Revision as of 18:18, 21 December 2008 editSmashville (talk | contribs)10,619 edits →Response: LET ME LIVE, MARGE!← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:19, 21 December 2008 edit undoRoadahead (talk | contribs)Rollbackers1,543 edits →Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid: headling and slightly sperating as the comments by Cheers Dude seem to have become its own topicNext edit → | ||
Line 490: | Line 490: | ||
:::::Yes, I meant ] not ]. Sorry for the confusion. ] (]) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | :::::Yes, I meant ] not ]. Sorry for the confusion. ] (]) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
=== Comments from ] === | |||
Well, I disagree with a lot of things on this report you've provided. As one example, you use his use of 'son' and 'extremist' as examples of personal attacks on that page which aren't personal attacks in my mind. Perhaps mild incivility at best, but nothing on that report falls under the category of personal attacks and a reason for blocking in my estimation. If those were the reasons behind his last block, I'm in disagreement. | Well, I disagree with a lot of things on this report you've provided. As one example, you use his use of 'son' and 'extremist' as examples of personal attacks on that page which aren't personal attacks in my mind. Perhaps mild incivility at best, but nothing on that report falls under the category of personal attacks and a reason for blocking in my estimation. If those were the reasons behind his last block, I'm in disagreement. | ||
Revision as of 18:19, 21 December 2008
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
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 admins 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)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
Other links | |||||||||
Topic ban review
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Consensus clearly shows topic ban will not be lifted despite ardent attempts at intervention. This thread has no where else to go so archiving for posterity.--VS 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review this topic ban discussion.Mccready (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the involved admin--the one who's been working with you all along and knows all the background, etc.--has pretty much already given you an answer, namely: your topic ban still holds; after the first of the year, he'll be back online, and he'll reconsider then. Seems to me like if he wanted you NOT to be topic-banned now, he would have said "No, you're no longer topic-banned." But that's not what he said. Now, if that's not the answer you were hoping for, my apologies; but when you're working with an admin already, and he gives you an answer, and you come looking for another admin to give you a DIFFERENT answer, to me that smacks of admin-shopping. GJC 06:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- With due respect he said he didn't have time to look at it and invited me to seek further review which I have done. To be accused of admin shopping in this circumstance is patently wrong. He also has not considered the block history. I ask an uninvolved admin to look at the facts.
- The ban was put in place before I had right of reply
- The block was put in place by an admin who said my block history was an important part of her reasoning but then refused to examine the block history.
- The block which started this was for edit warring with me placing scientific material on the page.
- Consider my views and the extremist views of the editor who opposes lifting the ban.
- Even this extremist acknowledges my edits are generally good; with the exception of those who oppose my scientific viewpoint, nobody has said I am not an asset to wikipedia
- Despite these facts I have refrained for seven months on an appeal (an appeal I was told could always be made).
- The VERY simple solution I propose is to lift the ban (it can quickly be reinstated if necessary)
- Once again I request someone have a look at this properly.Mccready (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- With due respect he said he didn't have time to look at it and invited me to seek further review which I have done. To be accused of admin shopping in this circumstance is patently wrong. He also has not considered the block history. I ask an uninvolved admin to look at the facts.
(undent) To save the trouble of going through the archives, here are links to most of the relevant archived discussion involving this editor:
- AN/I discussion of first topic ban by User:FloNight: 12 Sept. 2006
- AN/I: topic ban enacted; 16 Sept. 2006; Mccready notified on talk page: 16 Sept. 2006
- Posted at AN/I: Initial discussion that led to proposal of another topic ban, 28 April 2008
- Subsection of above: initial discussion of topic ban, 28 April 2008
- AN/I, consensus to topic-ban: 7 May 2008; Mccready notified on talk page: , ,
- Block for canvassing related to above case: 1 May 2008
- AN/I, more recent discussion of topic ban, violation and request to lift: 11 December 2008
- Related to above: checkuser results
- Further discussion at User_talk:Scientizzle#Discussion_missing.
- Finally, block log and talk page are useful: Mccready (talk · contribs · logs · block log).
These should help clarify the background of this case and what various members of the community have said about it. --Jim Butler (t) 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jim Butler is the editor I referred to above. He is an extremist acupuncturist. I'd be happy to point to the discussion which demonstrates each of my points above, including the critical block log evidence (I've been blocked on more than one occasion by trigger happy admins who apologised). To save time I will not do so at this stage. I ask the question, given my good content edits (this ban started with edit warring which I have apologised for) why not remove the topic ban? It can EASILY be reinstated if necessary. Let me also ask what comes first in solving wikipedia disputes? Mccready (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ironic to allude to WP:NPA and then, when I post relevant diffs from previous dispute resolution, reply with an ad hominem attack. --Jim Butler (t) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. (A bit off-topic but amusing.) If I'm an extremist, I guess the World Health Organization is as well. Of course one can disagree with the WHO... but to call them extremist seems a bit... well, you know. --Jim Butler (t) 07:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ironic to allude to WP:NPA and then, when I post relevant diffs from previous dispute resolution, reply with an ad hominem attack. --Jim Butler (t) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so, Mccready, as far as I am concerned the answer is that your topic ban unquestionably still stands, and if you carry on as you are then we will widen it to a full site ban. Long experience shows that you are unable to work productively with people on this, a subject where you have strong personal feelings. You don't seem to have demonstrated an ability to work productively with those who have a different view on other subjects where your feelings are less strong, so the topic ban is not likely to be lifted any time soon. Which is merely to reiterate the state of debate as at yesterday, , which for some odd reason appears to have vanished, or maybe that's just me. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- With due respect Guy I think you are mistaken. Personal feelings don't enter the equation. Good science and good wikipeida articles do. Correct me if I'm wrong but your principal argument is that I am unable to work productively with people with an opposing viewpoint. How many diffs would you require to change your mind? Have you seen the strenuous efforts I have made on the acupuncture talkpage and other talkpages to gain consensus from true believers (often as the lone science editor)? Do you know what my ratio of discussion to mainspace edits is? I also don't understand your threat "carry on as you are". Am I not entitled to be judged on evidence? Am I not entitled to put the evidence? This issue is at root a content dispute about acupuncture with an editor who now insists his claims on acupuncture are supported by WHO. I'd be grateful for your considered response.Mccready (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Re the WHO and acu efficacy -- read 'em and weep, dude. --Jim Butler (t) 02:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- With due respect Guy I think you are mistaken. Personal feelings don't enter the equation. Good science and good wikipeida articles do. Correct me if I'm wrong but your principal argument is that I am unable to work productively with people with an opposing viewpoint. How many diffs would you require to change your mind? Have you seen the strenuous efforts I have made on the acupuncture talkpage and other talkpages to gain consensus from true believers (often as the lone science editor)? Do you know what my ratio of discussion to mainspace edits is? I also don't understand your threat "carry on as you are". Am I not entitled to be judged on evidence? Am I not entitled to put the evidence? This issue is at root a content dispute about acupuncture with an editor who now insists his claims on acupuncture are supported by WHO. I'd be grateful for your considered response.Mccready (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Jim, your tone is unhelpful and you are wrong again. In the WHO listing of diseases starting with "a" alone you claim two conditions (allergies, not just rhinitis and asthma) which you as an acupuncturist claim you can help. Neither are listed by WHO. I won't go through the rest of the alphabet, but readers can check out the evidence and see for themselves what I am up against here.Mccready (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- My off-wiki list is completely irrelevant. The issue isn't me, the issue is your editing and topic ban.
- Above, you said "with the exception of those who oppose my scientific viewpoint, nobody has said I am not an asset to wikipedia". That's false. As I wrote on AN/I on 27 April 2008, regarding essentially the same assertion you made at the time:
"Usual POV warriors"? Not at all; Mccready's edits have been criticized by editors across the board. The following editors are all scientific, skeptical editors, just like Mccready says he is, and they have all been highly critical of his tendentious editing: FloNight, Fyslee, and MastCell (evidence above), as well as Davidruben , Eldereft , Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk (archived talk), Orangemarlin , Friday , Jefffire , and Arthur Rubin . And I'd count myself, since I was a chemist (M.A. Harvard '89) before training as an acupuncturist, and I understand the scientific method pretty well too. I think this evidence demolishes the "Mccready the scientist vs the POV warriors" straw man. What it does show is broad community support for a sanction that is long overdue.
- True then, still true now. --Jim Butler (t) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Past criticisms have been acknowledged and do not equal a conclusion that the topic ban should remain, or do you presume to speak for the above editors on this topic. Interesting that having said your acupuncture list was supported by the WHO list you now claim, after I point out your error, that it's not relevant.Mccready (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Past criticisms have been acknowledged"? You just got through denying that they existed, other than from those who "oppose (your) scientific viewpoint". Rebutting your false statements (about the record on-wiki and off) is like playing whack-a-mole. Or WP:SOUP. For the record, my off-wiki list about acupuncture is irrelevant, and you are wrong about it; the reasons are explained here (stable version here).
- Past criticisms have been acknowledged and do not equal a conclusion that the topic ban should remain, or do you presume to speak for the above editors on this topic. Interesting that having said your acupuncture list was supported by the WHO list you now claim, after I point out your error, that it's not relevant.Mccready (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- This editor's topic ban is, his protestations to the contrary, not about a content dispute with me (though that's one of the many things that started it; ironically, in the end, the "pro-science" editors were taking my side in his repetitive edit warring). It's about this editor's tendentious editing and general lack of respect for WP rules of the road. Since there isn't much reason to perpetuate cycles of WP:SOUP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I do need to disengage. The record above is clear enough. Ciao. --Jim Butler (t) 10:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- First off, I will tell you right now, in the interest of transparency, that I personally have no intention whatsoever of removing this topic ban, either now or in the future. This has nothing to do with the evidence laid out by either side, EXCEPT that the sheer quantity of evidence makes it clear to me that the history of this situation is quite involved and intricate. Under those circumstances I don't feel it's my place to be making such decisions--and DEFINITELY not without consulting with Scientizzle, which sets the time back to "first of the year" again. Having said that, however: What, exactly, is so urgent that this topic ban MUST be removed RIGHT NOW, when the admin who has the most background on this issue has stated that he will be back in less than two weeks? There is no deadline. Misplaced Pages will still be here when Scientizzle comes back; the topic in question will still be there--why are you so adamant about removing the topic ban RIGHT NOW?? GJC 08:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding Gladys. I appreciate the time you have devoted to this. The reason I asked you to respond is that you made more than one error when you accused me of forum shopping and I thought that as a responsible admin you would take time to examine the issue and act accordingly. This may not seem important but unfortunately, and this is not directed at you, these types of errors are what is detrimental to wikipedia. Error is compounded upon error and the cabal gets into operation and we then have decisions made on emotion and erroneous "group think" instead of evidence. Once again I am not accusing you of this, but pointing out that it is a part of what has happened to me and happens, unfortunately, to other editors.
- For example, in recent posts we have seen Jim Butler sneering at me that his views on acupuncture are supported by the WHO and I am wrong. read 'em and weep, dude is what he said. When I pointed out his error he then said his views were irrelevant and inserted further contorted logic to presume the views of other editors on whether the topic ban should be lifted. Without respect for logic, without respect for evidence and without respect for consistency we do not progress the goal of an objective encyclopedia, nor in this case the efficient handling of a request for review of a topic ban. Unfortunately true believers exhibit this type of behaviour - chopping and changing to suit the moment. Jim has said "Acupunture is strong enough to withstand criticism" (surely the mark of a true believer). Thus he frequently removes criticism of acupuncture. For example my last edit, admittedly part of an edit war which led to me being topic banned (the discussion was closed without me putting my case) was reverted by Jim as soon as the page protection was lifted. I hope you will agree that my edit improved the article.
