the creations of accounts are not appropriate. Metros (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Six months?!? You mean I'm reduced to this gnomish shit for six months?!? The only reason-besides discussing things that should be done-is because I'm uncomforable doing gnomish crud, and now you're going to force it on me like I purposely blanked an article? This is unreasonable, forcing TORTURE on a good faith editor that made a mistake. And now that I'm probably going to be blocked for this post is taking my right to appeal away. --Gp75motorsports 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing and editing articles is now "gnomish shit". Awesome view point. Metros (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't heard that one before. And I thought Misplaced Pages was an encyclopedia! Keilana 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got the wikignome userbox on your page; you might as well live up to it. </sarcasm> C'mon, I can't see your deleted edits, but I remember that you had a startling number of subpages dedicated to something other than actually creating content. Work on adding infoboxes or references to articles in which you are interested. Work on pushing articles to GA status. You can find something more important than stalking some idiot who obviously has no life. You're better than that. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gnomish shit"? This is an encyclopedia, chief; writing is what we do. If you can't get that through your head, then you don't belong here. GlassCobra 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's asking you to do any shit. If you don't like editing articles, I just get this strange inkling that maybe...you...erm...don't quite know the purpose of this place? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you won't let him do vandalism patrol or participate in projectspace. Vandal-fighting is not a waste of time, by any stretch of the imagination. And not everyone is an article-writer. Walton 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<cooling off><assuming good faith><being happy></hating everyone> Okay, sorry for this edit, I just wanted everyone to know that now I'm doing newpages patrol. Check out my contribs and feel free to comment on me on my talk! --Gp75motorsports 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laser (talk · contribs) and Hardcore Hak (talk · contribs)

Hello. I'd like to report misuse of Misplaced Pages by these two users this user. They seem to think we're a chat room. I have warned them to stop, but their behavior persists. Diffs:

Hardcore Hak appears to be unwilling in this, so I have struck him/her out. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laser:

Hardcore Hak:

JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, but it would be rather harsh to expect intervention/"punishment" from administrators. There are many good contributions coming from these two users; that they are too interested in using the talk page is not critical problem. A friendly reminder on the talk will suffice. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually planning to start a discussion with JetLover as to the best way to encourage these two to contribute more to the 'pedia, but it seems I was a little too late in moving on that. I started watching Hardcore Hak after his RfA, so I can attest to the fact that he and User:Blue Laser seem to be in violation of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. They've both also been warned multiple times no no effect--for example, although a message I left on Hardcore Hak's talk page a little over a month ago was removed without comment (an act that usually indicates understanding of the warning), his behavior continued unabated.

I agree with you that punitive measures don't seem to be in order--they do contribute to some extent, and excessive socializing is not exactly the worst thing in the world--but I'm wondering if there's a more effective way to encourage them to turn their energies to encyclopedia building. From what I know of the tools, there's no way to, say, block them from editing each other's talk page, but maybe something along these lines would be effective? --jonny-mt 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We could warn both parties that their pages will be fully protected for a brief period if their behaviour continues to violate WP:NOT. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First off I would like to say I can't edit with people talking to me 24/7. And JetLover you have been all over me ever scince I banned you from The King of the Hill wiki. Oh yeah this is a false claim. Like Wookieepedia of the banning of MoneyMoney and ImperialWalker.--Hardcore Hak (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a spillover from a cruftwiki??? LOL. Seriously, the two users should be banned from using user talk pages for a while, and should be restricted to article pages and article talk pages for the sole purpose of improving articles. No need to block, as long as there continue to be good article contributions, but there are other places on the 'net to carry on this silliness. We should not continue it at wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you all get off this fricken subject? jetlaover, hows about you STAY THE CRAP AWAY from my conversations. Also, i do contribute to other things than talk. now all of you, GET OFF THE FRICKEN SUBJECT!!!!!!! :( Blue Laser (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's going to get people on your side... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a war, here. I just want JetLover to LEAVE ME ALONE! Blue Laser (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What if I have good reason for concern? BTW, Hardcore Hak, I don't feel you are a big problem, but you shouldn't act like Misplaced Pages is a chat room. Try ignoring such comments. And I have only contacted you three times (with good reason) since you banned from from King of the Hill Wiki (a totally different matter.) JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Im closing this coversation. Blue Laser (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not closed. It has to be resolved first (by other users.) JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laser, please understand, we aren't a chat room. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand about the Wikipdia not being a chat room. So I will sstart editing alot more. But first I need to take care of my wiki.--Hardcore Hak (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

REFERRED FOR BLOCKING - IP 209.244.30.109

As the reviewing admin can see from the following evidence, this IP has received the requisite warnings prior to any possible blocks:

1. IP talk page warnings
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Will_Turner&diff=prev&oldid=183970993 latest incident - Will Turner
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_At_World%27s_End&diff=prev&oldid=183970836 latest incident - POTC:AWE

Previous edits can be traced by links from the IP talk page. If an admin could look at this IP for possible block, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Edit Centric (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Seems at least appropriate. Thanks again! Edit Centric (talk) 10:30, 15 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)

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)

I'm sorry, MONGO, but i don't really understand your answer. My question was honest: are you threatening me? And if so, then with what? Because the english you used was clearly a command: "You will...." (or else!). The "or else" is clearly implied, and so the usage appears distinctly uncivil to me. Then you follow it up with this...taunt? What else could one call it? In the meantime, i have yet to get an answer from you: do you really feel as if i am bound by wikipedia guidelines to submit to your caprice and whim? Because with the two statements just made by you it certainly seems to me as if that's how you think. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't make threats, but if you persist in this violation of policy regarding WP:NPA then I have no recourse aside from seeking further dispute resolution. If you can't abide by the comments here asking you to cease making wild accusations and to cease referring to those you disagree with as fascists, some of which have been made by people that in no way could ever be part of my alledged "cabal", then I think further action may be necessary.--MONGO 16:54, 14 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)

Goodness! We do have a coterie, here, don't we! JTrainor, Durova, JungleCat and MONGO -- all in the same place, once again!

Regarding my supposed lack of "good faith", i would like to request evidence. MONGO has levelled charges. I have responded to them in a serious, sincere, and polite fashion. I have not made any accusations of bad faith nor implied any ill intent or motives on the part of any of the participants, here. I have pointed out that they are famous collaborators who support each other wiki-wide -- but that is transparently evident to anyone who posts here for some time and does not suggest any "bad faith" on my part. Beyond that, i have addressed the accusations being leveled at me -- and nothing more.

I would also like to point out -- for the third or fourth time now -- that i have never used the word fascist to refer to any particular person. JungleCat has joined into this conversation protesting that he doesn't like me using the word "fascist" to refer to him. That would be like me jumping into an AN/I involving him and some random user and declaring that i don't like him calling me a "liberal" (which, incidentally, i really do hate -- but since he never has, then why would i bother?). The same goes for Durova and her objections. These people are referring to an exchange that never took place.

Even so, i will also refer once again to the well-known fact that "fascist" is a clearly defined technical term that is -- when not being slung around in the same way the word "liberal" often is -- morally neutral. That is simply a fact. Nothing more.

From that, i wold like to summarize the current arguments as i see them (and please -- correct me if i'm wrong):

A) I should never have mentioned the admissions of NuclearUmpf, even though i was particularly named in it. So you are all declaring that my mention of certain revelations is actionable in and of itself -- even when i was one of the named objects in those revelations? Once again: i'm not asking for any sort of official action, apology, or acknowledgment. I'm not jumping up and down and throwing a tantrum. All i have done is point out that these admissions were made, nothing more.

B) I should never use the word "fascist" to refer to any person's political ideas or world view because some here feel strongly about it's use. The argument is, apparently, that i should excise the word "fascist" from my vocabulary and never use it again on Misplaced Pages. Am i correct? In response, i would ask if it's apropos for me to demand that some here never use the word "conspiracy", because i perceive it as an epithet they use to bully others. Would that be reasonable? If not, then i can only protest that i see no point to the argument. Since there is no evidence that i have ever used this particular word as an epithet aimed at any particular person then it really does seem to me as if we are engaged in a lot of hypothesizing and aggrandized posturing, and nothing more. I do respect, however, that some here seem to have strong feelings; i would respond, however, that i, too, have strong inclinations over these matters.

These being the sum of the charges here before me, i am wondering where we should now proceed. I was sought out by MONGO, who plastered my talk page with all sorts of unambiguously uncivil assertions that both presume and imply bad faith. I responded measuredly and without ire. When called here i appeared, and have negotiated in good faith to work out these issues with MONGO. I am obviously not out to pick a fight or provoke any ill will. I am clearly representing myself, and only myself, over and against a rapidly expanding array of MONGO's allies. Some of these are very visible, high-powered administrators and editors. Should we conclude from this that -- apparently -- he does not feel comfortable enough with the arguments themselves and -- for some reason -- fears unemotional consideration by neutral admins? For my part, i rarely appear at AN/I. This is, IIRC, only my second or third time to be here. I do not bully other editors, pick fights, vandalize web-pages, or seek anything but conscientious, solid expansion of Misplaced Pages. I do not coordinate actions behind-the-scenes. I come here when i can and add what i can. That's the sum of my contributions here, and although they are rather plain and unremarkable i'm proud of them, and happy to be a part of this project. Am i now to be disciplined? Because as we all know, the internet is a big place. People who post here also post in other places, and i have seen rumours on other websites that i am to be banned. Is that what is intended?

For insisting that "fascist" is a useful, neutral, technical descriptive? Because i had the gumption to make reference to posts here that mention me, by name?

Is that really where this is headed? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Several sarcastic responses at your expense come to mind, but instead I'll just point to my contribs and MONGO's contribs, where anyone can see that we have never interacted before a few days ago, and that being a brief conversation on his talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then -- why did you seek out my talk page? But even so, IIRC you are a bit mistaken. We have encountered each other, but that was quite some time back. I can understand how you might have forgotten. For my part, bygones are bygones. Thus, it seems rather unfortunate that you have now taken such a confrontational posture towards me. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I've never posted on your talk page. I've posted to Viriditas's talk page and MONGO's and Raggz's recently, but not yours. Jtrainor (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. I went back into the archives and verified that it wasn't you. Please accept my apologies and consider the comment retracted in full. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ome final observations:

1. Whether or not we can have a philosophical, metaphysical and etymological debate regarding the neutrality of certain words, i.e. shorty, negro, stupid, et cetera. Fact remains you are not prohibited from refraining from using the word fascist. Especially after being specifically asked I think it borders on being rude.
2. As to the cabal, clearly there are some observations and you have gone and drawn conclusions based upon circumstantial evidence. While it is entirely possiblethose conclusions are correct I personally think that voicing such accusations without any hard evidence is at best regrettable.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nomen, but i must protest.

FIrst, i have drawn no conclusions. I have left the conclusions entirely up to the Misplaced Pages administration. All i have done is ask for attention.