- As to why this is urgent, the question is why not lift the ban which can very simply be replaced if necessary. To further answer your question, I have already stated that Scientizzle has not indicated that he has reviewed my block history which was a central plank of the blocking admin's argument. The same admin then refused to discuss or analyse the block history. We all know there are trigger happy admins who make errors and my block history contains these. Admins have apologised to me for that. But the most recent blocking admin did not want to discuss that. Another admin has yet to respond The mark of a good admin is one who can take the time to review their own behaviour and acknowledge their errors. Scientizzle has also said my recent edits, reverted by Jim, were ok. I'd be grateful if you can you tell me what is wrong with the simple and expeditious lifting of the ban and replacing it if necessary?Mccready (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I endorse the topic ban. No need to reiterate the reasons why when others have stated them far more eloquently than I ever could. ···日本穣 09:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's time this was archived. There are only two ways forward at this point: Mccready can accept the restriction and let it lie for a decently long time (as in several months), or he can appeal to ArbCom. Either works for me, but I don't see any significant chance of a change right now. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
A conundrum...to block or give a second chance....
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
OK, I suspect that User:TLazzo is a reincarnation of User:Lazzo1 who was blocked for attacking the userpage of User:Jack Merridew in February 2008. The new user has been active since March (well, not especially). Do we let it slide and give this person a second chance or....? I am happy to roll with consensus on this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- A glance at their contribs shows nothing bad, even some good. I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Same topics being edited. The new account was created right after the block, which would be a violation, but it wasn't "caught" until now. If they have e-mail enabled, maybe someone wants to have a polite and friendly off-wiki chat with him?? ♪BMWΔ 12:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- If he continues to edit constructively, harmoniously and productively, then there's no need to have any chat with him, since this is what we all want from all editors as a default. If he reverted to previous behaviour - and people do change and do grow up in ten months - then we'd fall on him like a sack of spuds. But until then, there's no reason to start poking him with a stick to see if he'll turn on us. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with allowing Lazzo another chance. As I commented at User talk:TLazzo#You're evading a block, I view the note at the top-right of his userpage to be an attack on me. User is not very active and does not have email enabled (and I'm not the appropriate party to have said chat, anyway). Up to others… Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Not even sure why this issue is being brought up quite frankly. The user has edited quite constructively for almost the full duration of a year and doesn't seem to be active very much on wikipedia anyway. His last edit was over a month ago. I think it would be silly to bring up old concerns from almost a year ago, much less reblock the user for them. Cheers dude (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Contested admin edits to high-visibility template
See Template_talk:Infobox_Film#Restored.
In short, there was a long and in-depth discussion (now mainly in the archives) regarding the removal of an external links parameter to third-party sites. The issue, while contentious, had been decided in favor of removing the links, and the parameters were removed by admins. The side in favor of keeping the links in the infobox claimed that there was no consensus, while the side in favor of their removal claimed to have a supermajority and claimed that the other side was a vocal minority mainly led by one editor. Despite a long string of threads, both sides eventually let the matter drop.
Now, after more than a month with minimal activity on the talk page, an uninvolved admin has restored the old parameters, without either consultation to the full record on the talk page and its archives, nor was any discussion initiated prior to this action. The editors who wanted the links to stay are claiming that this is a vindication of their position, while the editors who wanted the links removed are concerned why this was done unilaterally without any discussion after a considerable period of inactivity on the talk page.
With regard to the admin's actions, any fresh eyes would be appreciated. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did you make any attempt to carry on a one-on-one discussion with the admin before coming here to complain? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's been an on-going discussion that the admin has participated in at least twice now in the past few days. Are you implying that I've been negligent? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You did not indicate that in your initial summary of the situation, which is why I asked the question. There is no need to read any hidden message in my question. I accused you of nothing. It was not clear that the admin had been aware of the situation from your summary, so I asked. You answered. Thank you for doing so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- "before coming here to complain" sounded a bit pejorative. I apologize if I got the wrong impression, but your tone was unclear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You did not indicate that in your initial summary of the situation, which is why I asked the question. There is no need to read any hidden message in my question. I accused you of nothing. It was not clear that the admin had been aware of the situation from your summary, so I asked. You answered. Thank you for doing so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's been an on-going discussion that the admin has participated in at least twice now in the past few days. Are you implying that I've been negligent? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Um... It would have been useful to note that the template is fully protected, as I was going to natter on about this not being a matter for admin review (being an editorial action) until I checked what the protection situation was. There may be an issue of a sysop using their flags to edit to a preferred status rather than a consensus forming on the page for an admin to enact a change - but this may be true of the edit that was reversed. I would not consider Elonkas actions abusive, but they may have been inappropriate. At the moment I would suggest that a better course would be to open a RfC, get a firm consensus and have whatever decision enacted (or not, if that is the consensus). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, and proposed the same thing. I think a second RfC (we had one already, and it had unanimous support for removal of the links), with notification left at every possibly relevant page, and where all involved parties stay entirely out of the debates, is the only possible solution to this never-ending battle. I say all participants of the previous debates stay out of the RfC because every time we try and generate another debate for neutral parties to give their opinion (whether a formal RfC or something else) it always ends up with the same set of editors (both for and against) interrupt the debates with the same arguments, drowning out all of the neutral parties. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Unanimous support for removal of the links" is a, no doubt inadvertant, mis-statement of the facts. Whether there was a consensus or not can be debated (I personally do not believe there was), but it is quite certain that there was no "unanimity." The issue continues to be contested. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- On the above basis I would volunteer to clerk any new RfC - removing repeat arguments and such, sanctioning abusers who ignore appeals/warnings - if that is felt might be useful. Let me know on my talkpage if such services are required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not against old faces, but what if the RfC was more contained? We have it in a separate page, the !vote and argument sections for each side are to be restricted solely to their functions (ie no discussions there) and then a discussion section below for anyone wishing to have a back-and-forth. This would allow the situation to be easily readable, summarized, and !counted. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- An RfC without discussion isn't a "!vote", it's a vote. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, and proposed the same thing. I think a second RfC (we had one already, and it had unanimous support for removal of the links), with notification left at every possibly relevant page, and where all involved parties stay entirely out of the debates, is the only possible solution to this never-ending battle. I say all participants of the previous debates stay out of the RfC because every time we try and generate another debate for neutral parties to give their opinion (whether a formal RfC or something else) it always ends up with the same set of editors (both for and against) interrupt the debates with the same arguments, drowning out all of the neutral parties. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- "I say all participants of the previous debates stay out of the RfC..." Not gonna happen. An RfC exists to measure opinions of all parties involved. I find this a rather strange proposal. Only the one closing a debate should have no prior history of involvement. Also, why should "repeat" arguments be filtered? They should be measured on their merit and validity, not wehther they are repeated by others. — Edokter • Talk • 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Since no one seems to have done so yet, I posted notice of this complaint on the talk page of User:TheCoffee. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see my name was brought up here, so I just thought I'd comment: I personally have no preference one way or the other on how the template is configured. My change was simply a routine accomplishment of an {{editprotected}} request at the talkpage, at Template talk:Infobox Film#Request edit of protected page. I routinely handle many such requests, and do not generally review all discussions on the talkpage: I just look at the specific thread where the request was made. If I see no objections, and the request appears to have been made in good faith, I accomplish the change. If I jumped the gun a bit, I do apologize, and have no preference one way or the other on whether or not my change is reverted. That is up to the consensus of the editors who are discussing things at the template's talkpage. --Elonka 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we're getting anywhere here. While a strict reading of policy may construe TheCoffee's reversion of another administrator's decision a violation of policy, due to the archived threads, I completely understand why he felt consensus was not present in this case, and it would be best for all concerned he were not censured for the action. I've proposed a direction in which to move on this at the appropriate talk page, and with no immediate administrator action required I suggest that this thread is marked resolved. Steve 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Whatever was discussed a month ago does not matter any longer. It is irrelevant to look at the older discussions because the change was in place for a month; WP:CONSENSUS says, "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." With such a change, many film articles were affected, yet we did not get swarmed with complaints about the change. This was likely because the change was the removal of redundant external links, and the original set of links were already found in "External links" sections. Sometimes if a change is systemic, editors will flock to the relevant talk page, and the status quo is restored. This did not happen here. TheCoffee, for whatever reason, overlooked the duration of the change and referred to discussions that are no longer relevant to the present. The admin has failed to recognize this month-old silent consensus and has yet to revert his change in acceptance of this. Older discussions do not matter anymore; there are stragglers (as consensus is never 100%) who will try to dredge them up. We have seen no pressure from others to restore the redundancy. TheCoffee needs to acknowledge this. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: So it seems a suggestion has been made to take the whole thing to the fourth round?
Lets keep the problem simple: so far any related consensuses have been declared by involved editors only, that is in conflict with the whole idea that requires consensus to be evaluated by uninvolved editors.
The way I got involved with this, I noticed the request for removal on the edit-protected page that included a declaration of consensus. After reading the actual discussions, and realizing that the consensus was declared by an involved editor who had initiated the removal proposal in the first plcae, and in fact the discussion included reasonable opposition, that raised red flags in my opinion. It was confirmed by another uninvolved editor/admin at the time who after reading the discussion became to the same conclusion: there was no consensus, and the removal request was denied because of it:
Now time passed and discussion continued until for the second time a consensus was declared by an editor who had initiated and supported the removal in the first place. That very moment there was nobody around to object + no diffs or links to the actual discussion were provided, and the declared consensus caused Elonka to make the removal in good faith in my opinion.
Considering this, in my opinion TheCoffee has acted responsibly and according to the actual discussions.
Suggestion: in case anybody really wants to take this to the fourth round, I would suggest also considering my latest proposal to solve the question, posted on 29 November 2008: the idea basically is that in order to get a wider exposure to the issue, a temp questionnaire should be linked to the infobox itself. That would direct to relevant discussion page where everybody interested could voice their opinion. The bottom line that it all should come down to after all: Are the links in the infobox valuable for every day Misplaced Pages readers? And the only way to find it out is to ask it from them directly. Currently, everything that has happened goes on behind the scenes and an average reader never has known how to get to the Inbobox' link discussions that talk about the issue.--Termer (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which basically is an appeal to WP:USEFUL. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Misapplied here; this isn't a deletion discussion, it's a content dispute. — Edokter • Talk • 12:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- We're talking about deleting parameters, are we not? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- sorry but I fail to see a connection between my suggestion to expose the question in hand to a wider WP user-base and WP:USEFUL. Also WP:DELETE that deals with Misplaced Pages articles has nothing much to do with inclusion-exclusion of coupler of links in the infobx. And finally, this is not a place to have another round of the debate itself.--Termer (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- We're talking about deleting parameters, are we not? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Misapplied here; this isn't a deletion discussion, it's a content dispute. — Edokter • Talk • 12:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please ask your admin friend to stop his personal attacks
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
// roux 04:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Having had several bad experiences on Misplaced Pages, I semi-retired. Apparently, I must now be brought out of retirement because of personal attacks made by SheffieldSteel on my user page, and on my user talk page. I simply cannot understand, why this person is being so vindictive and keeps set on bothering me, even when I have cut Wiki-time down to a minimum. --Law Lord (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect… Are you saying "Why the people on Misplaced Pages suck The ignorance of people is just amazing but the fact that people think they can decide something without any knowledge of the matter is just very offending. The page is just an exampe of the kind of people Misplaced Pages is filled with." isn't any kind of attack? – iridescent 01:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I smell a Plaxicoing. --Smashville 03:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, rather I am saying that: "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners", is not a personal attack but rather an explanation and stand-alone statement made on my user page in regards to why I am "semi-retired". Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, saying that Wikipedian editors are ignorant and that we suck is a personal attack. VX! 04:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, however, that is not really the subject at hand here. That statement was removed (by me) on 5 November 2008 20:15, without anyone asking me to. Thanks --Law Lord (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's real hard for us to take this seriously when you haven't provided any diffs at all showing that Sheffield has been attacking you. Have you even notified him of this thread? l'aquatique || talk 07:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- My current user page is what SheffieldSteel considers a personal attack against him. I have not notified him of this thread, because I am banned from posting on his talk page. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's real hard for us to take this seriously when you haven't provided any diffs at all showing that Sheffield has been attacking you. Have you even notified him of this thread? l'aquatique || talk 07:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, however, that is not really the subject at hand here. That statement was removed (by me) on 5 November 2008 20:15, without anyone asking me to. Thanks --Law Lord (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, saying that Wikipedian editors are ignorant and that we suck is a personal attack. VX! 04:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Law Lord is not referring to the comment from June of 2008 pointed out by Iridescent. He is referring to the comments on his user talkpage which is the topic at hand here. I for one wouldn't consider that a personal attack which he is being accused of by the admin on his talkpage. The user didn't get personal with the admin SheffieldSteel, but merely wrote 'administrators.' Unsure of why SheffieldSteel is regarding the remark on his userpage as a personal attack when his name wasn't brought up. You will note the admin accuses LawLord of personally attacking him about that on his user talkpage here which may have sparked LawLord's frustration at him. Cheers dude (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I am referring to. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem Law Lord! Oh and ---> Cheers dude (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Anybody should feel free to explain why user JzG thinks it is acceptable to edit my user page without having participated in the discussion neither here nor on my talk page. Thanks. My comments here and here. --Law Lord (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, he did actually "participate" on my talk page . I am not impressed with said user, and this incident remains. --Law Lord (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are no personal attacks against you on your Talk page. As for the edits to your User page, see WP:OWN. Edit-warring to keep that message on your User page seems rather pointless and a drama-magnet. I suggest deleting it and letting it go. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do admins, as a group, have such thin skins that one should not dare to criticize them on user pages? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- So it would certainly seem. --Law Lord (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do admins, as a group, have such thin skins that one should not dare to criticize them on user pages? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are no personal attacks against you on your Talk page. As for the edits to your User page, see WP:OWN. Edit-warring to keep that message on your User page seems rather pointless and a drama-magnet. I suggest deleting it and letting it go. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see what's supposed to be wrong with this message. Seems pretty tame to me. --Conti|✉ 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this intimation is the issue at hand. Also, anyone is allowed to edit any page on Misplaced Pages, except for the MediaWiki space (but that is a security and technical issue). There are simply some people who wish that their user pages are not edited. While it may appear to be a stretch now to say that Law Lord is saying that SheffieldSteel has no manners with that message, I don't see the purpose of this message put on his user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given the above, and the rather obvious trolling on my talk page, I'm not willing to AGF on this one. — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have not trolled; but I certainly find it interesting that you freely reveal that my posting on your talk page should in any way influence that matter at hand. --Law Lord (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It shows a pattern. It's "free speech" for you, but it's bad for Sheffield to speak his mind. Also, the rather clear flamebait comment of America being a "rogue state," when the EU document is only different in semantics. If you really wanted to avoid drama, you'd simply remove the message and let it drop. Hence, trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have not trolled; but I certainly find it interesting that you freely reveal that my posting on your talk page should in any way influence that matter at hand. --Law Lord (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to remove a statement made on my user page, when it complies with policy. I am not going to take the bait and call other editors/admins trolls. Admins do not dictate, what a user page can say. There is not personal attack. I am not removing anything. Please note, that several regular users in this thread, have pointed out the obvious: there is not personal attack, hence nothing to move. It my displease user HandThatFeeds, and so what? --Law Lord (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Taking verbal shots at other wikipedia editors, even if not specifically named, is not compliant with policy. It's a comment whose sole purpose is disruption. It has nothing to do with furthering the work at wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it doesn't "displease" me at all, nor did I say so. However, you seem determined to win, which belies your claim that you wish to avoid drama. Simply put: is it so important for you to have this statement on your page that you're willing to drag this out on ANI for however long it takes to "win" the debate? — The Hand That Feeds You: 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can't one say exactly the same thing about those people who are determined to force the removal of that statement? It applies more to them, actually, since they're playing the dirty pool of using the fiat of their admin powers to force the end of the debate on their terms. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Dirty pool?" "Admin fiat?" Seriously? — The Hand That Feeds You: 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can't one say exactly the same thing about those people who are determined to force the removal of that statement? It applies more to them, actually, since they're playing the dirty pool of using the fiat of their admin powers to force the end of the debate on their terms. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it doesn't "displease" me at all, nor did I say so. However, you seem determined to win, which belies your claim that you wish to avoid drama. Simply put: is it so important for you to have this statement on your page that you're willing to drag this out on ANI for however long it takes to "win" the debate? — The Hand That Feeds You: 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no such thing as free speech on Misplaced Pages. Given the context of this incident, I feel that the snipe is uncalled for and will be removed. Further instances of insertion will result in the userpage being protected for a duration. seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Not quite
Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The original complainant, having failed to make his point here, is now forum-shopping all over the place. 06:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's an unfair characterisation. He has initiated an RFC/U to find consensus on the actions taken. I don't think it's wise, I doubt it'll go the way he hopes it does, and I think it'll just create more drama, but I'm not sure it's totally unreasonable to go that route. // roux 06:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here's that link btw: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord... l'aquatique |✡| talk 06:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I should have done that myself, although it was reachable in the userlinks. Notice how he solicited input from a number of users, yet failed to notify those who disagreed with him, that he was posting an RFC. Actually, he had a chance at this if he had focused on what specific issues he has with what specific admins. Once he posted that pointy comment on his page and then took that specific thing to RFC, he lost the AGF high ground. Baseball Bugs 07:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The way he started the RFC could have stood improvement, but the admins involved have hardly distinguished themselves with exemplary behavior either, instead acting in a "We're the law around here, what we say goes, and we won't take any lip from you, so just sit down and shut up!" way. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I should have done that myself, although it was reachable in the userlinks. Notice how he solicited input from a number of users, yet failed to notify those who disagreed with him, that he was posting an RFC. Actually, he had a chance at this if he had focused on what specific issues he has with what specific admins. Once he posted that pointy comment on his page and then took that specific thing to RFC, he lost the AGF high ground. Baseball Bugs 07:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here's that link btw: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord... l'aquatique |✡| talk 06:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite. That is why we have different layers of dispute resolution. Otherwise, we should make the closing of a thread by a single admin at this board the final answer. That would be ridiculous. -- Kim van der Linde 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Things done at this board are often not final even when they should be. And vice versa. WP is imperfect. And yet... ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The complainant came here with the complaint that his sniping comment had been removed. Its presence was a violation of several policies, so its removal, especially from a user claiming to be "retiring", was appropriate. What's missing in this discussion (unless someone can show me some diffs and straighten me out) is the context of that comment. Near as I can tell, the user simply lost a content dispute and got mad over it, and thus fired that shot across the wikipedia bow. That's hardly appropriate behavior from an experienced wikipedian. If he's got a problem with an admin or any editor, he should follow appropriate channels. He didn't. Instead, he posted that childish comment. Baseball Bugs 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it would be superfluous of me to state that I strongly disagree with your presentation of events. Your presentation of events appears as pure fiction to me. As for any remarks made being "childish" or "sniping", you will note, that I have initiated a RFC to let the community review that. --Law Lord (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would help your case if you could cite some diffs illustrating issues that led to your posting of that comment originally. Baseball Bugs 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that would rather help your case, since your false claim is that my comment was directed at any particular administrator(s). Which it was not. --Law Lord (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would help your case if you could cite some diffs illustrating issues that led to your posting of that comment originally. Baseball Bugs 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it would be superfluous of me to state that I strongly disagree with your presentation of events. Your presentation of events appears as pure fiction to me. As for any remarks made being "childish" or "sniping", you will note, that I have initiated a RFC to let the community review that. --Law Lord (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The complainant came here with the complaint that his sniping comment had been removed. Its presence was a violation of several policies, so its removal, especially from a user claiming to be "retiring", was appropriate. What's missing in this discussion (unless someone can show me some diffs and straighten me out) is the context of that comment. Near as I can tell, the user simply lost a content dispute and got mad over it, and thus fired that shot across the wikipedia bow. That's hardly appropriate behavior from an experienced wikipedian. If he's got a problem with an admin or any editor, he should follow appropriate channels. He didn't. Instead, he posted that childish comment. Baseball Bugs 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Things done at this board are often not final even when they should be. And vice versa. WP is imperfect. And yet... ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Article ownership
Could a few neutral veterans keep an eye on the Rashid Khalidi article? I came to it after a third opinion request weeks ago. An editor has removed an entire section of sourced content and has refused proposal after proposal after proposal and won't allow any compromise to restore it. The section has good sourcing, and the good faith editors involved are open to it being modified as needed and as appropriate with well sourced and reasonable modifications. But there comes a point where obstruction, wikilawyering, and gaming the system become real concerns. If you go to the talk page you'll see what looks like good faith discussion, but what you won't see are the three or four archives of discussion and obstruction over this same few short section. I'm willing to go into more detail about the specific nature of the problems, but if people are willing to help with the process and help to resolve it in a reasonable way, I'd rather not engage in a big drama filled battle. But I challenge anyone to read all the archived discussion and conclude that the process hasn't been abused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- As a neutral observer of the article during the last several weeks, I'd like to point out that there is a serious question of WP:BLP violation with ChildofMidnight's addition of marginally sourced and Unduly Weighted content. The talk page tells a very different story than CoM's version here. The Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLP/N) may be more appropriate for this discussion. Priyanath 03:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I doubt anyone will have time to read the entire discussion that's gone on for several weeks, but regardless, these disagreements are currently being worked out by several editors. This should be clear from the talk page, as well as the request for mediation that was filed not long ago but is on hold while discussion remains productive. ChildofMidnight, for whatever reasons, has decided that one side of the discussion is being obstructive, and so he has repeatedly shown up and re-added material that was removed in accordance with WP:BLP. He has just done this again, ignoring the discussion on the page, and I've just listed the problems with this version of the material here. I had previously raised the issue on ChildofMidnight's talk page without much success; I would only ask here that an admin confirm the assessment that editors should not repeatedly re-add material to a bio that is actively being worked out to ensure that it does not violate WP:BLP, and perhaps that if ChildofMidnight believes one side is right or wrong he should explain this on the talk page in order to reach consensus. Mackan79 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ecX2) The original complaint above is a pure content matter - an editor can't impose the content he wants in the article, a claim that Khalidi is a former "PLO Spokesman", which was part of the overall "Obama pals around with terrorists" line from the recent Amercan presidential election. Other editors who refuse to agree to the edit, he reasons, must think they own the article, be playing obstructionist games, refuse to compromise, be pushing their POV, and so on. I would call it a "content position" but hey, one man's content is another man's WP:POV.
- The real problem is that ChildofMidnight has several times reverted in material that was challenged on BLP grounds as either being poorly sourced, synthesis, or a misleading account of the sources, after being warned repeatedly by at least two editors not to insert BLP violating material and to wait for a consensus resolution. The last of these, which he just revert-warred back into the article despite the editors on the page being close to consensus on a different version, is also arguably a BLP violation because it basically accuses Khalidi of lying about his career. Worse, even though I am clearly not the only one with BLP concerns this editor has fixated on me for incivility, threats, accusations of bad faith, grandstanding, disruption, etc. using words like "shameful", "should be ashamed", "lousy", and "delaying tactics", "whitewash", and "not a reasonable good faith editor",
- ChildofMidnight has also been goading another inexperienced editor, historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), into doing battle against me. As part of his month-long campaign to accuse Khalidi of being a PLO spokesman, Historicist resorts to calling me juvenile names like "high handed", "not as stupid as pretend", "Mr. Pure argumentativeness", being an "obstreperous editor", considering Khalidi my "hero", and many of dozens of other insults, then pretending he wasn't talking about me. Historicist encourages ChildofMidnight's behavior, saying " threatens and bullies... it's all there. I'm very glad to see you standing up to him.", and wondering how the two of them can "stop such a manipulative fellow" as me.
- At long last Historicist admits he is here for reasons other than to improve the encyclopedia, accusing Khalidi of being a "PLO Spokesman" as a breaching "experiment" based on a colleague's challenge to show whether he can "try to get accurate information to stick" on Misplaced Pages, and concluding that he wishes this "vile" place would "collapse."]
- This is all very toxic and unwelcome. Although the players are different this reminds me uncomfortably of the pre-election POV sockpuppet attack on all of these articles, on the same subject, Obama = friend of terrorists. I should not have to be abused and taunted by editors who are trying to prove a WP:POINT about the WP:TRUTH so they can demonstrate Misplaced Pages's wretchedness, nor by editors who poison the well against consensus because they have convinced themselves I am some kind of troll. I have begged, pleaded, and warned both of these editors, dozens of times, to stop attacking me, and to use the talk pages for article improvements rather than complaining about other editors. Historicist's behavior has improved in the past day or so, although I still question whether he desires to improve the article or this is still part of his "experiment" to see if he can make his content stick. ChildofMidnight continues to disrupt.