Second, my usage of the word "fascist" was never directed at any particular person or group. For instance, i never said "I think _____ is a ____ble fascist!!". Instead, i suggested that there existed fascists who were more interested in seeing a particular viewpoint eliminated from Misplaced Pages's public boards. Am i wrong for suspecting that? Isn't it true that fascists do exist in this world of ours, and that fascists are as capable as any other of pushing their own viewpoint through Misplaced Pages's channels? If so then am i not justified in suspecting that they may be interested in suppressing certain viewpoints? Correct me if i'm wrong, but is it not true that many people on Misplaced Pages suppress ides based on their supposed origination in "Holocaust denial", "White Supremacist" or "Neo-Nazi" ideology? Isn't it true that many people around Misplaced Pages challenge each other as -- personally -- as conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or some other such label? How is my usage in this particular instance any different?

Finally, i would liike to re-iterate that i have never demanded any sort of official action or acknowledgment of any cabals. If i think a cabal exists then shouldn't it be perceived as entirely my personal failing? The only thing i have ever done is to call attention to the postings of a single editor here, on these pages (AN/I and Talk). I have only ever asked that, in the light of these admissions, particular attention should be paid to one of the pages he clearly indicated. Am i wrong to be concerned over the clear identification of myself as an object of these plans?

More importantly -- are you seriously asserting that i should disregard them? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to all of that i would like to specifically request clarification: are you saying i am or am not allowed to use the word "fascist"? The current edit does not make that clear. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be calling anyone a fascist. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Since when does stuff on Facebook fit the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V? Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Sarsparilla is explaining how he saw "theistic rationalism" on Facebook, and then decided to write an article on it, because Misplaced Pages did not have one. I can't see anything inappropriate with the edits, Zenwhat, so it is clear that you should have assumed good faith first, instead of spending this time trying to get someone in trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I nominated Chocolate Thai for deletion and was somewhat successful, since the stuff was removed and merged into Cannabis. I notified Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) of my intention to delete his article Theistic rationalism, since he said he created the article after seeing the term on facebook and he used one source for it, which was blatant original research.

He seems to have retaliated (violating WP:POINT) by creating the article Chocolate chai, then making a snide remark on my page about how (paraphrase) "I guess it's too late to include information about chocolate thai." Despite being an admin, he is a single-purpose account to push Libertarian ideology. Within about a day of pointing this out here, he announced his intent to sell his account on eBay, in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous). Zenwhat (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea Sarsaparilla is an admin. He's certainly not a SPA either. You should perhaps read that link you posted. Leithp 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was? My mistake. He is, however, an SPA. See his contribs and his user page. Zenwhat (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat has no concept of what a POV pusher or single purpose account is. He accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being POV pushing SPAs, myself included, then can't provide any evidence to support the claim. For a laugh, see his current arbcom request and evidence page where he makes the comment "I was blocked by admin User:AuburnPilot, who has engaged in the same contentious editing of articles on Austrian economics, Libertarianism, and Market anarchism." You'll note I've never edited any of those pages, but I suppose that isn't relevant. - auburnpilot talk 22:36, 14 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)

Dedicated and scrupulous editors of course are not above the rules, but an awful lot of editors work beneath them:)Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 14 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)

I've proposed a revision of the warning template at the Twinkle talk page, but am waiting to move forward with it until AzaToth's subsequent proposal for CSD change runs its (quiet) course at the CSD talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:56, 14 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

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)

the talk page seems within the acceptable limits. As for the article, discuss on the talk page and if not solved there, use WP:Dispute resolution. But given the context of a page about a saint, I dont see anything that cannot be fixed by normal editing. DGG (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:202.159.221.22

Please keep an eye out for 202.159.221.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP continues to add links to nude and semi-nude pictures of possibly underage girls to articles. He/she has done so at University of Rhode Island and Revelstoke, British Columbia. I have deleted the edits from the history of the articles, to protect the victims/subjects, and I have semi-protected University of Rhode Island. Aecis 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely intolerable. I've history-deleted another page and blocked the IP. east.718 at 01:28, January 14, 2008

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)

I have filed an IP check here, but I'm looking for something a little above just blocking the user. He's attacked on several different IPs from several providers, so he'd find away around anything the checkuser could do through just blocking. Metros (talk) 19:54, 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)

I was not aware that my complaint was related to the arbcom case. I have never edited Palestine-Israel articles before, unless peripherally involved topics are included, and I've never had more than minor disputes in those. The problem was an unprovoked personal attack making false claims during an otherwise civil discussion. I never asked for page protection or block but rather censure and an apology. However, I'll follow whatever course admins decide is appropriate. Should I include this complaint in the arbcom case you mention? Wayne (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what Tariq was talking about was not the specifics surrounding the Palistinian/Israeli conflict, but that the decision of ArbCom in that case is likely to provide some guidance on how to handle this case. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This incident has zero connection to the current ArbCom, other than via me. I'm the person that User:Jayjg accused of "taking his views and references from Holocaust Deniers" in May of last year. My book is 1979, pre-dating the Holocaust Deniers first publishing the same information (1995?). Saved by a miracle!

This cast-iron proof (released in just 2 hours) that I couldn't have got my information from the Holocaust Deniers was not enough, I was already indef-blocked, 13th May 2007, re-imposed 20th May. Courageous editors took the case to ArbCom, the rest is history (but Jayjg never apologised or retracted and never will).

Clearly, Jayjg has learnt nothing, and continues to throw round his utterly mendacious accusations of anti-semitism. However, all this is not what it appears. WP knows that his behavior is pretty much incurably obnoxious, and Jayjg is on board (perhaps only temporarily) for other reasons. My stay is temporary too, I'm virtually muzzled and my neck is back on the block now. PR 09:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FatChris1

This user is repeatedly inserting unsourced information into the biographies of living persons (inserting Category:Entertainers with Bloods affiliations and Category:Entertainers with Crip affiliations into a wide variety of articles without providing citations). He's also a block-evading sock of User:Fattown1c. I've reported him at WP:SSP (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fattown1c), but there seems to be a pretty serious backlog there and he continues to disrupt the encyclopedia in the meantime. Can we get him blocked either for his abusive sock-puppetry or for his repeatedly BLP violations? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for a week for long-term repeated BLP violations after final notice. I have little experience with sockpuppets. If any admin who does believes a longer block is justified, let me just state for the record that I have no objection to the term of the block being altered as appropriate. In such a case, of course, the warning I've left may need to be altered. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request

I request: it's possible to reduce ban of user:Giovanni Giove? He is a capable editor in 3 versions of Wiki: Italian, English-third level- and French-second level-! There are few capable editors like as Giovanni in Wiki!!!! I thnink so: 6 months of block is a balanced punishment; I propose 6 months of block then administrators can block Giovanni for 7 months and more but to ban indefinitly Giovanni is damaging action against Wiki!!!! Regards--PIO (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a repeated violator of WP:NPA and a revert warrior, who were subject to restricition, is not hurting anything. He is simply not irreplacable, he isn't the only multi-language editor on the encyclopedia if that is the strongest argument you can make in the editors defense. — Save_Us † 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this from an arbcom case? If so, you'd have to get the arb committee to reverse the ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was originally an editing restriction from an ArbCom case (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Giovanni_Giove_restricted) but the user continued to edit-war and issue personal attacks, and eventually exhausted the community's patience and was indefinitely blocked. BLACKKITE 11:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment at request for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden

Could use any more views that anyone has. Adam Cuerden 11:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

User:Kingofmann is on the verge of breaching WP:3RR at Talk:David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Gentle warning left. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am user Kingofmann and I am the subject of a biography. I am deleting libelous edits being made to the talk page of a biography about me. My biography is under review by the Arbitration Committee at my request. The user above as well as another are accusing me of using sockpuppets putting text boxes at the top of the page and I have told them this is not the case and any user claiming to be me is lying. I request that the talk page be fully protected.--Kingofmann (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He has now breached it again. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User CarbonLifeForm is engaging in harassment and libel against me on a talk page of a biography about me. Please block this user from making future edits and provide full protection or simply delete the entire biography as I do not desire it and did not create it. I do not have the interest or time to personally defend myself. I direct this user to Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which states, The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages.--Kingofmann (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that you may be involved in sockpuppetry is not a violation of WP:BLP because it is an editing issue, not a biography one. I suggest you stop removing such content from the talk page immediately. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And again. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for disruption and civility issues. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Thank you. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Horribly incorrect call - the talk page of a BLP is NOT the appropriate place to carry out a suspected sock puppets discussion. The thread can and should be removed. --B (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've unblocked him, but with a warning about future civility. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, it turns out that the accusations may have been correct - a checkuser has shown that User:Lazydown, User:Kingofmann and User:Theisles are the same. Would someone else care to take action? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

May I add that User:Theisles appears no longer to be active account. And that User:Kingofmann says he has no other account. And that Kingofmann claims to be David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) who is subject of a BLP. And that User:Lazydown has been fighting to retain that article. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to indefblock all except the master account. There's an open arbitration request that looks headed for acceptance that should be able to decide the disposition of the master. --B (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that now the socks are off the article can be unprotected and some NPOV can be reintroduced. --CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash yet again

He is up to his old trick of posting Transformers boxart for which images of the toys are readily available: specifically, he reposted the previously deleted Image:Dirge-boxart.jpg. I also find dubious his claim above that Image:Bonecrusher-universedeluxe.jpg was "sent out by Hasbto to promote it's sale". The source tag does not provide a specific URL, and my admittedly brief click-through of the site didn't turn up the image. (On the flip side, though, his usual source for boxart pictures -- botchcrab.com -- has a different Bonecrusher image.) --EEMIV (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of the toys would not be any less non-free, so how is "images of the toys are readily available" is relevant? —Random832 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm iffy on it myself. However, many of matthewignash's uploads of Hasbro's boxart images claimed to be "promotional" material and were deleted as copyvios. The discussion above, on his talk page, and in at least two other AN/I discussions suggested instead he upload photos from his own collection. I don't care about the latter; I'm pointing out that he's again uploaded a boxart image contrary to an agreement he made with an admin in exchange for him not being permabanned. --EEMIV (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The kind of picture uploaded shouldn't matter, and there shouldn't have been any such agreement if that is the case - what matters is that he puts a proper fair use rationale for any non-free picture, no matter whether it is box art or a photograph of a toy. —Random832 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it turned out that Mathew's own images are actually not free either, I agreed that he may as well upload better-quality Hasbro images since he promised to "not go crazy with them". It is disappointing, however, to see the same old problems arising all over again (eg, inspecific and/or dubious sources) which were the basis for his image ban in the first place. Perhaps it ought to be reinstated. – Steel 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All this drama could have been avoided, i think, if not for the incorrect belief that the photos of toys can be released under a free license. —Random832 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether pictures of toys are allowed, he continues to be misleading/dishonest with sources and inappropriately applies the the "promotional" copyright tag despite previous warnings. --EEMIV (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He twice asked on this page if he was doing it correctly in the previous discussion, but no one would answer him. His questions below: Jecowa (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, do I just added one non-free box art image to the Dirge (Transformers) page. Is there ANY problem with the way I did it? Please let me know. I want to try to get a general nod that I added a proper picture the right way to an article before doing another. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• I just added a picture to the Bonecrusher article (which covers 7 different characters named Bonecrusher). Since the 6th had no picture, I used one sent out by Hasbto to promote it's sale. Is this okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/Bonecrusher_%28Transformers%29#Transformers:_Universe_.28Deluxe.29 I think i tagged everything properly.Mathewignash (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I am trying to see about how to do this properly, and I posted one each of box art and promo image, with permission and hoping to get feedback on them from those who know more then I. No one here is up to an "old trick" of any kind. If there is a better way to tag those photos, I have pratically been begging to hear it. Instead of telling me I'm tagging them wrongly, PLEASE show me an example of one done correctly. There doesn't seem to be an agreement on the right way to post these, but I was hoping we could come to an agreement on this page. Mathewignash (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could just stop with this endeavor. We keep saying there is NO way to use Hasbro's illustrations like you want to, you keep trying to find new ways. Just stop. Write about something else. Find another way to help the project. You are up here almost weekly for breaking the Fair Use rules and it's always Transformers stuff. I'd support a topic-image ban, precluding Mathewignash from uploading ANY transformers related materials (Gobots, and any other transforming toy as well.) He's been referred to policy ad nauseum, and he doesn't care about it. That he posted here instead of FUR or the Transformers project page shows he's still not catching on to how Misplaced Pages works, and that he really needs a stop on the game so he can learn the rules. I'm not endorsing a block ro ban, but a topic/image ban. ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you see I am trying, in good faith, to get moderators opinions on this, if it's the group opinion that these just cannot be done at all, I'll abide by this without need of bans or limitations. I have different people telling me different things. I asked permission. I put up an two example pictures. I did not try to hide it or sneak them in. Then I asked for input on this very page before this complaint was made. I could not be more open if I tried. There is no need to go about making threats on my account status. Mathewignash (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now surely we can figure out what is the best way to get the articles like Dirge (Transformers) a picture to demonstrate the character. There is NO free image to be had, so a non-free one has to be used, if done properly. My use of box art seems to bother some people. I'm asking people here, if given proper rational, what would be best? A screen shot from the TV show? A toy image? Box art? a scan of him from a comic book? Mathewignash (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Teddy.Coughlin