- I'm not sure what I want out of this notice board - I did not bring the complaint. I would like to be able to edit the article in peace, and to urge editors who are not here to improve the article or establish consensus to stop editing the article outright. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring / BLP
Despite bringing the matter here, and being warned not to revert nonconsensus material editors claim to be a BLP vio, the complaining editor is now revert-warring the content. Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Despite the edit-warring there does seem to be a genuine desire to resolve this dispute, so I've given the article one month's full-protection to allow all parties to engage in the on-going mediation case without distractions. I'd strongly encourage every interested editor to participate in this - failure to so could be seen as evidence of an intent to ignore consensus and continue disruption. I hope this helps. EyeSerene 11:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article is no closer to becoming inclusive and balanced than it was two months ago. Most of Wikidemon's accusations are false or misleading. Indeed Khalidi has been a controversial and polarizing political figure, but you'd never know it from the article. I haven't objected to a single version of the content added by Wikidemon. My only protest is to the exclusion of ALL material about Khalidi's past work and his politics. This has been covered extensively in the mainstream media and in academic circles. Every effort as dispute resolution has been rebuffed by Wikidemon's refusal to participate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- What is there to mediate? This editor continues to fixate on me as their sole obstacle to telling the WP:TRUTH. I stand by what I say 100%. Half a day ago mediation was on hold pending a "breakthrough" on the article talk page where the four most active editors were nearing consensus of their own accord before ChildofMidnight showed up to disrupt things again. In six sequential edits:
- Me: "I generally agree ."
- Avi: " should be agreeable."
- Historicist: "Let's go with ."
- Mackan79: "I don't mind ."
- - then -
- ChildofMidnight: "The obstruction and blocking of well sourced content in favor of this awkwardly written and defensive whitewash is a strange thing to behold. It's a triumph of 'politically correct' nonsense....bias, wikilawyering, and gaming the system....editors who have diverted the good faith ....in favor of this sham, should be ashamed of themselves. And don't go harassing me on my talk page. I don't want to hear from 'you'." (reverts in BLP vio)
- What can mediation do to help abuse and disruption? The participants have a consensus already. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- What is there to mediate? This editor continues to fixate on me as their sole obstacle to telling the WP:TRUTH. I stand by what I say 100%. Half a day ago mediation was on hold pending a "breakthrough" on the article talk page where the four most active editors were nearing consensus of their own accord before ChildofMidnight showed up to disrupt things again. In six sequential edits:
- The article is no closer to becoming inclusive and balanced than it was two months ago. Most of Wikidemon's accusations are false or misleading. Indeed Khalidi has been a controversial and polarizing political figure, but you'd never know it from the article. I haven't objected to a single version of the content added by Wikidemon. My only protest is to the exclusion of ALL material about Khalidi's past work and his politics. This has been covered extensively in the mainstream media and in academic circles. Every effort as dispute resolution has been rebuffed by Wikidemon's refusal to participate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, particularly after this (ChildofMidnight, in response to my saying we seem to have consensus, accuses me of "disruptive obstruction" and "silly distortions and twisting of the truth"). Can we please have an administrator take a look at the unabated WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations? Let me make this clear. We should not have mediation unless we can ensure a civil process, and if the consensus process is unfinished we cannot finish it in an atmosphere of accusations and abuse. Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The administratrators should know that we have reached consensus before, and posted the material on th page, only to have ] remove the material, Protect the page, And start the duscusson again. Wikidemon appears to have infinite time and infinite determination to block this material from the page. Using a endless and varying array of threats, page blocks, repetitive and ever-changing arguments, he has prevented this material from being entered on the page for two months, and appears willing to go on arguing and blocking sourced material forever merely because he dislikes it. I would welcome an administrator who would take a close look at Wikidemon's behavior.Historicist (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, pah! Historicist has been repeating this flat-out falsehood to score points at every opportunity. He is describing a failed stunt he and another editor pulled to push through something nobody agreed to. It's already the subject of a previous bogus AN/I report against me two weeks ago so it's hardly worth the keystrokes to respond again.
- The long and short of it is that Historicist (and with him, ChildofMidnight) want to add some hot-button political content to the encyclopedia as some kind of process "experiment" and cannot get consensus for it. Consensus requires editors to entertain plausible content proposals in good faith, but it does not require an editor to agree. We've been close, and we may be very close to an unobjectionable version that can stand. But the objections to other versions have been real, serious, and fundamental - some versions proposed are severe BLP violations, others synthesis, or WEIGHT problems, improperly sourced, or contradicted their sources. So the discussion has continued, on and on. That is all fine, a content matter.
- What isn't fine are the constant, unceasing, petty accusations and personal attacks that, other than the completely made-up stuff, seem to amount to a claim that it is a policy violation to disagree with a content proposal. This is exactly the kind of thing I need help with, telling contentious editors to keep these kinds of attacks off the talk page and stop playing process games so the editing environment is not so poisonous. Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- I did not post the material here that bears my signature - an editor copied it, out of context and cropped misleadingly.
"The "fix" editors agree on is the one you call "politically correct nonsense", a "whitewash", and a "sham". I'm afraid I cannot help you fix that. Unless you have a reasoned argument why your BLP violation is better, the consensus version is the one we should go with.Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Great! If everyone agrees on it let an Admin (know) and they will put it in the article. I'm thrilled that you've finally agreed on a version of the information that's acceptable to you personally. As you know all I've been asking is that the information be included and that you stop your disruptive obstruction.
I'm not fooled by your silly distortions and twisting of the truth.Anyone who wants to can read the archived discussion for themselves. I'm thrilled this is finally at an end. Please let an Admin know you're ready to add the section you removed back, so we can all go back to constructive contributing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"
Guess what happens when Wikidemon gets called on his bluff? Anyone? When offered the chance to add a version he says he agrees to, he's happy to do so and ends the conflict right? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is getting a bit too mudslingy. Dial it back a notch maybe? // roux 07:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Getting" is not the right word. Historicist and ChildofMidnight have been throwing this kind of mud at me for weeks, and it is continuing on the article talk page as this discussion progresses. Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cropped misleadingly? That's what you wrote and that was my response in the exact order in which they appeared. I've simply explained your refusal to abide by your own agreements. You said you agree to a version (not for the first time) and then you come up with new arguments why the version you agreed to can't be added. You've refused to participate in mediation and have refused to allow any version of well sourced content to be added. That's obstruction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Again with the made-up nonsense. My behavior is fine and is not the issue. This editor is fixating on me as an excuse for edit warring and disrupting the article. It's weird and needs to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cropped misleadingly? That's what you wrote and that was my response in the exact order in which they appeared. I've simply explained your refusal to abide by your own agreements. You said you agree to a version (not for the first time) and then you come up with new arguments why the version you agreed to can't be added. You've refused to participate in mediation and have refused to allow any version of well sourced content to be added. That's obstruction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Getting" is not the right word. Historicist and ChildofMidnight have been throwing this kind of mud at me for weeks, and it is continuing on the article talk page as this discussion progresses. Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is getting a bit too mudslingy. Dial it back a notch maybe? // roux 07:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Facts
The fact that Khalidi worked for the PLO in Beirut before 1983 is well established by reliable, secondary sources. The news articles that mention Rashid Khalidi in his Beirut period between 1976 and 1984 are collected here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rashid_Khalidi/Archive_6#The_Evidence While it is true that some of these articles quote him without describing him as a PLO spokesman, it is equally true that some articles quote him without describing him as a professor. What they do say, however, is that he worked for the PLO. While one article describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and another as "a Palestinian with good access to the PLO leadership," the great majority of these articles, in major news sources including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times describe him in a straightforward fashion as a “spokesman” “spokesperson” “official” “a director of the (PLO) press agency” or as an academic who “works for the PLO.” In these interviews, Khalidi sometimes describes PLO positions and activities using the pronoun “we” For example, in 1981, he was quoted by the Christian Science Monitor explaining the relationship between the PLO headquarters in Beirut and the Palestinians in Israel.: “we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians 'on the inside' in different ways. We can render them services, often through our compatriots in the West, that King Hussein, for example, could never match. We've never been stronger there…” Multiple very reliable sources prove that Khalidi worked for the PLO in Beirut. This is a significant part of the man’s career. And an important fact to include in an article about a man whose entire career, after all, has been devoted to writing about Arab nationalism, whose most significant book is a history of Palestinian nationalism, and who is a leading spokesman in English for the Palestinian national cause. Historicist (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Shqiperia-illyria
User:Shqiperia-illyria is an Albanian nationalist doing his best to stir up ethnic ill feeling. Despite his multiple vandalistic edits, he has yet to have been warned. I've just left him his first vandal warning. Bears watching. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose they may be better than watchdogs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Bedford blatantly breaking policies...
I am sure that you are aware of the desysopping of User:Bedford by User:Jimbo Wales. On his userpage, he mentions this:
I was a Wikipedian Administrator, but it was stolen from me without due process by a few fellow administrators who thought they should arbitrarily decide what should be and should not be on Misplaced Pages, despite WP:NOTCENSORED, and got me desysoped. I was once p.o.ed about it, but since then I've realized it is a greater honor to have been screwed of the status than to actually have it, as it just meant I am better than those behind the gangrape. Besides, it means I don't have to do as much as I did before.
That is the third paragraph... He is breaking Article 10 on WP:NOT and breaking WP:NPA wich that quotes includes a vague concept of a personnal attack...
What is the game plan? --Mixwell! 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- This has been a concern of mine for some time, and just last night I emailed Bedford in regards to the content on his userpage asking him to please remove it and he failed to. I think there is a very easy solution here: Bedford removes the content and we all move on, no need for drama, no need for arguing, no need for blocks. Tiptoety 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I reread the rules, and no rules were broken. People may wonder what happened when they see such a valuable user and yet somehow he does not have the status he deserves. Besides, if you look at you can see Mixwell is clearly just wanting to agitate. Best for him to apologize to me, and move on.--Gen. Bedford 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bedford please, do not turn this thread into your soap box. The community is asking you to remove content from a userpage that belongs to them that violates WP:NPA and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Please respect that, remove it, and move on. Tiptoety 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not Bedford's friend, nor I am his enemy. I have worked together with him, and I have disagreed. I feel that the comments should be removed because of their connection to a past moment, and we should be concerned with future progress. I hope this comment is neutral, and I hope other comments on the issue are equally neutral so we don't turn this into a fight about past problems, personal differences, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Such as Scotty Peterson wanted to silence his wife, so too do some want this removed.--Gen. Bedford 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)- I would hope that I am better looking and not as creeping as Peterson, to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Pfft As is typically the case with these kind of remarks, they have the opposite effect to that which the author intended - which kind of makes it hard for me to get my knickers in a twist about them. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let's not bring external affairs to flame this thread... --Mixwell! 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon? CIreland (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I get the distinct feeling you misunderstood CIreland's comment. It was really just a statement of common sense, that someone may make a statement intending to effect a particular view in readers, and unintentionally invoke quite another. Orderinchaos 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let's not bring external affairs to flame this thread... --Mixwell! 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Please Generalissimo. Remove the comments. They may have won the battle but they will not win the war! Synergy 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)It has come to my attention that my response may be construed as being serious. It is not. It is 100% completely sarcastic. I sang We Three Pengs while writing it.
- While I don't agree with the tone of the paragraph on Bedford's page (nor the charming turd he dropped above), I believe that the original complainant is trolling, as demonstrated by the diff Bedford provided. That was thoroughly uncalled for, and designed to provoke a response. I would ask Bedford to retract or refactor the Scott Peterson statement above, and consider refactoring the paragraph on his userpage, but dismiss this complaint (with prejudice). Horologium (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- While the complainant may have a prejudice towards the user, that does not make the report completely bogus. I see a few other users here who feel this issue has some stance and as such should not just be passed off. Tiptoety 02:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing much in the way of personal attacks in Bedford's comment. It does however seem to be uncivil. Bedford, maybe instead of removing it you can simply tone it down a bit? Comparing what happened to "gangrape" really isn't helpful for anyone. If you just removed or rewrote that part of the sentence I suspect people would be fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The userpage comment is just about within policy. While putting things like that on your userpage is generaly a rather poor idea it is best adressed for the time being by the community ignoreing it.Geni 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how accusing editors of rape is within policy at all, seeing as sexual crime allegations tend to stick to the accused, whether proven or not. And I don't mean to be a dick about this... but what else do you expect from a Confederate idoliser with edits such as this? Although I'm not that well versed in American history, I'm pretty sure most people don't idolise the Confederacy just because "General E. Lee was a pretty alright bloke". Sceptre 11:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems clear in context that rape is not literal in this context so your first concern has little weight. Bedford's personal views about the Confederacy aren't relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see no reason why Bedford should not be allowed to express his views on his userpage in this manner—if people want to hold and exercise power, then they should be prepared to face furious criticism from those who are negatively affected by their actions. Everyking (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Gangrape" has absolutely no place in the discussion. A complete and utter violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against any and all parties who were involved in his de-sysopping, in a most disgusting and vile manner. Personally, not only would I remove the comments, but a slight vacation would be in order. It he had used it in an internalized/clarified method ("...in what is perhaps the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a gangrape...") this would be different. ♪BMWΔ 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if he went onto somebody's talk page and accused them of participating in a "gangrape", but since this is his own userpage and he is airing his viewpoint about an action that was taken against him, I feel this ought to be permitted. In general it is not wise or healthy to censor or punish people who are airing grievances against more powerful people in what is perceived as their personal space. Everyking (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Except that it's material that's unacceptable. If I wrote "Jimbo Wales is a cunt" on my user page and I kept reverting efforts to remove it, would we even be having this discussion? No; I'd be nearly instantly banned. You just don't call people rapists. And that's not some pansy Misplaced Pages rule, that's common decency. Sceptre 12:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if he went onto somebody's talk page and accused them of participating in a "gangrape", but since this is his own userpage and he is airing his viewpoint about an action that was taken against him, I feel this ought to be permitted. In general it is not wise or healthy to censor or punish people who are airing grievances against more powerful people in what is perceived as their personal space. Everyking (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Gangrape" has absolutely no place in the discussion. A complete and utter violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against any and all parties who were involved in his de-sysopping, in a most disgusting and vile manner. Personally, not only would I remove the comments, but a slight vacation would be in order. It he had used it in an internalized/clarified method ("...in what is perhaps the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a gangrape...") this would be different. ♪BMWΔ 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care what Bedford's latest edition of user page trolling is; it's annoying, but as CIreland says, I don't think it's doing what he thinks it's doing for his image. What's ultimately far more damaging to the environment our community operates in (compared to the gratuitous use of the words "gang rape" on an obscure user page), is the habit of many users (Mixwell just being the latest example) of wandering around looking for things to be offended by, and the habit of many users (Sceptre just being the latest example) of taking the opportunity whenever their perceived enemy shows up on a noticeboard to attack with every dredged-up criticism there is. We would all be better off if so many of us didn't rise so predictably to the bait every single time someone trolls us, or go for the jugular every time we see potential prey separated from the herd. --barneca (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since User:Sceptre and User:Mixwell both decided (sequentially) to edit war with Bedford on his own user page, I have fully protected it. Unless and until there is a clear consensus that the section in question is impermissible, it will remain on Bedford's page. As both Sceptre and Mixwell have a history of conflict with Bedford, there actions are nothing more than axe-grinding. Horologium (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, the person who appears to be edit warring is Bedford, who, might I add has violated WP:3RR (just because it is his userpage does not make him exempt). I do think that before the text is removed, consensus must be gained and I urge all parties involved to cool off, then talk. Tiptoety 03:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- A checkuser look at Sceptre/Mizwell would be far more fruitful.--Gen. Bedford 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jeez, remove it. As I said, if I kept reverting the removal of something like "Jimbo Wales is a cunt" or "Jimbo Wales raped the community", I'd be quickly banned. Besides, "it's a metaphor" does not make it appropriate. "Fucked as a baby in a pedophile convention" is a metaphor (or a similie), but it's still offensive (and deliberately chosen because it is). Sceptre 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- actually if you read WP:3RR it kind of does unless you are arguing that its libelous. If anything, the other two violated the spirit of 3RR through their tag teaming efforts.65.213.142.2 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The lack of enforcement when it comes to user pages is simply mind-boggling sometimes. While I can appreciate the need for consensus on whether it is acceptable, if the admins here aren't going to (at the very least) refactor the ill-considered wording (instead of "gangrape", use the word "it" or something less offensive), then this will require ArbCom intervention. Even if this isn't necessarily BLP-related, the rule of thumb is to avoid doing harm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. If the word "Actions" were used, I wouldn't like it, but it would be permissible. The term used is perjorative and needs to be taken down (and if he won't show any decency and take it down himself, it should be removed for him). SirFozzie (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know. I personally don't think it is that big of an issue. It is potentially offensive, but when you put yourself in Bedford's shoes, I think is a rather mild reaction, especially for someone who is generally as outspoken as he is. I, for one, would likely have not even noticed that on his page had I not specifically been looking for it. It's not like he has
<span style="font-size:600%;text-decoration:blink;color:red;">
before it. I would say, just let it go, as there are many things we could all be doing that would be a better use of our time. J.delanoyadds 05:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know. I personally don't think it is that big of an issue. It is potentially offensive, but when you put yourself in Bedford's shoes, I think is a rather mild reaction, especially for someone who is generally as outspoken as he is. I, for one, would likely have not even noticed that on his page had I not specifically been looking for it. It's not like he has
- What I'd personally like to know, leaving the whole Bedford issue out of it, is how exactly this section managed to migrate from being nearly at the top of the page, to being all the way down here?? This looks to me like someone's effort to "bump" the topic back into discussion....and frankly I think we have much bigger fish to fry than this. GJC 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was moved here . DuncanHill (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as a edit war had occurred, and the page was protected it appeared we needed to come to some form of consensus before this thing really got out of hand. Tiptoety 06:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I requested the protection until such time as certain children found other ways to grab attention for themselves. Ignoring them would be the best policy.--Gen. Bedford 06:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The irony, she burns. // roux 06:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
As I read it, he compares his treatment to that of a gangrape, he does not call out any editors as gang-rapists. It's a subtle difference, but ultimately, shitty purple prose isn't worth fighting over. As we've all seen here, anyone who thinks that an election won without daddy's SCOTUS appointments handing it to you is more illegitimate than one with such antics, tied with a love of southern civil war politics, is a boring bigot, and like all such wiki-trolls, ignoring it is better. eventually, he'll behave in a manner so outlandish that he'll get the attention he's seeking, just before he gets banned. patience is a virtue in this case, let his commentary stand. ThuranX (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bedford's political feelings and his interest in the Civil War are not at question, nor are they grounds for personal attacks to be an acceptable form of input in this discussion. Please redact and stay on topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm over my 1/month quota at ANI again, so I'll be brief. Has Bedford or any other of the commenters here been the subject of the verb in question? (For Bedford, not the metaphorical sense, do you have an idea of the physical experience?) Have Bedford or any others committed such acts? Does anyone have a clue what that word means, and how the experience echoes through entire lifetimes? To trivialize a horrible crime by analogizing it to an experience on a stupid website, makes my gorge rise... so I'll stop now. Franamax (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Second that: the real issue here is not that the phrase is offensive to those involved in Bedfords desysop (tho of course it is), but that the phrase could be extremely offensive to some readers & this is why it should go. If it were only a matter of Bedford trolling then it could be ignored, but in this case it is the specific form that the trolling takes that is the problem. Misarxist 09:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Third'ed Franamax; that's exactly why we changed "wikistalking" to "wikihounding". Sceptre 12:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fourth'd (?) And for those of you whose first mental reaction was to recommend that Bedford actually be subjected to the physical version of his verb so that he could compare, I say "shame" (yes, there are a few of you, I know it). ♪BMWΔ 13:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've requested clarification from ArbCom, with regards to my previous comment - the emerging consensus was clear, yet there's still been no enforcement whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The words involved harm just one person - Bedford himself. They are unlikely to convince anyone he has any sort of case. But as they are on his userpage the only people likely to read them are those interested in Bedford and his views. If he is not able to see for himself that these words do him no favours, I suggest moving on. It's really not worth creating any sort of drama over. Dean B (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're not wrong - the overwhelming message is "once I was po'ed about this, now I am po'ed, bitter, resentful, hate-filled and vindictive". Not a great advert for Bedford's human qualities. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who cares, let's just move on and not feed the troll. The only person it's harming is Bedford, himself. There's probably tons worse that I could think of that would be more offensive than this... VX! 03:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Wave of recent article moves for Thai royals
Monarchians has been moving hundreds of articles related to Thai royalty in the last couple of days without any discussion. The previous article names were generally in the form of first given name or first two given names without titles, conforming to this style guide. There has been lengthy debate on the issue of whether to add titles following the name. I don't have a dog in that fight, I'd just like to see something consistent. It's a big mess the way it is now. Monarchians has added titles both before and after the given name and sometimes even put the same title in twice in the article name. This does not conform to any style. Here are some examples, with the current article name first and the "short" form of the person's name following:
Prince Chula Chakrabongse of Siam --> Chula Chakrabongse
Princess Chulabhorn Walailak of Thailand --> Chulabhorn Walailak
Prince Dipangkara Rasmijoti of Thailand --> Dipangkorn Rasmijoti
Mahidol Adulyadej, The Prince Father of Thailand -->Mahidol Adulyadej
Queen Ramphaiphanni of Thailand --> Ramphaiphanni
Prince Rangsit Prayurasakdi of Siam, The Prince of Chainat -->Rangsit Prayurasakdi
Princess Vibhavadi Rangsit of Thailand -->Vibhavadi Rangsit
Sri Patcharindra, The Queen Mother of Siam --> Saovabha
Maha Vajiralongkorn, The Crown Prince of Thailand --> Vajiralongkorn
Sri Savarindira, The Queen Grandmother of Thailand --> Savang Vadhana
Srinagarindra, The Princess Mother of Thailand --> Srinagarindra
Srirasmi, The Crown Princess of Thailand --> Srirasmi
(This one is just wrong -- Srirasmi's title is simply "princess")
Queen Sukumalmarsri of Siam-->Sukumalmarsri
Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya of Thailand --> Ubolratana
Princess Valaya Alongkorn of Siam, The Princess of Phetchaburi -->Valaya Alongkorn
Prince Varananda Dhavaj Chudadhuj of Thailand -->Waranonthawat
Prince Yugala Dighambara of Siam, The Prince of Lopburi -->Yugala Dighambara
Mom Chao Chatrichalerm Yukol --> Chatrichalerm Yukol
Prince Chakrabongse Bhuvanath of Siam, The Prince of Phitsanulok --> Chakrabongse Bhuvanath
Prince Bhanubhand Yukol of Thailand-->Bhanu Yukol
Princess Bejaratana Rajasuda Sirisobhabannavadi of Thailand -->Bejaratana
Princess Soamsavali Kitiyakara, The Princess Niece of Thailand --> Soamsavali Kityakara
Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, The Princess Royal of Thailand --> Sirindhorn
("Princess royal" is an unofficial translation of "princess maha chakri", so this is redundant)
Princess Galyani Vadhana of Thailand, The Princess of Naradhiwas -->Galyani Vadhana
Hundreds more moves were made similar to these. I hope someone can revert them all. Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not to mention defaultsort troubles. Other than violating style guidelines, the user's not really doing anything "wrong"... s/he is probably familiar with wikis other than enwiki? Gracenotes § 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, just a user & sometime editor, but I do live in Thailand. It seems to me that Monarchians is a Thai Monarchist, and is trying to enforce Thai standards of address on English-language Misplaced Pages. It is above my pay grade to decide whether or not to get in a dog fight over it, but the only article that I think it just might make a difference has naught to do with a Royal, but the new Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva: if his name in Thai is not preceded by some sort of title, then it reverts to a noun signifying privilege. In Thailand. Where most people speak Thai. Pawyilee (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- While it's a historical page, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles) suggests (per WP:MOSBIO) that non-reigning Thai royals should be titled as "First name + Additional name (if existing)". In any case, WP:NCNT says use the "most common form of the name used in English". I highly doubt these full titles are the most common forms used in English. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the old discussions, but if First name + Additional name (if existing) were to be applied, a few items in Kauffner's proposal will need to be changed:
- Saovabha Phongsri instead of Saovabha (full birth name without titles)
- Sukhumala Marasri instead of Sukumalmarsri (preferred English spelling)
- Varananda Dhavaj instead of Waranonthawat (preferred English spelling)
- Bhanubandhu Yugala instead of Bhanu Yukol (correct name and preferred English spelling; in contrast to his nephew Chatrichalerm Yukol's surname, Yugala here is part of the full birth name.)