Teddy.Coughlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Keeps adding unsourced information to Shugo Chara! and Honto no Jibun about a United States adaptation of the anime and of the song single. Was warned yesterday to stop adding unsourced info but he continues to do this. Apparently according to his userpage, he has been known to abuse accounts as well. Momusufan (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user does it again, report the vandalism to WP:AIV, for prompt attention. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I recommend that the user be brought here rather than AIV, since the edits in question were not blatant vandalism. It should be noted that since the last warning, the editor has not since edited. As for the sockpuppet accusations, I am unsure about that one. I see no checkuser or proof other than the cited accounts and IPs share a common interest. Possibly true, but enough of a doubt in my mind to wait this one out and see what happens. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at deletion review

Something weird has happened at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 14. None of the entries are showing up since the closing --> was deleted. Now the signatures are lost. Can someone help out? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Text is back, but the signatures were still messed up. I added the name of whoever filed the request at the end of each section. I'm guessing that'll work for our purposes. --Onorem♠Dil 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Morten LJ is not respecting my talk page nor my break from Misplaced Pages

User:Morten LJ posted this on my talk page. I certainly do not agree with the truth in that statement.

Nevertheless, I let the statement stand for 5 days (so that people could read it), before archiving the talk page and removing the statement as I believe is my right under policy regarding my own talk page.

User:Morten LJ undid that twice and has now moved the whole thing back to the talk page. Since this concerns Danish Misplaced Pages, I fail to see how any such discussion taking place here can benefit the English Misplaced Pages.

In my opinion all four allegations are blatantly untrue but I do not think it benefits English Misplaced Pages that I participate in such discussion here. The privacy issue concerning Danish Misplaced Pages is being handled by OTRS. (My wish for privacy was also present on English Misplaced Pages, but here – unlike in Denmark – the administrators, oversight etc. have assumed a friendly and helpful attitude. For all of which I remain grateful.) --Law Lord (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not yourself respecting your wikibreak ;-) And as a side-note, I actually gave you all the help you could get to protect your privacy on the Danish Misplaced Pages, but you did not follow my directions. But in this case, you removed something (which I regard as the truth) with an edit summary stating that it is not true in your opinion, that should give me the right to contest your belief. --Morten LJ (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Archiving is not required, nor is it required to archive everything if you archive some things. It isn't a warning or a block notice, so there is no reason for Law Lord to keep it viewable easily (it remains in the history of both the archive and the talk page). I don't see why you care what is there - as you say, it isn't relevant here at the moment. If you don't like him or have had problems with him in the past elsewhere... Just keep away, problem solved. 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The common practice here is apparently that it is OK to manipulate with archives (which I did not know), this I accept. I care because what LL wants is to keep is his version which, in my view, is in conflict with the truth. I wouldn't say that I don't like him, actually I have helped him in the past, but he has probably forgotten this. --Morten LJ (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the history is entirely unmanipulatable (is that a word?) then if the message you left becomes necessary for a future discussion, you can always provide the dif where you left it. Demanding that it be left on a users talk page seems pointless. It is not for us to decide why and when and how he wants to manage and organize his talk page. He removed it, which proves he read it. What more do you want? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say to my two fellow Danes here that what happens on the Danish Misplaced Pages stays there. There are many good reasons for this, one of them being that we run things far more professionally here. To bring your dispute here as well is a very bad idea. Law Lord can remove whatever he wants - even warnings - since doing so is a sign that he has read them. He is also free to ask you not to post there provided that he leaves you alone as well. Just leave each other alone. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles - ArbCom remedy request for views

I protected Flag of Northern Ireland on 11 January for one day to prevent an incipent edit war occurring. This morning, three editors reverted a total of five times on the issue. There was a small amount of discussion on the talk page, but only to give opposing reasons for reverting. I have re-protected the article for a week.

Per the Arbcom ruling on these articles, I am considering placing User:Padraig and User:Traditional unionist (three reverts each on this article since 9 Jan) on 1RR/week probation for one month. Any comments would be gratefully received. BLACKKITE 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure padraig will agree, this is a massive over reaction to a small event.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I asked for comments. On the other hand, it could be argued that if we are not to use the tools provided by ArbCom for moderating the problems with these articles, what is the point of having ArbCom at all? BLACKKITE 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask myself the same question (for different reasons) frequently.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment an unsourced claim was removed from the article by another editor who started a discussion on the talk page, User:Traditional Unionist immediately reverted its removal, I responded on the talk page and then removed the reverted text as OR and POV Here, TU then reverted with the edit summary desist from removing referenced material. start a dicsussion this is dispite the fact the the source, the text of the GFA dosen't support the text being added and a discussion was already underway on the talk page, He also deleted a message i placed on his talk page here, I then removed the unsourced material, which is when the article was protected. I have not edit warred but removed unsourced claims as per WP policy.--Padraig (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, how about this for a proposed remedy?
  • (1) I stub that paragraph to a neutral sentence.
  • (2) Discussion takes place ONLY on the talk page until some sort of consensus is reached; otherwise the paragraph stays how it is.
  • (3) A final warning; any further revert warring by either of you on any Troubles-related article will lead to immediate probation being invoked.

BLACKKITE 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim is not supported by the source, they are trying to add their own interpertation or opinion on a issue and claiming the source supports it, that is WP:OR, this was addressed in the talk page. I have already been involved in the discussion on the talk page and have no problem continuing to do so.--Padraig (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1)I apologise for my edit summary, I didn't notice a discussion had been opened. 2)It is not OR or intrepretation. It is a referenced statement, which I have added a further reference for on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't check to see if there was one either, so explain why you deleted my comment from your talk page, It is a interpertation on your part, Sinn Fein have never stated they see Northern Ireland as a viable and seperate state, you are inserting your own opinion.--Padraig (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK right - let's be WP:BOLD - I have stubbed that paragraph. Let's get a discussion going, please, and I will unprotect at some point (not immediately). BLACKKITE 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the wording on your stubbed version. That is all needs to be said in the article on the issue.--Padraig (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposed remedy makes sense, Black Kite. Making it clear that the ArbCom ruling is supposed to stop this type of revert-warring, and thus if it continues the ruling will be implemented, is sufficient at this time. Rockpocket 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert parole is a very mild sanction all things considered. You could just as easily ban both editors from that page for a month or two. Be sure to log your final action. Thatcher 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Supergoal

I'm not sure if this is the right place, so please redirect if necessary. I have just started the process to nominate for deletion the page Supergoal and, mea culpa did not notice in the history that it had previously been nominated for deletion on 28 September, 2006. The decision then was Keep. So I should have requested a second debate, but unfortunately don't know how, and don't know how to proceed having already tagged the article. My reasons for nomination were basically as stated in the original, plus the fact that there has been no development of the article since, which seems to have been one of the criteria for keeping. Once again, sorry if this is the wrong place, but if someone can sort this out I would be most grateful. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the link in the nomination template, and have added your nom here. Please edit it as you see fit; the formatting is there, and I've copied your rationale from above, but you may wish to adjust it to suit your intent. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your speedy response. Emeraude (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's tricky when it's a second nom, as you have to adjust the template manually, which does trip editors up occasionally. No worries. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms

User:JackQPR has, since 18 December 2007, kept adding into the list the name of a "firm". On the article it states that any firms added without a correct source will be removed, which is what has happened each and every time this user adds the firm as the source they are providing does not verify the firms existence. However, this user keeps adding the same firm over and over, despite being told numerous times that the source they are providing does not mention the firms name. I have left a number of messages on the users talk page and offered to help them, and have even created a sandbox for them to use to experiment. However, despite all the messages left, they have thus far not responded and each time another user removes the firm (and each time explaining that the firm is not mentioned in the source) they simply add them back in again. I don't know what should happen now? As I said, they haven't responded at all to any messages left, and seem unwilling to communicate. I have informed them that I have left a message about this on the Admin Board. Any advice on what should happen? Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

JackQBP has been blocked for edit warring. In the future, you may want to bring such concerns to places like ANI or WP:RFC sooner. Revert wars are unproductive ways of handling content disputes like this; you are quite likely yourself to be blocked for WP:3RR violation, even if you are in the right. 3RR blocks are not about endorsing one person's view over another, but will be given to all involved to stop the war. In this case, it is clear you have been trying to talk to the user in question and start a discussion, and he is not willing to, which is why I only blocked him. But please take care in the future, and when problems arise like this, enlist outside opinion OR help from admins sooner rather than later. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, my apologies for not bringing it up sooner as myself (and other users who have also reverted the edits) should have done so. I will do as you state in future if anything like this arises again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What are people's feelings concerning this? Corvus cornix_talk 03:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Retention of deleted content in userspace. Might as well kill it. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have the opposite opinion. Let us still assume good faith here, (and remember, I blocked this user for disruption) and consider that he intends to use this space to work on finding sources and build the section up to meet Misplaced Pages standards. Plus, userfying deleted material (unless clear copyvio or BLP problems) is usually allowed fairly liberally. This particular page does no harm, and if the user returns with the same behavior, they will be blocked for a longer period. This page has no bearing on that. I say let it be, and no need to flog the deceased pony here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of block by Archtransit of Jehochman

19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lilkunta requests unblock, promises better behavior

Lilkunta (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely around eight months ago for repeatedly using nonstandard font (like this) off of his talk page, and for ignoring warnings of administrators in regards to this. He has emailed me, stating his intent to, if allowed to edit again, only use nonstandard font on his talk page, and adhere to Misplaced Pages policies and behavioral standards. His two most recent unblock requests were declined by admins who doubted he would behave differently. Should he be given another chance? I think so, because if he lapses back into his old behavior he can be quickly reblocked by any of 848 admins; his emails suggest he wants to make a good faith attempt to help Misplaced Pages. Other thoughts? Picaroon (t) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to unblock. —Random832 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A trial unblock sounds fine. The only other question I have in these sorts of cases: are there any editors who were directly and negatively affected by her behavior whom we should notify or solicit opinions from before unblocking? MastCell 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin nor was I in any way involved back then. Just thought I'd point out that a scan of his talk page archives indicates that the font issue was only one of many. Ros0709 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Ros0709 said, using non-standard fonts is just part of the issue that caused me and others to block him. He was incivil and disruptive, even to those who tried to help him. He was specifically incivil to myself and Cascadia with edits like this. Cascadia and I tried to be helpful to Lilkunta when he broke his own talk page by turning it all green (see this) and accused people of vandalizing it to turn it green (in other words, we were responsible for the font breaking). I fixed it as did Cascadia. But each time we were reverted and he made 6 different attempts to fix it himself, each time doing just as much damage instead of solving the issue.