- Srinagarindra doesn't follow the logic of Savang Vadhana and Saovabha Phongsri, as the last two are being referred to by their birth names (which are also assumed in their queen consort titles) rather than their widow titles. Princess Mother Srinagarindra was born a commoner, though, and before receiving the Srinagarindra title, she was known as Princess Consort Sangwan, which is much less well-known.
- Soamsavali instead of Soamsavali Kityakara (surname not included)
- --Paul_012 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the old discussions, but if First name + Additional name (if existing) were to be applied, a few items in Kauffner's proposal will need to be changed:
- It appears that Monarchians is still moving articles as of today (i.e. after this notice was posted), but in fairness, (s)he had not been clearly told to stop. I have asked him/her to cease the moves for now. If (s)he does not, perhaps a block would be warranted? --Paul_012 10:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this doesn't seem to be a problem needing administrative intervention (unless the user continues to move pages). I just saw the discussion on Kauffner's talk page, and I think this is an issue the community should be able to resolve. Monarchian's contributions are valuable at least in determining the royalty's full titles (which are lacking in the articles), and as Gracenotes notes, poorly-informed page moves are not reason for administrative intervention. If Monarchians insists on a change to the (outdated) MOS, We should start a discussion at WikiProject Thailand and ask other project members for input. --Paul_012 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
block of User:Roobit
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
On 2008-12-12, Moreschi blocked Roobit (talk · contribs) indefinitely for "Long term flamer, soapboxing, hate speech, and fervent nationalist POV pushing". While there is a lot of edit warring going on in the constellation of articles this user edits, I don't think this user is the only one to blame, and I'm rather uncomfortable with admins unilaterally giving what in practice amounts to a ban for things like this. If the community does feel that a ban is in order, it should be decided by the community, so I've brought it for discussion here. --fvw* 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, after taking a long hard look at this situation, I agree. I see absolutely no reason for blocking or banning of this user. I do however see a reason to have a talk with the users Roobit is in dispute with about wikipedia policy. After looking at the Estonia-Russian relations talkpage history, I noticed Roobit makes a justified revert as there are 2 or 3 other users removing his comments from the talkpage which is not allowed. Termer first removes it, followed by an IP address on the basis that it's an irrelevant rant (which doesn't seem to be the case as it relates to the topic the users are debating), following that, Roobit reinstates his edits justifiably so, then user:Miacek gets rid of it without providing a reason as to why, as shown here . If the users had a problem with what he was saying they should have relayed that to him on the talkpage without removing his edits as that is not allowed.
Miacek engages in similar behavior on the user's personal talkpage; judging from what I found, she reintroduces edits to the user's talk page (while assuming bad faith in her edit summary) despite the fact that the user removed them (which he has a right to do) as shown here . Looks to me like the wrong editor was blocked in this one and Miacek may need some talking to about wikipedia policies. Anyway, hope this helps. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Block justfied Roobit was a xenophobic moron trying to start flame wars in some of the most flammable areas of Misplaced Pages. Examples of his work: such a country never existed before Bolsheviks (and is now a temporary fluke of history), phony statelet of Estonia, wastelands of civilization like the awful United States with their artificial smiles and other assorted horrors, terrible England, pathetic Scandinavia or most of post-USSR space, In the Czech Republic language is easy to understand (for a Russian speaker at least) and beer is excellent but the country is dreary, food is bad, and most inhabitants are sullen zombies., If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed, an act of mild retribution for millions murdered by Nazis and their Baltic henchmen.. --Folantin (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The issue I'm raising here is not whether a block is merited, but rather whether it should be done by one admin rather than a discussion here or an RfC. Also, please remove the personal attacks from the above. --fvw* 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- whether it should be done by one admin rather than a discussion here or an RfC. Why? With comments like those, there's nothing that needs to be discussed. --Folantin (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The issue I'm raising here is not whether a block is merited, but rather whether it should be done by one admin rather than a discussion here or an RfC. Also, please remove the personal attacks from the above. --fvw* 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Folantin, please do not insult this banned user as a 'moron'. Let's try to keep this discussion civil. Also, those comments are each selectively taken out of their paragraphs so it seems they can easily be taken out of context. The editor had a lot to say on these issues and only taking into consideration certain portions of what he said and without seeing what they were replies to, you could easily mistake the meaning of what he meant entirely. As an example, it doesn't sound like he was attacking the user in regards to his/her grandmother right here but trying to make a point Cheers Cheers dude (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That was in reponse to the following anonymous comment: "Red Army murdered my grandmother in March 1945 in Marijampole (Lithuania) and they murdered millions, but some young russians trye to hide this". In other words, Roobit says: "Your grandmother was a Nazi so she deserved to die". If that's not offensive, I don't know what is. --Folantin (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Soviet Army (or still Red Army in 1945) did kill a few million Nazis. They also killed off some Lithuanian and Estonian ethno-Nazis and we can thank them for that. If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed, an act of mild retribution for millions murdered by Nazis and their Baltic henchmen.
In my opinion, you've taken what he said completely out of context. That's not what he is saying at all. I think the user is making a point. I think he's objecting to what the Soviet Army has done. I think he is saying, the Societ Army killed all these people including Nazis. Now, how would you feel if they killed your grandmother or your Nazi friends just as an act of mild retribution for millions of murders.' The user obviously has an advanced writing style so again, please do not selectively take comments from his paragraphs as he seems to be trying to make points in his writing style. Cheers dude (talk)
14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- "I think he's objecting to what the Soviet Army has done". Are you joking? --Folantin (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's not debate what he meant and agree to disagree. The user obviously has a very advanced writing style. This would not be an issue if the editors I previously mentioned bothered to discuss these matters with him rather than just removing his comments. If they talked things out on the talkpage and attempted to figure out where he was coming from, none of this would be an issue. That's why its encouraged to discuss matters out on article talkpages rather than removing comments entirely. You may disagree with it, but that's what I think. I've given my opinion on the issue and I am moving on. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing to debate. This user is simply a participant in the Estonian (or Baltic) vs. Russian flame wars which broke out over the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. He's one of the more extreme members of the Russian side. He doesn't have "an advanced writing style" and there is no subtlety to grasp here. When he says If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed", that's what he means. I find your attempts to excuse him frankly bizarre. --Folantin (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm! My apologies Folantin! I have now noticed what the user above him has said. Roobit's behavior seems to be remarkably uncivil. His writing style is very long-winded and convoluted. I will step out of this discussion. Feel free to disregard my comments all. I don't know how exactly to perform a strikethrough. :D So much for trying to look for the good in people. Cheers dude (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Folantin in some of what is said but with a vital exception.We should focus on the content of wikipedia articles. We are creating an encyclopedia. The important question is whether Roobit (talk · contribs) has damaged the article. I note as an aside that some admins would block Folantin immediately for inflammatory language on this page. Folantin, you have given two different versions of what was allegedly said about the nazi grandmother, can you provide a diff?Mccready (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)- "I've given two versions"? Where?* "I note as an aside that some admins would block Folantin immediately for inflammatory language on this page". No they wouldn't. It was fair comment. Besides which, since July I've repeatedly pointed out serious violations of WP:BLP against a respected academic (who was compared to a Holocaust denier) which occurred on this very page. No admin has yet removed them. "We should focus on the content of wikipedia articles". Um, WP:TALK counts too (and I can remember one user who was permanently banned for nothing but inane talk page comments). Anyone trying to reignite the massive Baltic-Russian edit wars which raged through 2007 and beyond by trolling on the talk page (as Roobit has done) should be banned. --Folantin (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I imagine the relevant diff is here (the anon's comments in grey above, Roobit's below in green). --Folantin (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- "I've given two versions"? Where?* "I note as an aside that some admins would block Folantin immediately for inflammatory language on this page". No they wouldn't. It was fair comment. Besides which, since July I've repeatedly pointed out serious violations of WP:BLP against a respected academic (who was compared to a Holocaust denier) which occurred on this very page. No admin has yet removed them. "We should focus on the content of wikipedia articles". Um, WP:TALK counts too (and I can remember one user who was permanently banned for nothing but inane talk page comments). Anyone trying to reignite the massive Baltic-Russian edit wars which raged through 2007 and beyond by trolling on the talk page (as Roobit has done) should be banned. --Folantin (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Folantin you used direct quotes saying he said "Your grandmother was a Nazi so she deserved to die". It appears that is not what he said. The other version you gave was what he actually said. Perhaps you should strike out the incorrect version. Misquoting someone is a very serious error, particularly if it serves to inflame a delicate situation.I'd rather we focus on content edits. Can you provide diffs to show he has damaged a wikipedia article? Otherwise I have to agree with fvw and I also regret you haven't yet struck out the personal attacks as requested. I should also state that I have not yet formed a view on Roobit.Mccready (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I said: "In other words, Roobit says: 'Your grandmother was a Nazi so she deserved to die'". I gave the link to what Roobit actually said in my very first edit. "I should also state that I have not yet formed a view on Roobit". Well perhaps you should do some background research before intervening here. --Folantin (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies Folantin. You did indeed preface by saying "in other words". Nonetheless it might have been better not to paraphrase and if you wanted to paraphrase not to use quote marks. I'm not sure your use of the word "intervening" is helpful. I'm here hopefully for the same reason you are - to build a better encyclopedia. The best way of doing that is to focus primarily on content. Would you mind providing diffs where Roobit has damaged a wikipedia article? Cheers. Mccready (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it might have been better had you read what I wrote more carefully, but no matter. As for the rest, you need to do some background reading to one of the most virulent national conflicts on Misplaced Pages. It took a lot of effort to get the "Estonia-Russia Wars" under control and nobody appreciates a user trying to "flame them up" again. Guy gets it. It's not like Roobit is one of our prize content contributors anyway. If he wants to air his prejudices, he can go to Blogspot. --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies Folantin. You did indeed preface by saying "in other words". Nonetheless it might have been better not to paraphrase and if you wanted to paraphrase not to use quote marks. I'm not sure your use of the word "intervening" is helpful. I'm here hopefully for the same reason you are - to build a better encyclopedia. The best way of doing that is to focus primarily on content. Would you mind providing diffs where Roobit has damaged a wikipedia article? Cheers. Mccready (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looking through the contributions, Roobit appears to be a rude, aggressive nationalistic soapboxer. I don't think we need any more of those, we have more than enough already. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Per those edit summaries cited above, I agree with Guy. This is one user we can do without. He's posted another unblock request (which is how I found this discussion--I'm turning it down). Blueboy96 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Roobit is a case of blatant abuse of Misplaced Pages for promoting extremist POV. His hatred against some nations is so extreme, that his rhetorics resemble Nazi propaganda. Moreschi made a bold step and blocked for once and for all an account that had been promoting hatred for years. Only due to incompetent and/or biased admins could this continue for so long a period of time (Roobit was reported numerous times , no action was taken. According to Admin coelacan, 'nothing happened'. Wow!). If this troll gets unblocked, I suggest inviting Nazi skinheads and Ku Klux Klan to join wiki, too... --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since Roobit has been banned, he has been using forum pages of the Estonian news portal Baltic News Network as a soapbox for his xenophobia. Agree with the above, we don't want these people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox too. Martintg (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse indefinite block on Roobit. He's here for all the wrong reasons and shows little chance for improvement in foreseeable future. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok guys, that's enough community consensus for me, and we've got Category:Requests_for_unblock cleared again. Thanks for your input. --fvw* 16:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Sock farm or just POV pushers?
While running a search, I ran across a group of userpages which all contain the same chunk of text, chock full of non-NPOV phrasing and a screed against two Misplaced Pages users accused of anti-semitism (over a block of other accounts). The text is a copy of this geocities page. This appears to be related to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles, which involved some POV pushing on Pan-Arabism. A checkuser case may be appropriate, although these users have not done any editing outside of their userpages. Due to the coordination, we have (at the very least) some coordinated attempt to push PoV, although it's confined to userspace, in a way that doesn't masquerade as an article. (The opening paragraph, which is totally unencyclopedic, makes it quite clear that it's not a Misplaced Pages article.) I'm not sure if it's a sock farm as well.
The accounts in question:
- User:Gafeeera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Answers and info (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Biased 123 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Edgy2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Pan arabism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Daliagistini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Stayisgood4u (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'd block them myself and nuke the userpages, but I'd like to get a wider reaction first, especially since I was not involved in the earlier discussions involving this issue. Horologium (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely get rid of the user pages per WP:NOTWEBHOST. As for blocking them, I'm not sure what's to gain by it. If anyone starts using them it just makes it all the easier to recognise. --fvw* 13:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't block him/her or take any aggressive stance whatsoever. I would get rid of all those pages he/she is making however and perhaps strike up a friendly chat with the user on how its not allowed per wikipedia policy and ask them to contribute constructively. Just my opinion! Cheers! =) Cheers dude (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well do it then :-P Theresa Knott | token threats 14:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- With some experience of socks/cu elsewhere the userpages would arouse my "interest" to say the least. Agree they should go too. --Herby 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
LoL! I'm shy Therea knott! I'm shy! :P Cheers dude (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the user pages. I've not done anything else at this time, however. Horologium (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Potential threats
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
An ip address, User:86.210.246.56 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), has been repeatedly making claims on the New Deal (United Kingdom) article, comparing this government programme to Nazi slave labour, posting a long screed of original research and reposting after it has been reverted numerous times. . The ip has been warned numerous times and is now on their fourth warning, but their latest action was to post on their user page this statement. In it he claims that this was just a test to find out if wikipedia is a government propaganda site, and he is now satisfied that since he can't post his rambling criticism, that it is. Some choice phrases are:
- 'I think from 2009 there is going to be a war and Wiki as a Govt propaganda site and censor agent will be on the wrong side in that war folks. By the way, the war crimes trials allow me to identify UK govt agents and have a war with them.'
- 'Next time when the whole thing goes public Wiki will be as a tool of Govt propaganda subject to efforts to stop that propaganda as will the individuals putting out the propaganda, it will all be in the best possible legal taste using perfectly legal methods, methods made expressly lawful by amongst other things the judgement in The Einsatzgruppen CAse the right of targeted people to organise and fight back.'
While I'm fairly confident this is more nonsense rambling, perhaps it would be appropriate to block now on the grounds of threats both legal and implied physical, against both wikipedia and whoever else this person has a grievance with. Benea (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- 86.210.246.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- He's basing his threats on the little-known Guacamole Act of 1917. Baseball Bugs 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I also reported it to WP:AIV, to cover another base. Baseball Bugs 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Admin put a 48-hour block on at 15:23 to cool that guy's jets for awhile. Baseball Bugs 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa, hold up. A cool down block? Usually those are discouraged. PXK /C 18:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- They happen all the time. Normally in the guise of "civility" blocks. Sceptre 19:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, it was neither. He'd continued WP:SOAPBOXing on his Talk page after a last warning. Whereas the *effect* of the block may be to cool him down, it was intended (a) to protect the encyclopedia and (b) to concentrate his mind on the many policies he'd breached. He now has time to assimilate those policies, and should he choose not to, well, his IP Address is an ASSIGNED PA and I wouldn't have any problem blocking this user for a further three months. Problem? --Rodhullandemu 22:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's WP:SOAPBOX. I hide nao. Garden. 22:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- .. and in English, which is the language what I speak, this means....? --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Scottish for "now"??? Baseball Bugs 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- .. and in English, which is the language what I speak, this means....? --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's WP:SOAPBOX. I hide nao. Garden. 22:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, it was neither. He'd continued WP:SOAPBOXing on his Talk page after a last warning. Whereas the *effect* of the block may be to cool him down, it was intended (a) to protect the encyclopedia and (b) to concentrate his mind on the many policies he'd breached. He now has time to assimilate those policies, and should he choose not to, well, his IP Address is an ASSIGNED PA and I wouldn't have any problem blocking this user for a further three months. Problem? --Rodhullandemu 22:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- They happen all the time. Normally in the guise of "civility" blocks. Sceptre 19:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa, hold up. A cool down block? Usually those are discouraged. PXK /C 18:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Admin put a 48-hour block on at 15:23 to cool that guy's jets for awhile. Baseball Bugs 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I may be better informed, but, alas, none the wiser. Whereas I can solve anagrams in crosswords such as "reformed presbyterian popsinger?", here, I prefer the straight talking. --Rodhullandemu 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Template: convert
I'm not involved, but discussion of {{convert}} on its talk page and, latterly, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is degenerating into a morass of AGF, CIVIL and related breaches, involving the description of editors as "arrogant Euro-snots" (to quote just one recent example). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It may be time to bring up that humourous "how big America is/how big America thinks it is" graph... last I checked, this is Misplaced Pages, not Ameripedia. Sceptre 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Them Europeans is just jealous, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid
User Satanoid is refusing to learn from earlier ban. These words from Satanoid reflect very strong feelings and some personal vendetta against an assumed identity and is worrying me, this is very serious. Please see here-- --Sikh-history (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sikh-history, I saw an earlier report, and was trying to think who he reminded me of. It could be worth requesting a check user to see if he's a Hkelkar sock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi PhilKnight, I have experience of disruptive edits of user:Hkelkar (from one of his sock Goingoveredge). From a long time experience of Satanoid I was being continually reminded of the editing style,tone and tactics of user:Hkelkar. However, I let assumption of good faith override my suspicion. Now, I find some more weight in my suspicion as a third neutral editor (PhilKnight) has felt the same. If this editor really comes out to be another sock of user:Hkelkar I'll really be dumbstruck with his inspiration of hate against Sikhs and his never ending list of sockpuppets on wikipedia. --RoadAhead 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry o not know how to do it? --Sikh-history (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sikh-history, I'm not sure if PhilKnight actually intended to point to WP:CHU, I think PhilKnight wanted to point to WP:RFCU. The page WP:RFCU (called "Request for Checkuser") has some examples of already filed checkuser requests. --RoadAhead 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant WP:RFCU not WP:CHU. Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sikh-history, I'm not sure if PhilKnight actually intended to point to WP:CHU, I think PhilKnight wanted to point to WP:RFCU. The page WP:RFCU (called "Request for Checkuser") has some examples of already filed checkuser requests. --RoadAhead 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry o not know how to do it? --Sikh-history (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi PhilKnight, I have experience of disruptive edits of user:Hkelkar (from one of his sock Goingoveredge). From a long time experience of Satanoid I was being continually reminded of the editing style,tone and tactics of user:Hkelkar. However, I let assumption of good faith override my suspicion. Now, I find some more weight in my suspicion as a third neutral editor (PhilKnight) has felt the same. If this editor really comes out to be another sock of user:Hkelkar I'll really be dumbstruck with his inspiration of hate against Sikhs and his never ending list of sockpuppets on wikipedia. --RoadAhead 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Cheers dude
Well, I disagree with a lot of things on this earlier ban report you've provided. As one example, you use his use of 'son' and 'extremist' as examples of personal attacks on that page which aren't personal attacks in my mind. Perhaps mild incivility at best, but nothing on that report falls under the category of personal attacks and a reason for blocking in my estimation. If those were the reasons behind his last block, I'm in disagreement.
Anyways, you go on to say he hasn't learned from that and provided this diff here. No, he shouldn't be commenting on irrelevant matters that don't pertain to improving wikipedia articles on your talkpage but I don't see where you make friendly efforts to explain to him that the user talkpages are meant for discussing how to better wikipedia articles. All I see is perpetuating irrelevant conversation by responding to him on the irrelevant matter he has brought up or criticizing him about previous blocks which is also irrelevant. Reminding the editor of previous blocks is not going to help matters. Rather, friendly attempts should be made in explaining to him wikipedia policies and what is and is not allowed and making sure that you are following those policies yourselves.
Bottomline, I see no reason to block this editor. I feel an attempt of relaying of wikipedia policies in a civil fashion should have been taken, before this was brought to the ANI noticeboards. As for the sockpuppets suspicions, I'm not sure if this is the place for that. Just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Cheers dude, I could not relate your comments, edits and experience with the edits of Satanoid. Have you been editing the same articles as Satanoid. I am baffled, what brings you here on Administrator's noticeboard on something filed on Satanoid? Do you usually provide feedback on reports filed on ANI? Regards, --RoadAhead 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Despite having only 351 edits, nearly twenty per cent of User:Cheers dude's edits (66) are to this page alone. He may be energetic and/or well-meaning, but he doesn't seem likely well-versed regarding how things are done on Misplaced Pages generally. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok Cheers dude, put yourself in my position. You come onto wikipedia in good faith and help edit materials in fields you feel you have some expertise. You meet someone who you think may have some prejudice towards some of the material you are dealing with. You still assume good faith. THe attacks get mopre personal, resulting in insults towards your religion. You still carry on. Then that person start leaving messages about an identity he percieves you to be? Some pretty hate filled and insulting messages. Do you not think this is at least a little bit creepy? Surely this is not the behaviour of editors on wikipedia? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Despite having only 351 edits, nearly twenty per cent of User:Cheers dude's edits (66) are to this page alone. He may be energetic and/or well-meaning, but he doesn't seem likely well-versed regarding how things are done on Misplaced Pages generally. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Cheers dude, I could not relate your comments, edits and experience with the edits of Satanoid. Have you been editing the same articles as Satanoid. I am baffled, what brings you here on Administrator's noticeboard on something filed on Satanoid? Do you usually provide feedback on reports filed on ANI? Regards, --RoadAhead 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Roadahead, you do not have to edit the same articles as the users of disputes in order to provide feedback on those disputes on this page. In fact, its best that people who provide feedback on disputes have nothing to do with users so as to provide a neutral opinion on the matter. Please be aware that by bringing an issue here, anyone in the community is allowed to give their feedback and try to help.