So the crux of it may stem from the font usage, but the overlying issue is his incivility and unwillingness to accept help from others. Because of this immaturity and nonsense, I do not feel comfortable with an unblock of him. Metros (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never encountered this user before, but after browsing his archives and seeing his responses, I have to agree with Metros. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Unblock request has been declined by Moondyne. I agree with Metros and Ros0709: the font issue, in and of itself, does not seem to be the reason he or she was indef blocked, so I cannot support unblocking. — Satori Son 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse the block and keeping it as it stands. This user showed a level of incivility that went beyond the pale. Also, his unblock request shows that he is not truly contrite, as he is conflating the minor font issue with the TRUE issue of his block, which is his incivility. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lilkunta did have trouble explaining satisfactorily his desire to be unblocked in his unblock messages. However, I think he does understand that there is more at issue than the font. Again, what's the harm in offering him another chance? There are clearly plenty of people willing to reblock quickly if he lapses back to old behavior; I suspect that he, more than everyone else, wouldn't want that to happen, as it means being unable to edit again. Picaroon (t) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my first encounter with this editor, and I fully endorse the block and Moondyne's decline on the unblock request. We appear to have someone who is not yet mature enough to be a net positive to the project. Horologium (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I remember this case, and the entire page turning green was, in fact, nobody's fault at all - a routine HTML-tidy software update broke his and many other pages. —Random832 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bobes66

Can someone sort out this malformed RFA attempt for me, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Bobes66 2, the user asked me for help with it since i fixed their last misguided attempt (which was closed early due to massive inexperience) but i cannot figure out how to fix it, and the user seems determined to go ahead with request despite me telling him its doomed to fail. It might be a good idea to let this one run for a bit instead of closing it right away, so Bobes realises what it takes to be an admin. Thanks --Jac16888 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it by deleting it. It was malformed and one of the the editor's few contributions. No point keeping it or archiving it. If he runs in the future it can be re-created.Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better if it was actually kept, and allowed to run properly. If you see my talk page, they did fully intend to submit themselves, despite what they were told last time they tried, back in Nov. If it was to run it would press home to this user that they are not ready for adminship. Who knows, it might make them stay on and become a admin in the future, if they know what to aim for--Jac16888 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's deleted with no prejudice to re-creation. I just don't think we need to formally close and archive it. If the editor wishes to run then he can just create it again as his first RfA, and fill it in properly. It wasn't transcluded to WP:RFA so I don't see any issues that anything has been hidden or what-have-you. Pedro :  Chat  22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I've explained this to the user, and i'm gonna re-mark this as resolved--Jac16888 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley Lines

User 90.203.45.168 continues to revert logical edits of Valley Lines, the reasons for which I have given on its talk page whereas the user refuses to give any reasons for their edits, and has just broken the 3RR. The user has been recently banned for this and has had their edits reverted by an administrator (Alison W) but still thinks they know better Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would request any administrator taking action here to check their facts first. WL has attempted (and succeeded on one occasion) to mislead administrators as to his own conduct. Further to the abuse reported here, I have requested that in future the user should seek clarification should his edits be reverted in future, to which he agreed. I have asked no fewer than seven times for him to justify his choice of formatting over the status quo ante, and he has refused each time. His edit was not "logical", but rather was tendentious, giving undue prominence to the stations within one of the five principal areas covered by the extent of the subject. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested the reasoning eight times: . WL then sought to harass User:AlisonW, who had intervened previously - by casting themselves as the innocent party, and falsely accusing me of breaching 3RR. Having not gained instant satisfaction, he then turned to harass me, accusing a "blatant disregard for Misplaced Pages" , and of "chasing" him - though it is worth noting that WP:STALK makes it clear that reviewing an editor's contributions to deal with "errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" (q.v.) is not only not prohibited but actively encouraged. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you questioning the judgement of administration? And I have repeatedly told this user that my reasons are on the talk page but seems unwilling to read it Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a, not false, butclear break of the 3RR (as you can see on the history of Valley Lines) and instructing you to repsect Misplaced Pages and its editors doesn't count as harassment. As for chasing, reviewing other editors' comments is one thing, actively looking for a reason to revert them is another. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst edit warring is never a Good Thing, I would point out that there has been no technical breach of 3RR by the IP user on that article. Also, seriously, haven't you both got better things to do than revert war over an explanatory note on a route map? There is nothing that needs admin attention here.BLACKKITE 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Valrith

I don't really know the correct place to report this, but I've really had about all of Valrith I can take. The user makes editing Misplaced Pages a nightmare for other editors by constantly using reverts, "citation needed", and other tools to enforce the policies in a heavy-handed way. It may not sound like the user has done anything wrong from my description, but that's probably part of his/her point. Just check the user's talk page. It's littered with dozens of instances in which Valrith has annoyed other editors. This is just my opinion, but if Misplaced Pages still has a policy for exhausting the community's patience, I think Valrith is coming dangerously close to reaching that point. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout some diff's? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The user's talk page contains a well-documented history of tormenting other users. Most of his/her disruptions come in the form of deliberately making editing difficult for other users by interpreting the rules in such a restrictive way so as to be absurd. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, how 'bout some diff's?--Tom 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked VoABot II

I blocked VoABot II per http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yellow_fever&diff=184313809&oldid=184313788 _→AzaToth 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• What I wonder is why this page blanking sat unreverted for about 40 minutes, finally reverted by a brand new account? Are the recent changes patrollers on holiday, or was this miss just a fluke? Page blanking seems the sort of thing that should be noticed and dealt within a couple of minutes, at most. Picaroon (t) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Recent Changes patrollers who had hidden either minor edits or 'bot edits would not have seen that edit. A 'bot flag isn't a way of marking a 'bot. (Accounts can be 'bots, and easily visible as such, without any special MediaWiki rights.) It's a way of putting all of an account's edits into a class that can be ignored by Recent Changes patrol. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Picaroon is talking about the original blanking (). BLACKKITE 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I cannot speak for the other users, but I personally never double check edits made by this bot. Guess I'll have to start. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the actual revert - there are likely any number of words in the article text that should have triggered a word or regexp filter; that is probably what happened. A sanity check should be added to make sure the bot isn't blanking the page, or replacing it with the kind of short message that vandals sometimes replace pages with. —Random832 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the revert made by this Bot at CompUSA, and the revert looks good. I looked at the Yellow fever article, it looks like there is a blatant effort of page blanking going on there, so I watchlisted the article. Edit Centric (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So wait, you blocked the bot but didn't fix the blanked page? --W.marsh 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No Marsh, the page has been fixed. I'm watching for any further IP vandalism / blanking. The Yellow fever article looks intact right now. Edit Centric (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the only problem this bot is causing. It reverted an IP user here who'd just removed vandalism by a registered user. It also undid another IP's good work here is there an error in the Bots code that causes it to revert ips for some reason? Kelpin (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow

Yesterday I was blocked by Doc glasgow in his own content dispute. At his userpage he writes This abusive admin sometimes gives people unjustified blocks and it is exactly the true. He blocked me because I added back text about Chip Berlet per arguments that were written in discussion. It was not based on selfpublished source as he falsely wrote, but it was based on Antiwar.com and arguments in discussion (only real argument against was that User:Cberlet want to have nice article about him). Doc glasgow:

• assumed bad faith.
• abused his admin rights in his own content dispute.
• threted me that he will abuse his right in his own content dispute if I will not accept his false personal opinion
• used vulgar and offensive expressions when he protected page in his favourite version. I don´t think that admin should insult another users (see Talk:Chip Berlet where many users wrote that criticism by Justin Raimondo is notable) by writing about pissing.
• used offensive experession when he unjustifiable blocked me I write encyclopedia, not playing the game.
• Declare that he abuse his right and abuse his rights.

I think he sould be blocked for few weeks for his abusive and vulgar behavior. --Dezidor (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (I am not native English speaker, so sorry for my English)

You need to read our guidelines on biographies of living people. A criticism isn't a random cut and pasted negative quote either. 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talk • contribs)

I read it. There is no reason for censorship of notable and representative (see many arguments of many users here) criticism and no reason for vulgar insults by Doc glasgow. --Dezidor (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that "we don't piss about with..." is British slang meaning "we don't mess about with...". It's hardly a deadly insult. BLACKKITE 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that pissing is some slang that I didn´t know, but his block in his dispute was unjustified and abusive. --Dezidor (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in the subject other than BLP enforcement. This is apparently part of some vendetta against Chip Berlet. Repeatedly adding an attack quote to the article and to wikisource. It has been brought up on the talk page and the BLP noticeboard. The subject has specifically objected to it, and the people pushing it have been unable to show its particular significance. This is either trolling or some outside dispute spilling into wikipedia and onto a WP:BLP. Either way, I am not going to defend myself against this rot. trolls and BLP violators don't get to wikilawyer. I suggest someone cluesticks this user - or simply pull the plug on his account. Take it away.--Doc 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dezidor, you were rightfully blocked for blatent trolling, and you are continuing to troll here. Stop it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF Dezidor has stated that he does not speak English natively or well, and I can see that the "vulgarity" could be mis-construed. However, per Black Kite, it's a pretty common term for Brits. I'm not exactly impressed an admin felt in vital that it go in an edit summary (which can't therefore be stricken or redacted), I must admit, but it pretty minor. A review here seems to indicate all was in order in terms of the block and actions by Doc Glasgow. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don´t know why you speak about some vendetta. I read first time about about Chip Berlet at Misplaced Pages at the end of 2007. Another false acussation. --Dezidor (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also not used as an insult - an insult is aimed at a person, Doc's use of "pissing" is not aimed at anyone. I don't see any problems with his actions here. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I agree, also, he was assuming bad faith only because you had proven that your edits were not done in good faith.--Phoenix-wiki 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The (unblued) point is that whilst swearing in an edit summary (which only dev's can then alter) is hardly ideal or clever it's not that big a deal either. It brings no benefit to the project, only detriment, and therefore should be avoided but that's an aside. Doc's admin actions were totally correct. Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Doc Glasgow's move. Enforcement of wikipedia's clear WP:BLP policy is not editwaring, and admins are right to use blocking to prevent continued disruption and insertion of controversial or enflamatory material per WP:BLP. If you wish to continue to add such material, discuss the matter on the article talk page, and by discuss I mean establish consensus among users, not simply announce your intentions and go on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs and links that Dezidor provided in his argument, and I find absolutely NO evidence of offensive conduct directed towards this user by DocG. The comment that was made on the block, "playing hard and fast with BLP" I do not find offensive in the least bit, on the contrary, I assume (you know what they say about assume!) that what DocG meant was that Dezidor was making some hasty implementations in the article. There IS one minor consideration to be made here; DocG, not everyone that edits the english-language Misplaced Pages knows what "pissing about" means, as it's a decidedly British term (I do, I've had the pleasure of living on both sides of the pond). Might want to consider that in the interactions with other editors. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with DocG's actions. Edit Centric (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not have blocked here, but this doesn't unreasonable a response given the context. Antiwar is not a reliable source and we need to be very careful with BLPs. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I checked the antiwar.com Misplaced Pages entry. According to this entry, Justin Raimondo is "founder and editorial director." Since the quote in question comes from Raimondo, this means that there's a good chance it is self-published. We cannot use self-published sources on BLP articles. Part of the problem is that there really hasn't been much discussion of Chip Berlet in scholarly sources; JSTOR shows only 19 hits. Still, a dearth of good sources is no excuse to use bad ones. Maybe this could have been handled a bit more diplomatically, but the material was clearly against policy and should have been removed from the article. *** Crotalus *** 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to check WP:RS/N, where this point is debated: indeed, the very valid point is made that while the editor of antiwar.com is considered a self-published source for biographies, the editor of publiceye.org is not considered a self-published source for bios. That seems like a fairly inconsistent position to me, actually. Relata refero (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Red flag warning...if someone is using a bio to add mostly negative info, then they are probably in violation of BLP, or at the very least not working towards NPOV.--MONGO 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question described the subject as a "professional political hitman" as per the quotation here. I personally have to question very much both the neutrality and reliability of the source, particularly considering that source, Justin Raimondo, was speaking in the context of a campaign in which he was a clear supporter of the candidate the subject opposed. In this instance, I have to say that, barring similar language from more neutral, uninvolved parties, the content was justifiably removed. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, I was thinking of trying to formulate something to that effect for BLP. That if someone seems overly focused on adding negative information to a particular BLP, especially if it's a marginal BLP, it should raise a red flag for administrators, who could apply an article ban. I've not thought it through yet, but I may try to propose some wording on talk. We've had too many cases of people using Misplaced Pages as an attack platform. SlimVirgin 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already some language that speaks to that issue - see the end of WP:BLP#Criricism - and any further expansion, especially of arbitrary admin powers in content disputes - wouldn't be a good idea. Relata refero (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a very welcome idea, particularly considering the US is entering its main political season and I personally expect to see the metaphorical knives to be coming out on a regular basis. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, perhaps you should wander into Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, which deals with this to a large extent. Your input would probably be appreciated, since most of the commenters are involved to some extent. Horologium (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Berlet seems to be acting in a highly hypocritical manner by objecting to quotes like that, considering that he's making a practice of inserting quotes from himself that do similarly harsh criticism of other individuals, like in a dispute currently in progress at Public Information Research. He can't take it, but he sure dishes it out. Is the pot calling the kettle black? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate issue from the one that started this thread, but perhaps an RfC is in order about CBerlet's editing in Misplaced Pages and discussion on whether he has been receiving favorable treatment or not. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's quite irrelevant and out of line. We demand our articles are neutral and fair to the subject. We insist that the subject should not have to out up with vandalism, abuse or pov warriors on the article about them. AND WE DO THAT REGARDLESS of any moral opinion of the subject. Perhaps he's a hypocrite - you are entitled to your opinion. But given that I've defended articles where the subject has been a neo-nazi, a convicted felon, a pedophile (yes) and a dozen racists - most of whom I regard as scum - I really must insist that we apply BLP without exception. All other ways lead to disaster. Shall we stop reverting vandalism on George W Bush because we think he's a slimeball?--Doc 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think dan was suggesting we stop removing BLP vios from Chip's Bio, more that he needs counselling and needs to follow his own rules. Viridae 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent creation of User:Gray Wanderer

This user account/name was created by a persistent vandal, who's edits I've reverted often. I've successfully campaigned for him/her to be blocked several times. User seems only interested in adding the same text to the page South Callaway High School over and over. From anon ips and created user names. The most recent user name User:Gray Wanderer bears obvious similarity to my user name User:Grey Wanderer. I'm not sure what action I can take in this instance, but is it possible to permanently block this user name for this action. In all likelihood it won't be used again, but I want to prevent any damage he might do to me by impersonating me on talk pages or in the mainspace.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indef for vandalism. Nakon 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostile attitude of Admin

The admin Shell Kinney left this snide remark against a brand-new editor on my Talk page diff. This is not the way we welcome new editors, by berating them. Wjhonson (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

have you tried approaching Shell Kinney and asking him to be nicer, before coming here? Viridae 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that the remark by Shell was addressed to self-admitted sole purpose account with a clear agenda - see User:Tennessee Jed 4415. WjBscribe 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed, Tennessee Jed needs to be referred to WP:NOT as a source reference. Edit Centric (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's moot as I see that Shell is now a Mediator. I wasn't under the impression that Tennessee Jed was an SPA and Shell didn't state that in his reply anyway. It seemed to me a bit of a harsh way to address a proper question. Just ignore all this. Wjhonson (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Shell is a "her", not a "his". Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:YetanotherGenisock

I am blocking User:YetanotherGenisock for violating WP:SOCK. User:Geni is using it to do mass reverts of redirects that User:TTN is making. This is not a endorsement of what TTN is doing, but a notice that User:Geni should not make a sock used only for edit warring and mass reverts. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that I have had disagreements with his sock about some his reverts (see talk pages). But the main reason I blocked the sock was that it was only used for edit warring. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee 3RR violations and BLP violations

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See and Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also asked this at AN3, could you clarify what the BLP issue is? It isn't obvious for those of us not familiar with the subject. --B (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He puts an external link on Frank Rynne which alleges illegal activity by the subject of the page. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We need User:FayssalF to look over this . He is familiar. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I should note that both users have been into this dispute for almost 2 years now. Back on 2007, i decided to deal with this issue and everybody has gone into informal dispute resolution (User:FayssalF/JK). It worked for a while but since i was the only admin left with the case, things started to get out of hand and the old behavior surfaced again. I then blocked both users (see here) for a week each. I believe those blocks had little effect. At the end i asked both parties to engange in a formal mediation process. So far, Opiumjones accepted while BKLisenbee has still had some concerns and never came back to respond to my querry for a formal mediation. I'd hope other admins take care of this alongside me. All details are found at User:FayssalF/JK.

Anyway, my usual message to both parties... A total respect of WP:BLP should be observed. Articles affected (directly or not) are Paul Bowles, Bachir Attar, William S. Burroughs, Frank Rynne and Mohammed Hamri. I have concerns about WP:COI as well since both parties have been showing a COI. They are both involved in real life disputes re the same issues. I've already informed all users involved in this that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. In brief, users are advised to pursue formal mediation and if that fails, they are invited to bring it to the attention of the ArbCom. I urge some admins to take a look at this case. -- FayssalF - 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Geoff Pain (Usernames similar to names of real persons...)

Geoff Pain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made contributions to articles adding a real but posibly un-notable chemist, including an article (since speedy deleted for no assertion of notability). It is possible that the user is the real Geoff Pain with a COI, and it is also possible that the user is trying to subtly discredit the real Geoff Pain. Is there a policy on this (e.g., on putting disclaimer regarding relationship between account name and similarities to the name of the real person the account was set up to create?) The user never responded to my offers to help., , or my speedy delete notice. This leads me to believe it is possibly a fan of Geoff Pain. TableManners 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not come across this before, but as an Australian chemist, I decided to have a look at the deleted article. It is quite possible that Geoff Pain is notable and that a good article on him could be written, but the deleted article was not it. I know or know off the people he worked with at Monash and Cambridge. However, I have not come across the guy myself, but I could ask people including the first Ph D from Monash and others who know the Australian chemistry scene better than I (I was brought up in the UK chemistry scene). Call on me if you need any help on this at any time. --Bduke (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another case is Pro-Life of Idaho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who edited Pro-Life (politician) (which might be afd'd soon). Strange that I came across these two users. TableManners 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge and why I am leaving wikipedia