CalenderWatcher, I ask that you would address solely the topic at hand and not get off point and discuss me or my editing history. The topic here has to do with Satanoid and I gave my feedback on the topic while you have not. If you do not agree with my feedback, that's fine and you may explain why, but please do not bring up irrelevant matters about myself that have nothing to do with this discussion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am addressing the topic at hand, namely your lack of fitness--by way of experience, judgement, knowledge of policy and knowledge of the situation to hand--to pass comment, and am now saying, explicitly, that you should stop muddling issues that you're not involved in until you have a better grasp on things than your 361 edits and less-than-a-fortnight's experience imply. You've already had to retract some of the 'advice' you've given previously on this page, which should tell you something. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sikh, I'd agree with you that that type behavior is very offensive but I just haven't seen the diffs to support those claims with the exception of the identity issue (which I've already said I felt wasn't responded to the right way as the replies I saw didn't relay to him wikipedia policy and how discussion about things that have nothing to do with improving articles is not allowed but rather engaging in the same behavior addressing the matter he brought up). Other than that, nothing I saw from him was a personal attack or any attack to your religion. If you'd like, you could provide me other diffs of what you perceive as insults to your religion and personal attacks! I'd take an entirely different stance on this issue if you could show me that the behavior really is as bad as you're saying it is. Hope this helps! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you need to read his entire code of conduct. I really cannot see how you could have missed the insults he posted.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Cheers dude", please butt out. These guys are trying to discuss ongoing patterns of vandalism about which you almost certainly know too little to make an informed comment, unless of course you are a sockpuppet. To those above, Hkelkar's latest IP was hardblocked two days ago - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar - but it may be worth contacting Nishkid privately to see if there is crossover to Satanoid. Otherwise you probably need to go to WP:RFC or some other dispute resolution mechanism, because the comments highlighted (and they are not alone) are distinctly unhelpful and indicative of an off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Guy, I highly suggest you take a good long look at WP:Civil and take a look at and study up on the policies regarding giving feedback on this page especially considering the fact that you are an administrator making those types of comments. That's all I will say to you. Sikh, I haven't seen anything related to personal attacks or attacks to your religion. However, judging from the history of edits on Sikh extremism, there seems to be a very lot of disagreement that's gone on for weeks. I see a lot of disagreement over what should and shouldn't be added into that Sikh extremism article. I would suggests that you all reach consensus by introducing more parties into the discussion on the article talkpage so there will be less friction. That's just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given that Guy has been editing for nearly three years, has over 54,000 edits, and is an administrator, I'd suggest he's very well up on policy. That said, I don't believe such credentials are necessary to realise that your 'advice' is unhelpful and carries little weight. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- You've nicely proved my point, I think. Either you do not have enough background to offer valid commentary, or you are a sockpuppet. Either way, I don't think you are actually helping here; I suggest that if you want to try your hand at dispute resolution you start with what appears to be your area of expertise, Brooke Hogan. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, see below. Please either validate your sock accusation or AGF and tone down the rhetoric. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- He's merely invoking common sense, so I'm not sure what 'validation' is called for here. This is regarding an editor who's been here--including his IP edits--less than two months, and has already managed to inject himself energetically into disputes, at least one of which he admits being wrong about. For a new-comer, he found his way here fairly quickly. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have made no comment about the content, but about the way it is conveyed. However, if I were to comment about the content I might - using Guy's rationale - decline to do so with you since as you so identify with Guys viewpoint I suspect that you are his sockpuppet... Now, once you have warned me on my talkpage for the personal attack please take the time to consider how making such comments do not advance the discussion; concentrate upon the content and not the contributor - and even if the account is an alternate, who are they teaming up with to violate policy? If Cheers dude's claims are baseless then explain why and then let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call your suggestion of sockpuppetry as personally attacking as I would delusional: if you're not serious, you appear to be disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove some kind of moral-superiority point, and if you're not, your judgement has been demonstrated to be seriously impaired. If you'd like to continue to be unhelpful and stir up a side drama for whatever your purpose is, as with User:Cheers dude I can't stop you but I can point out that scolding a fellow editor based on nothing at all it doesn't help your case. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher
Could someone, preferably uninvolved, kindly take a look at the section of this page titled Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid. I have been respectfully giving my opinions and suggestions on an issue and these two users, one of which I was surprised to find out was an administrator, are pushing me to butt out of the situation based on my edit history. The administrator has become quite uncivil suggesting sockpuppetry with the user in question because I said I haven't seen any personal attacks or religious-based attacks from Satanoid (the user being reported), telling me to Butt out, worry about Brooke Hogan or something along those lines. I have tried to remain civil and neutral in viewing the matter and giving helpful suggestions and my honest opinion, however this admin keeps responding with incivility for some reason and CalenderWatcher keeps changing the subject to my amount of edits and how they should prohibit me from commenting and trying to help. Please help! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are being unhelpful, and have been told why. You've been unhelpful at least once before by you own admission. Being informed that you are being unhelpful when you are being unhelpful is not uncivil, it's educational. Being advised that you should take the time to understand what you're giving opinions on and perhaps learn what the rules are before jumping in isn't uncivil, it's good advice. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers dude: Usually, when editors come here, they're seeking admin opinions/intervention. When someone (no offense meant by this) who has comparatively little experience, has no knowledge of the situation at hand, and is not an admin starts commenting on the issue, people start getting frustrated. I admire your enthusiasm, but I suggest that you quietly excuse yourself from this board, become extremely familiar with WP policies, obtain some more article edits, and then maybe come back. Again, no offense is meant by this. Hermione1980 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed...no offense, Cheers dude, but you seem to be betting on the wrong horse in every single dispute you've involved yourself on since I had my first dealing with you and help to create unnecessary drama (see: User:Law Lord). It's okay to have opinions, but quite frankly, I haven't really found any to have been very well-informed. Obviously, in time, you probably will be...but right now, please take the time to learn and lurk and make edits to the articles which you know about before you start involving yourself in the wikiprocesses. --Smashville 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers dude: Usually, when editors come here, they're seeking admin opinions/intervention. When someone (no offense meant by this) who has comparatively little experience, has no knowledge of the situation at hand, and is not an admin starts commenting on the issue, people start getting frustrated. I admire your enthusiasm, but I suggest that you quietly excuse yourself from this board, become extremely familiar with WP policies, obtain some more article edits, and then maybe come back. Again, no offense is meant by this. Hermione1980 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Issues with User:SlyFrog
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
This is a mixed issue ... already a massive 3RR (which yes, belongs elsewhere), but the nature of the information that they are reverting is the major problem. See for proof of the 3RR and a simple reading of the any of his most recent versions of the articles. I have given the user my personal Welcome to a user who has been uncivil in their first edits template, and a 3RR warning. Issue was first brought to my attention in WP:WQA♪BMWΔ 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- After thorough discussion with the editor (which is not 100% fruitful), and the unfortunate loss of the evidence with the deletion of the article, this issue is "resolved-ish"...for now. ♪BMWΔ 11:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Editwarring on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Two accounts, Markdandrea (talk · contribs) and Mdandrea (talk · contribs) are repeatedly adding disputed information (which has OR, SYNTH, RS, UNDUE, BLP problem - see talk page) to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which is on article probation. One account claims to be a sock of the other (see ), while the other denies it .
Also, see possible wrongful copyright claim by one account File:MarkLevin.jpg (unrelated to above article)
Anyone ready to wield the block hammer and/or clue-stick ? Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like Protonk took care of blocking the two mister Dandreas. Could a checkuser perhaps look into the connection between the two accounts; I can file and RFCU if necessary, or if we don't want to get all wonky, any checkuser could just indicate here what the results are... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see this as a WP:DUCK situation. The 'sock' account was indeffed and the master got 2 months. That is based on the fact that the actual damage due to socking was minimal and not undertaken with as much intent to confound and obstruct as the usual sock-puppets. I am, of course, open for this block to be reviewed and shortened if an administrator decides that Markdandrea won't do this in the future. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see no issue there, using a sock to edit war is still a Bad Thing(TM), especially when the material being added is questionable at best. Seraphimblade 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is it just me who is thinking "why the hell does that article even exist?" Sceptre 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, yeah. Ask the various news organizations which lavished time and attention on this non-issue. Of course if we think that lefty blogs wouldn't be apoplectic over John McCain's panama birth were he elected, we are kidding ourselves. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That, and I don't see the 2000 election conspiracy theories article (ranging from ballot stuffing to "misplacing" ballots to deliberately stalling the recount to packing SCOTUS with conservatives). Sceptre 04:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's just an invitation to be bold. :) Protonk (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That article was basically created as a dumping ground for the various nonsense theories about Obama's citizenship. If and when all the court cases are finally settled, a small summary (as with the McCain article) would suffice within the Obama article. Until then, I do not recommend deleting it, as it will just go back to edit-warring on the Obama article. Baseball Bugs 04:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is a suitable venting valve in my opinion, which gives venue to shunt the whack-a-doodle insertion of CT into the various Obama articles. I think even beyond inauguration it is a nice museum piece for the looney fringe. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That article was basically created as a dumping ground for the various nonsense theories about Obama's citizenship. If and when all the court cases are finally settled, a small summary (as with the McCain article) would suffice within the Obama article. Until then, I do not recommend deleting it, as it will just go back to edit-warring on the Obama article. Baseball Bugs 04:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's just an invitation to be bold. :) Protonk (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That, and I don't see the 2000 election conspiracy theories article (ranging from ballot stuffing to "misplacing" ballots to deliberately stalling the recount to packing SCOTUS with conservatives). Sceptre 04:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, yeah. Ask the various news organizations which lavished time and attention on this non-issue. Of course if we think that lefty blogs wouldn't be apoplectic over John McCain's panama birth were he elected, we are kidding ourselves. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is it just me who is thinking "why the hell does that article even exist?" Sceptre 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Two different, totally unique people with virtually identical views and virtually identical names editing the same article at the same time, and backing each other up? I started to run a checkuser, but then gave up when I realised that I could see a thousand dancing hamsters on the checkuser results and still think they were sockpuppets, or at the very least, meatpuppets. --Deskana (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think people with the time and distance (i.e., most fairly partisan United States users like myself are not suited for the job!) need to look closely as BLP as it relates to COATRACK here. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Image deleted. User:Zscout370 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- What image? Baseball Bugs 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The image File:MarkLevin.jpg mentioned in my original post that was uploaded by the user and falsely labelled free.
- I think we can mark this issue "resolved" now, but in case someone missed their favorite soap-opera today, do read the unblock request by Markdandrea in which he now claims that Mdandrea is his son ! Abecedare (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- What image? Baseball Bugs 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Father and son, blocked together. A heartwarming story. Baseball Bugs 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Speaking of grassy knolls and conspiracy theories, the attempt to delete the article was shot down. Baseball Bugs 12:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Father and son, blocked together. A heartwarming story. Baseball Bugs 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandals looking for a spotlight on Yahoo! Answers
Vandalisms on Harry Julian Allen have been quite frequent in the last few days, because the page was mentioned on Yahoo! Answers.
Interestingly enough, some RC patrollers (in good faith, I believe) rolled back some of these vandalisms only to restore the most abusive version of that article!
Maybe the page could be semi-protected for a few days, until the question on Yahoo! Answers becomes old.
This is the last good version I can see.
--Lou Crazy (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It appears there's only been six edits to that article in the last few days, and none since July before those. The RC patroller made an error. Protection isn't needed right now, though some more watchlists would be good. (In future, you'd be better taking this to requests for protection, by the way.) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Intervention at Hoagie
I'd like to ask for admin intervention at Hoagie. I believe that an editor is using a RfC as a sideways attempt to delete this article. And is trying to push a POV in the text of the article which supports his claims and thus distorts the RfC. I see this as a conflict of interest for him to be editing (diluting) the article while at the same time trying to eliminate it through merger. I think that the editor is cleverly using the rules of WP to subvert the spirit of the rules. Offering diffs will not display the cumulative efforts here. I am not seeking any dicipline here, but I'm asking for someone to give us a reality check. I got involved here trying to be neutral, but have been dragged into an unpleasant and embarrassing contest. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Response
Hello! I have been working towards a merger of the individual stub pages for 4 regional names (and many others that don't have their own articles) for the same sandwich, Hero sandwich, Hoagie sandwich, and Grinder sandwich, into Submarine sandwich (the most common name per Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(common_names)). All have been successfully merged except the Philadelphia regional name Hoagie, for which I created an RfC and a Straw Poll which currently stands at 11 to 6 for merge. And all content in the Hoagie stub page is now included in the sourced and more comprehensive page Submarine sandwich. Therefore the current Hoagie page violates WP:Content fork, WP:REDUNDANT, and WP:Redirect#Alternative_names. I also provided many sources, a few of which were already and still are being used on Hoagie's page, to prove they are all the same sandwich. Nobody has ever proven otherwise. However, I've still gotten resistance from two editors, a self-confessed "Phili-phile" named user:SummerPhD who appears to want to defend her city's name for this sandwich at all costs, and user:Kevin Murray, who has used polite, but tricky tactics from day one to try and block the merger. In my efforts to merge these article I have made a great deal of effort to treat each regional name for this sandwich with as much care as possible which has resulted in the Submarine sandwich page I am merging to being described by Kevin Murray himself as "excellent". Also I was asked to have an uninvolved admin step in and when one happened to on his own accord, and called it consensus for Merge, they still did not relent. I made a request for Conflict Mediation which is ongoing, but Kevin has continued to remove info from the Hoagie