Could we reopen the case about Ferrylodge's community ban. I really and truly do think it needs to be expanded. His edits are beyond disruptive and he wears editors down with his constant bickering and half truth style of argumentation. Nobody seems to care that he owns the Mitt Romney article and is about to be responsible for it being protected a second time. He runs rampant on the Fetus article also and just sucks the life out of the people editing the page. I just reported him for a 3rr violation and another edit war he started but have got no real response. The admin there threatened to block me. So, I am leaving and not coming back. I am probably the third or fourth editor that Ferrylodge has pushed out (thanks in part to his new admin best buddy, John Carter). So I hope you as a community do something about it. I give up. I will hit a few talk pages and thats it. Thanks. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The admin there" didn't threaten to block anyone. I made a very definitive statement that if I were reviewing the case (which obviously I cannot do as an involved user), I would have blocked both of you for edit warring. I looked at it and I can't see for the life of me why one version is better than the other but regardless of that, you both ought to know not to repeatedly revert. I'm sorry that you are planning to leave over this, but looking at it, I can't see what the big deal is over this either way. --B (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, B. You can fuck off too. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked for incivility. Nakon 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good block. Still, it should be noted that editing with Ferrylodge requires, in my experience and apparently that of others, the patience of Job. Currently, on Mitt Romney, he's reverted 3 times in less than 30 minutes, calling a clear content dispute "vandalism" in a transparent Wikilawyering attempt to dodge 3RR. If I were not feeling insufficiently neutral about this, I'd have blocked him already. As it is, I think serious thought should be given (in light of his recent ArbCom case, this old RfC, and his long track record) to at the very least a lengthy block for edit-warring and attempting to game the system. I also think reconsideration of his overturned community ban would be indicated at this point. MastCell 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good block in the sense that he was ignoring warnings not to attack, and this will prevent him from continuing in those personal attacks. I delivered those warning messages and tried to do so in a way that would not escalate the situation. However, perhaps such warnings were what pushed him over the edge. He has apologized to me in an edit summary and I accepted his apology, but I do think that he should seriously consider apologizing to others as well. I think the block is good. I don't know anything else about the editor, though. TableManners 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Ferrylodge is a regular 'visitor' to AN/I. He's been the topic of multiple potential community bans. He's a master of provocation. To see that he's driven another editor out, and gets to walk away, yet again, is absurd. Why is it that every few months, we have a big row here about getting tough on persistent trouble-makers, and never do? Let's ban him, and move on. I'm quite sure that Turtlescrubber is still monitoring this thread, and frankly, I'm tired of seeing the same peopel here over and over and over, as I've said often. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold up ... have you looked at the edits to Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in question? I'm not even sure what the dispute was about ... just where to locate the religion section. Ferrylodge's edit summary was incivil, but the reaction was inappropriate and over the top. Turtlescrubber reverted three unrelated edits and then the two of them proceeded to edit war over it. Whether the edits were good, bad, or indifferent I don't know, but there isn't one innocent and one guilty party here. --B (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I never objected to the block on Turtlescrubber. I think he should get a block for 3RR/TE, and for the ridiculously incivil fuck off above. I'm not sticking up for him like that - in this particular case, his actions were craptacular. For my opinon, I'd see his block extended for the doubled violations. But Ferrylodge has been through more than enough actions at AN/I to know that he can handle things in other ways. He doesn't change his behavior. IT seems to me that he's a problem too. He was invited to use the talk page, wasn't he? He should've stopped, adn dealt with it there, rather than escalating. HE has been told before about that sort of thing, and again ignored. He needs a block too, to take the time to review our policies, and prevent this sort of behavior again. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given Ferrylodge's history, yes, I think it would be very justified to make a block on him for edit warring. I think a case could have been made for blocking only Ferrylodge and not Turtlesrcubber based on Ferrylodge's history with edit warring, but since Turtlescrubber is already blocked for other reasons, making an agrument concerning equitable treatment seems unnecessary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any active disruption? Don't forget blocks are not punishment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an An3 thread awaiting the response of an uninvolved admin. There are several regular AN3 patrollers that, as far as I know, are uninvolved and can resolve the issue with respect to Ferrylodge. I doubt anyone would even consider an additional block on Turtlescrubber for 3RR - if he weren't already blocked, yes, but he is, so it's moot. As for active disruption? I guess it depends on your definition of active. 3 reverts apiece in 30 minutes is inherently disruptive and, as it happened within the last few hours, it's not exactly a stale complaint. --B (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look, it was just a question. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Give it time, give it time. With my experience on the Mitt Romney article and the editors that visit that article, there's going to be three or four more reverts on that page in the next 24 hours. I'd suggest a full protection for a week or so so they can actually talk over the changes instead of shouting past each other. The fighting over how to express Romney's religion and family history has been going for months and now they are fighting over something as silly as the location of a section. --Bobblehead 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I've decided to act as the uninvolved admin here and make a 72-hour block on Ferrylodge. I suspect some will say this is too harsh, and others will say it's not harsh enough. It's obviously available for review by other admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on their block history, including a recently-reversed community ban, this 72-hour block for edit warring on the Mitt Romney article seems appropriate. I would have supported up to 1 week. — Satori Son 14:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom unanimously held that the community ban was invalid. A community ban is not a tool to use in a content dispute, but that is what it had become - CSN was being used to AFD editors. --B (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is however evidently a mechanism for an existing restriction to be broadened. Ferrylodge is currently under an existing restriction. I have contacted ArbCom about this earlier, and they informed me that the restriction does not cover this sort of content, although it would be possible for that restriction to be broadened. I freely acknowledge I have no idea regarding how that might be accomplished, but I think it might not be unreasonable for anyone who seeks to do so to file such a request. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has a long and colorful history of disruption. This is the 10th? 20th? 30th? time he has created some huge ruckus. I do not know the particulars, but I do know that he always seems to be center of the dispute. The cases of bad behavior I know about, FL acted atrociously and got away with murder over and over and over. Something has to be done, before he drives more good editors over the edge and drives them away, like he has done a good half dozen already. Is this joker really worth another 5 or 10 other editors? I doubt it. He is not that gifted. I would say more but I do not want to offend anyone.--Filll (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The latest Willy on Wheels wannabe

Uirii on Uiiruzu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber seems to be having a bad day

Turtlescrubber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be having a bad day. He added a couple of talk page contributions that appear to be personal attacks directed at other editors, and I provided him with two warnings.

The last warning was met with a personal attack against me. TableManners 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like he was blocked while I was composing the above. TableManners 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX

In a recent unfortunate dispute, I and three other editors were subjected to editing restrictions on East European topics. One of the prime instigators of the dispute however, User:ThuranX, walked away without so much as a word of warning, a state of affairs I find to be unacceptable.

Just when this dispute was on the verge of resolution, ThuranX barged into the discussion recklessly throwing around inflammatory slurs of "race-baiting", "racism" and "bigotry" which I felt compelled to ask him to withdraw, sparking a new round of recriminations which eventually landed everyone except himself at Arbitration Enforcement. After such a performance, I cannot help but note with irony, ThuranX's recent comment that " I watch AN/I and I like reading through some of the cases and chiming in when I think that wider community input is useful, or the opinion of a third party editor can help." Thanks to his "help", which consisted entirely of launching deeply offensive personal attacks, four other editors ending up with editing restrictions.

ThuranX has been blocked on two prior occasions for incivility, the latest as recently as last October, so there is clearly an established pattern here. That he is an administrator in my opinion only makes his behaviour even more inexcusable. He has I believe breached all acceptable bounds of civility and ought to face sanction over it, particularly since he still brazenly flouts his opinion that I am a "bigot" on his talk page in blatant violation of policy. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Also, you're now coming here to argue an ArbEnforcement for an ArbCom case i wasn't involved in? For an ArbEnf review I was not notified of, though I was accused of a stack of stuff? When in the original AN/I thread, and in that ArbEnf, it's made clear by others that I was an uninvolved third party? If anyone should be feeling harassed, it's I, as it's clear that failing the first AN/I, and ArbEnforcement, you're back here forum shopping to see if you can get me in trouble for agreeing that you did something wrong, as an uninvolved third party. I suggest you give this up before you wind up getting in more trouble. There's only so much you can push this before it reflects poorly on you for a long time. Finally, the case was not 'on the verge of resolution' when I contributed to the discussion. Addendum: Your watching of my actions in other places seems like a touch of WP:STALK, and the fact that your last diff cited against me specifically predicts you'll be looking for ways to 'get' me is really ironic, as I am apparently right.ThuranX (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher said you were an admin, so I assumed you were. I was going to take this up at WQA, yes, but I thought I'd take it here instead. As for "reflecting poorly on me", that I'm afraid is the risk one always takes when making a complaint.

But I'm not trying "to get you in trouble". I've asked you to withdraw your offensive remarks and if you withdraw them the matter is over as far as I am concerned. But if you don't withdraw them, then I think you should be sanctioned for it, just like anyone else who engages in egregious incivility. Particularly given your record for this sort of thing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If this concerns an issue with the ArbCom, is this the correct place to raise the concern? I am not downplaying nor am I endorsing the accusations, but if this was a problem that is being enforced by the Arbitration Committee, what can we, as lowly janitors admins do? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Got nothing to do with arbcom, since ThuranX was not actually an editor on the page in question, and thereby not liable to that particular arbcom enforcement sanction. My complaint here is purely about his incivilities, nothing more. Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this is being brought up now? As far as I can see, the remarks in question were made on or before January 5. That's ten days ago. --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Folantin - this may have taken that long to reach a "boiling point", where Gatoclass finally feels either ready to address it after cooling off, or addressing it from within the "boil zone". Either way, there IS some ongoing friction between these two editors that needs to be worked out and / or mediated, for the sake of Wiki overall. Edit Centric (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This does look like WP:WQA would be a more appropriate venue, as the sole issue that you're bringing to the fore is ThuranX's perceived incivility (I use perceived as a neutral position term here.) and use of inflammatory terms in message space. If possible, could we move this thread there, and delve into some possible solutions? Edit Centric (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd again point out that in both the original AN/I thread, and the ARbEnforcement, his complaint was put aside, because I focused on his comments that anyone opposing his edits had to be part of a specific ethnic group (to paraphrase, but only slightly so as not to rehash his own words again) I stated that his assumptions as to the motives of everyone else, which were often clearly stated, but dismissed in favor of his 'them against me' mentality, were bigoted and rude and so on. Other editors agreed, repeatedly, at the time. check the archives. Look at the ArbEnf, not much regard for his assertion there. Gatoclass is simply upset that an uninvolved third party agreed with those accusing him of wrong-doing, instead of with him. Everyone who objected to his statements (I was not the lone voice), received his 'demands' for an apology. IF anyone gave him one, I didn't see it, but I sure didn't, because I didn't say anything that wasn't true. Blunt truth isn't incivility. This is a sour grapes attempt at retribution for my getting involved at all. He couldn't get satisfaction the first time, on AN/I, couldn't get it a second time on my talk page, which was thoroughly inappropriate anyways, couldn't get it a third time at the Arb Enf. Now he's come back here. I did nothing wrong, and I'm not about to apologize for calling him to task for what he said. Blanket statements like his can be easily identified and dismissed as fallacious arguments, and that's what I did. I'll be back to writing articles, because this section has no merits. ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blunt truth isn't incivility...I'm not about to apologize

And that's exactly why I felt compelled to make this an issue. Because it's one thing to hurl a slur in the heat of the moment. It's quite another to go on insisting that you're entitled to call a fellow user in good standing a racist and a bigot. And quite frankly, I am amazed that apparently no-one here sees a problem with this.

But if no-one here will do anything, there seems little point in taking it to WQA given the user's attitude. In which case, I guess I will have to issue a warning of my own. You may have gotten away with your nasty little slurs on this occasion ThuranX, but if you repeat them against me in future, you should not anticipate getting off quite so readily. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the talk:Asian fetish

I was personally attacked on the talk:Asian fetish by user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey. They chose to research me and not the topic of "Asian fetish". They've disparage me on the talk page and posted links to external forums I've posted too. Of course whatever views they perceive I have should bare no importance as long as I abide by wikipedia edit rules. These personal attacks are clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:PROBLEMLINKS. I wish that this section is rolled back and the perpetrators are punished. Here's the entire section of the talk page with the personal attacks Tkguy (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy linking of prior text related to this incident

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Personal_attacks_on_Asian_fetish
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#User:Tkguy_at_Asian_fetish

Just a note, I think what you're actually looking for is WP:OVERSIGHT. The instructions for seeking an oversight on that page.--Crossmr (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish

This user is a manifest SPA who edits on Misplaced Pages to promote his original theories about how Asian fetish causes suicide and other social ills. He apparently can't edit with NPOV because he holds rather extreme views, as evinced off-site, where he claims to be "fighting the good fight" on this article.

This user edit warred with User:Christopher Mann McKay and User:Kaitenbushi in late November, resulting in a page protection (and a block for breaking the 3RR, which was lifted because Tkguy claimed to have been tricked into it). He edit warred in December with User:Saranghae honey and User:Crotalus horridus to same result. In both cases, it appears all editors were against his disrupting changes on the talk page. He is currently edit warring with multiple parties. This page should not be protected again because the problem is with just a single editor.

A partial summary of his history is documented at my last ANI post on him, which elicited almost no helpful response. See also his patently frivolous RFAR, which he filed after threatening to name users as parties. He even edit warred with the clerks over the RFAR title!

I'm tired of this user's sterile disruption. I don't have a grudge with the user, and was just recently alerted to this dispute through an RfC. I intend to enforce a topic ban against him, and I will block him for editing the mainspace of Asian fetish. Does anyone disagree? Cool Hand Luke 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am kind of disheartened by both sides of this issue. On the first hand, TKguy's behavior is problematic, what with the edit-warring and article ownership issues clear from the above. On the other hand, the discussion cited by TKguy seems to be inappropriate for the talk page in question. The discussion seems like it belongs more at ANI or RFC, and not on that page. I would not characterize the discussion cited by TKguy as a personal attack (though the discussions of his off-wiki behavior delve somewhat into the realm of revealing personal info. Seeing his off-wiki life discussed like that makes me feel uncomfortable), however the location of the discussions seems inappropriate. I don't see why that discussion cannot be redacted by WP:OVERSIGHT and why we also still cannot discuss the problems with TKguy's edit history. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can selectively delete the edits, unless someone thinks actual oversight is needed. I do think they were misplaced on the talk page, which should focus on the article, but procedural faults besides, we have an editor who persistently edit wars on a topic against everyone. As far as I know, none of the opposing editors have ever worked together. We pointedly disagree with out to handle the article, but we talk about our disagreements, rather that conduct sterile edit wars. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be best. If the edits were removed from the talk page history, but ported somewhere else so that we can still access them easily, perhaps as a subpage somewhere, that would be best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/More about Tkguy. And this way they can be easily deleted when the issue is settled. Cool Hand Luke 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then what constitute an attack? Tkguy (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this assessment. I've read the above links and find this to be an accurate description of what has occurred and the current issue on the article. I would encourage everyone to read the above provided links in full before giving their opinion as well as the talk page of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Cool Hand Luke is doing the same thing he does with sources on the asian fetish article, mis-represent them. My 3rr block was reverted and User:Kaitenbushi got the 3rr block and User:Christopher Mann McKay got a 48 hour block for violating the 3rr rule on another page and for tricking me too on the Asian fetish page. Talk about all of this on the arbitration proposal and it's here. And the arbitration proposal was not trivial as none of the 3 admin I asked seem to want to help with my personal attack issues. But the board wants me seek out help in the community so I submitted this incident report. I was personally attacked and I would like my attackers to be punished. Cool Hand Luke being one of them.

I can't see how this can not be seen as a personal attack. They are critique me and their perception of my views. They called me a racist and they put up links to offsite websites. Cool Hand Luke did this as well. more than once. But Cool Hand Luke is an admin and he should know better.

All these people are obviously pushing a pov on the article. Obviously I have a bias but I don't go deleting well sourced entries on the page like Cool Hand Luke is doing here. He's actually preventing me from adding or updating the Asian fetish page at all! Him along with User:Headwes and of course Crossmr. He merged User:Saranghae honey's POV pushing sandbox version of the page to the Asian fetish article here. And this is another person who personally attacked me. Tkguy (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these people are enforcing a neutral point of view on the article. After reviewing the difs provided by you and by the others, it is clear that, despite the fact that there is no consensus to make the changes to the article you wish, you keep making the changes. Per WP:BRD, once an edit is reverted, all parties should go to the talk page to discuss the edit in question. I see no effort made on TKguys part to work collaboratively. Also, it should be noted that no one except TKguy seems to charactarize the edits as "attacks" and it should be noted that no one at Misplaced Pages "punishes" anyone. What admins DO is to use bans and blocks to minimize damage and disruption to the project. Based on TKguys behavior, I would support Cool Hand Luke's suggested community ban, and TKguy should be restricted from editing articles related to this topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that 4 of the 9 arbitrators has rejected this case sited above by TKguy. They believe that it should be handled "by the community" and that there is " nothing here at this stage that cannot be addressed by appropriate involvement of administrators." Sounds like we are to deal with this here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant by punishing people. Ban them or block them. And you are obviously wrong about me not wanting to discuss changes. Nearly all the topics on the talk pages are started by me! Look at the talk page and look at who starts each thread. It's says tkguy on nearly all of them! Here are topics I've started:

Adoption, from my talk page

Phoebe Eng

Moe Tkacik

The Fisman Salon article

mail order brides

I am not even getting into the archives. These are topics I've started on the talk page. What do you mean that I do not want to discuss changes? As for those who don't think these are attacks. Well majority of the comments are from people who attacked me. I can't imagine any one of those admitting that these are attacks. Considering how they source their material and delete content for trivial reasons. User:Cool Hand Luke is the only person of the three I report who didn't submit and AfD for the page. Tkguy (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

and User:Cool Hand Luke changed nearly the whole article by merging with user:Saranghae honey's restricted sandbox version of the article without gaining consensus. HOw is one person not gaining consensus OK while another person's is not? have you even looked at the changes I've made? tell me which one of them just point it out with a diff, what is wrong? I will assure you that I can prove that I deleted it for very good reasons. Please give me an example. Anyone. Tkguy (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We do that on the talk page, which are for discussing the article. You ignore it. See below. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet you conclude several of those discussions by claiming that there's no reason to oppose your edits and that all of the other parties are wrong ("its here to stay" stating intent to re-add paragraph after being advised doing so would break 3RR), and you continue edit warring, knowing that literally everyone opposes you. You know where the talk page is, but not how to edit collaboratively. That's why you should be limited to the talk page, which will prevent further disruption to Misplaced Pages. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Saranghae honey threatened to delete the Mail-order bride section due to lack of sources. Yet at the time I added a source from Phoebe and Asianweek and User:Saranghae honey deleted the phoebe entry. and then make the claim that there are not enough sources to support this section! I added the phoebe section back in and people claim that the asianweek source is not good because it's about college students making statements. After the page was unlocked you overwrote the whole article with User:Saranghae honey's version which deleted the mail-order bride section. So I added the section with the deleted phoebe entry back in and two more WP:V sources. and you give me a WP:UNDUE and delete this today! You people made it obvious, it does not matter at all. this section will never ever be added to the asian fetish page. It does matter if there are many WP:V sources out there supports that asian fetish drives the mail-order bride business. And this is the nature of all the changes I've ever tried to make to the page. All of the them! Tkguy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits (such as the diffs above) speak for themselves. I look forward to working with you on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The following is an entry I've put in on the talk:Asian fetish, it's an example of the kind of editing I've done along with what kind of editing that have been done on the page. Much of the editing I do is to rid the page of the manipulation of source data. And no I don't believe consensus can be used to allow manipulated sources be placed in an article. That's a direct violation of WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. Tkguy (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that I had to spend a lot of time rewriting much of the quotes and summarization of source because I've found them to not reflect the source data accurately. For example User:Saranghae honey wrote the following:

Asian fetish has been used in a more benign context to mean "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." 19:54, 27 December 2007

The actual quote is the following:

"Some say Asian fetish' is just a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." colorq.com source

The colorq source went through a lot of trouble to specify both sides of the asian fetish issue. One side indicating it's a benign while the other side saying it's not. If you read closely you realize that User:Saranghae honey was trying to imply that it's general accepted by ALL the notion that asian fetish is benign when actually the source specifically specified only some believed this notion. I found that way User:Saranghae honey chopped the quote was an attempt to mitigate Asian fetish. Seeing how User:Saranghae honey wanted this page deleted and is continually deleting content from this page I can make this conclusion.

I've found this manipulation of source data all over the page.

Another example is the "Racial preferences in dating" dating part of the page. Originally this was written as claiming that a scientific study proved that asian fetish does not exist. That's so far from the truth. An article was written in salon magazine in which one of the authors of the study derived from the study that it proved to HIM that asian fetish does not exist. Please read the old version of this part of the page and my version and look at the study and the article being referenced. I assure you that my entry is an unbiased view of the article and situation. With that I believe I can actually delete this section as this guy was obviously stating an opinion and wikipedia is not a source for opinions. Or at the very least this section does not deserve to have such a prominent place and use up a lot of space on this page. It's a biased opinion from one man. And it's sad that such bias comes from an author of the study which brings into question the validity of the study itself. old Asian Preference in Dating section vs new Racial preference in Dating section

Here's another example of older version of the definition that was on this page:

Asian fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture. 02:45, 28 November 2007

The above was written with a reference to Sheridan Prasso's "The Asian Mystique" book. I found that the following was the actual quote from which the above was summarized from:

"What isn't normal, however, is when preference crosses the invisible line, when Asian and Asian-American women on the receiving end feel--as Liao and Kwon say--objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from."

My version imo accurately convey the exact meaning that the author was trying to convey. The original summary was a gross manipulation of the source once again.

I wrote this to make clear to all that I am neutral. The only mistakes I've made are noobie mistakes that people starting to edit in wikipedia does. And of course to make clear to all the situation I am putting up with on this page. Tkguy (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Case in point. Ownership, accusing other editors of "gross manipulation." Tkguy here claims that consensus need not apply to his edits because user is correcting "manipulated sources." A variety of users have made clear their opposition to Tkguy's POV edits, but user feels entitled to ignore them. That's why this SPA should be banned from the mainspace of this topic. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I proved it right here that sources were being manipulated. If you prefer to look to this as me pushing my pov so be it. I am pushing the pov that sources should speak for itself. And this is the nature of the edit wars on Asian fetish. Tkguy (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a non-admin's view is wanted here, but I support a ban. November/December was an odyssey in personal attacks and bad faith accusations on me (and others), partly documented here. Even in this thread Tkguy continues accusing me and User:Christopher Mann McKay of tricking him into a 3rr trap, despite having been warned beforehand. Kaitenbushi (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again the real story. My 3rr block was reverted and User:Kaitenbushi got the 3rr block and User:Christopher Mann McKay got a 48 hour block for violating the 3rr rule on another page and for tricking me too on the Asian fetish page. Talk about all of this on the arbitration proposal and it's here. We already know that User:Christopher Mann McKay was blocked for 48 HOURS not 24 hours like everybody else 48 hours! This guy has no credibility.

I hope people see a pattern here. user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey already had their comments rollback but yet they were not banded, or blocked or not even a comment, I believe, was put on their talk page. And like I said User:Christopher Mann McKay was already banned for 48 hours partly for his work on Asian fetish. Yet, people are thinking that I am the problem on this article? If I have pov then it's because I am pushing to make the article abide by wikipedia's standards. Nearly all the entries on the article now has WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, etc. issue. This is because there are no consequences for adding things that breaks wikipedia's policies. I will RfC on all these changes but it seems like the kind of people RfC on Asian fetish attracts are the people who think consensus can overrule the rules of wikipedia! Why were these comments rollback and nobody blocked or banned from the article? According to policies:

At least one things came to light it's official user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey are vandals!!! And as the WP:AGF states.

This section that was rolleback has many many entries in it (12 entries! Not 1 not 2 not 3, 12 entries!). It's not just one comment. It's multiple comments from each party. So multiple occurrence of vandalism warrants that these people can be assumed not to editing in good-faith. And it's apparent that these people are the people making all the comments against me, I say those comments and their editing must be examined before using them to determine whether or not I AM THE PROBLEM. If I am changing their entries then if it's vandalism then that should be ok. and anything that was changed and no regards were put to abide by wikipedia's standards then it's vandalism. And that's is the nature of the edit wars on Asian fetish 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break AF1

I will block him

— User:Cool Hand Luke

You may be arguably be involved in a content dispute with Tkguy; if so, the use of sysop tools would not be allowed.

This messageboard is not part of dispute resolution, though many people seem to use it as the first measure. Have WP:3O, Misplaced Pages:Mediation or Requests for comment/User been attempted? There was a request for arbitration that is being rejected. Likewise, a community topic ban via ANI should not be proposed until all other avenues have failed. If other means have already been tried, please point me to the links. Jehochman 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration failed but remember it was initiated by Tkguy, not anyone on the other side of the dispute. In fact other attempts were made to reason with him, there was a proposal made on his talk page. He refused to acknowledge it and instead when it looked like consensus was clearly against him, he began making threats of arbitration and eventually filed it (and its now been rejected). 3O wasn't specifically request, but I was a bit of a third opinion, coming to the party quite late. To find the mess on the talk page, and I agree with everything that has been said about what is going on here. Not that 3O really applies here, its specifically for a dispute between two users. This is a dispute between about 6 or 7 in reality. Mediation and RFCU are both slow and neither are binding. In the meantime the edit warring and ownership issues will continue as its unlikely Tkguy would agree to not edit the article until the process is finished since he wouldn't even acknowledge the request to limit himself to a single revert a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This message board is part of dispute resolution. With the dismantling of WP:PAIN, and WP:CSN many users expressed during the MfD process that those issues be brought to either AN/I or AN and separate boards weren't necessary. Since those boards were successfully removed and there wasn't an alternate venue provided for them, this is where they end up.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there only one problem editor, or are there more? Jehochman 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is only a single problem editor causing the edit warring and causing the article to have been locked twice. If you look at the dispute you have about 6 editors on one side of the dispute, and only Tkguy on the other side of the dispute who has absolutely 0 support for any changes he wants to implement. He has ownership issues and a very evident bias in regards to the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So my editing is edit warring and their changes are not? And my editing is the problem? So tell me if people deliberately violate WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, and if I change those entries. Is that edit warring? Tkguy (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that if you can't persuade other editors to support your edits on the talk page to reach consensus then you cannot really see this as anything other then your view against that of the other established editors there. The onus is on the person wishing to make changes to obtain consensus when their edit is challenged so, if you do not have consensus on your side, then you are edit warring. I suggest that you should observe a voluntary 1RR, that is, if your edits are challenged you should seek consensus on the talk page and leave well alone if this is not forthcoming. Cheers Spartaz 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In this situation, you should explain the problem and the desired resolution at Requests for comment/User. Broad input from the community will hopefully end any editing problems. Administrators can use the RFC/U as evidence to justify administrative action. If RFC/U fails to resolve the dispute, you could then file a request for arbitration or seek community sanctions. Jehochman 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A significant amount of RfC-style evidence was posted at the previous RfC. User has been given countless warnings including prior requests to observe a 1RR, and even here the user insists that he is right and the world is wrong. I would have moved to RfC/U except that literally no user supports this editor's continued disruption, and there's no good reason to allow one user to get the page protected fore a third time. If normal formality gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Cool Hand Luke 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, a quick review suggests that this editor is edit-warring against multiple others and has reverted somewhere around 5 times in the last 12 hours or so. Therefore, I've blocked Tkguy (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation. As to the larger picture, having spent a bit of time looking this over, a fairly clear picture of a tendentious editor is emerging - refusal to respect consensus or outside opinions, refractory edit-warring, stalling page improvement by refusing to let go of an argument that has failed to convince anyone, etc. That there is fairly good evidence of a single-purpose agenda and abuse of Misplaced Pages to push a specific agenda (in the form of links to off-wiki sources) is relevant though not central. We should not be allowing individual editors who refuse to edit collaboratively and who reject outside input to stall page improvement indefinitely - the fact that this single editor has driven the page into protection numerous times is A Bad Thing. We also shouldn't require a lengthy series of processes to deal with an obviously tendentious presence. In that respect, I'd lend my support to either a topic ban, or 1RR plus a rapidly escalating series of blocks for any disruptive behavior or incivility. MastCell 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem—community sanctions should take some time and have a good cross-section of input. Incidentally, it appears that user has named seven editors above as vandals, POV-pushers, and tricksters. I think that's a pretty good indication of how singularly disruptive this user is. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Masahiro Sakurai

Masahiro Sakurai needs to be semiprotected immediately - massive vandalism at a rate of several edits per minute by multiple IPs. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done by RockMFR. The best place for protection requests is WP:RFPP. Hut 8.5 07:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs)

There is some difficulty with this editor regarding Yorkshire and related articles. He consistently reverts edits made by a variety of editors even where references are added and with rude edit summaries. A number of editors have tried to draw him into constructive conversation at Talk:Yorkshire instead of edit warring, but this has resulted in a number of abusive comments: .

I have made three attempts (10 December 2007, 13 January 2008 and 15 January 2008) to let him know that incivility is unnaceptable and in each case offerred an olive branch of being totally prepared to clear the air and move on: However, he has either not responded or blanked my comments with edit summary "joke":

I have tried three times to guide this this editor and defuse any animosity but these attempts have failed. Can someone take this further or advise futher action? Thanks. MRSC • Talk 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have informed User:Yorkshirian about this thread. From a quick scan of contribs, most appear to be good or at least good-faith; the blunt edit summaries may possibly be a problem, though perhaps not surprising. BLACKKITE 08:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the talkpage of the article in which the dispute was on and the main dispute is sorted now. My messages are not intended to be "abusive" in any way shape or form and I am sorry if Mr. MRSC perceives them to be. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources that MRSC has provided, this looks like some sort of a regional dispute between editors, (or at least is perceived to be by Yorkshirian,) and does NOT have any place on Misplaced Pages. (WP:NOT#BATTLE is a good reference.) Yorkshirian, you may not mean for your messages and edit comments to be "abusive", and from what I see they're not, albeit a bit terse though. MRSC, this appears to be more a concern about etiquette, or what we like to refer to as "Wikiquette". If this is the crux of the issue, it might be better served at Wikiquette alerts. I hope that you guys can work out whatever issues that you may be having before taking it there, however... Edit Centric (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II misbehaving

User:MiszaBot II has recently started archiving WT:NOR. This morning's run has deleted a large chunk of current material as well as correctly archiving two threads. I'm reporting this per the message on the bot's user page. I have just undone the bot's edit. —SMALLJIM  08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird I checked some other archiving from this morning, and I don't see any other screw ups. I don't think it warrants a block at this stage, but thanks for reporting it. -- lucasbfr 10:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm amongst the storms...

I would like to take a moment out from all of the issues here, to thank all of the editors and admins that assist in dispute resolution, fighting vandalism, dealing with the many squabbles, and other sometimes menial, but often interesting tasks here at WP:ANI. If I could, I'd give each and every one of you a barnstar just for dealing with the "sturm-und-drang" day in and day out, on top of your issues IRL. (There IS life outside of the Wiki, I can attest to that!) As a Wikipedian, and an ordained minister IRL, I've made it a point to try and provide some calm rationale here at times. Now, I'm going to try and shift my focus over to WP:WQA for a time, to get a different flavor of the process. Again, keep up the good work, and if you get overly stressed, back up, breathe, count backwards from 1,000, and say "bubble" between each number. (I don't know why it works, it just does sometimes!) Edit Centric (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User 74.46.208.113

In the last 3 days a user at 74.46.208.113 has done nothing but made false entries in Transformers and year articles. I reverted everything I saw that was false, and a few other people have reverted his other stuff. Can anyone watch/warn him? Mathewignash (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha covered, I was the one reverting his / her change to 2007, and have posted the level-1 warning on the IP talk page. Edit Centric (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism in user page

User:Certified.Gangsta has restored racist content to his user page at: User:Certified.Gangsta#China=shame despite numerous notices in the past. In fact, if one reads the content of that section, it is pretty clear that User:Certified.Gangsta appreciates the offensive nature of the content yet persists in keeping it there.

I'm not going to even go near the user page or associated talk page because User:Certified.Gangsta has unsavoury but powerful friends. I ask merely that you guys take the appropriate action to ensure the removal of the racist material. Discrimination should have no place on Misplaced Pages, and abuse of user page privileges as a medium for racist advertising should not be tolerated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A brief look through the recent history of User:Certified.Gangsta will reveal how frequently other users become offended by the racist message and either delete it themselves or ask User:Certified.Gangsta to delete it. He, or one of his friends, always reverts the former and ignores the latter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are offended by a single header ("China=shame") and you can't look away from the page, then you need to ask Certified.Gangsta in a nice tone if s/he would mind removing it or clarifying the statement. I really don't see it as racist or an abuse of user page privileges in current (non-)context. And a brief look through the recent history show that most people agree with this position (the ask nicely one, not the China=shame one) and are restoring it when it is removed. I don't think there's anything for administrators to do here. Ask first, then dispute resolution, then WP:RfC. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To disagree with the actions of a government is not to be a racist. No where does it say anything about the Chinese people. I don't see this as racist in ANY way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

here is a typical example of what was previously included under the header. I won't comment on whether the header by itself is offensive, but its intent is clearly _not_ to "disagree with the actions of a government". —Random832 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Toolssmile34

Action needed now please - could someone at the very least blank his sandbox (1.4M in size) that he's transcluding onto multiple pages - http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Toolssmile34. Thanks Giles Bennett 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also block him? He's been listed at WP:AIV but persists. Giles Bennett 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can someone request a blocking of his OWN IP due to wikiholism? --Damifb (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can request it, but we won't do it. May I suggest WikiBreak Enforcer instead? ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that work for an IP? I do presume, like you REDVEЯS, that the editor meant "account" instead of "OWN IP".--Alf 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant IP, because with a Wiki Break Enforcer you can still edit from your computer. OK, thanks for your answers... I'm laughing because I've been blocked in the past without asking for it lol!--Damifb (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what you mean by "asking for it." ;) — Satori Son 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Please could we have an admin on AIV duty? There seems to be a backlog of about 30 mins. Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism, threats of violence, personal attacks

The user 80.38.72.32 has a particulary deplorable edit history with racism , and personal atttacks and threat of violence against another user . JdeJ (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. The IP appears static, so if similar problems resume then let me know or come back here and it can be blocked for a longer period. MastCell 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

209.254.12.73 (talk · contribs) and Sheng Long

209.254.12.73 (talk · contribs) seems to be a good editor otherwise. However, with Sheng Long, he insists on removing maintenance tags from the article and removing it to a fancruft-filled version that was previously nominated for an AfD. He's been blocked on multiple occasions for this, and now his strategy seems to be waiting a few weeks before reverting the page. Is there anything that can be done about this short of longer blocks? JuJube (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: China

China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've had to reprotect the protect after a string of edits and reverts by socks of a banned user. Since Alison has made it clear that a IP range block will have too much collateral (i.e. half a city), I felt that full protection (currently set at indefinite) and was that most viable and realistic option to go as there was more sock edits and edit warring than good contributions. I would just like to see what sysops and editors think about my actions in this situation. nat.utoronto 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs)

24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs), who appears to be on a static IP, has been, over the past 6 or 7 days, adding unsourced and possibly libellous information to a small collection of pages, including shoplifting and Winona Ryder. There were earlier edits which needed to be reverted at franchising, but he seems to have abandoned that article. The behavior remains the same over at the new articles. I think a block is warranted, given the behavior. Argyriou (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards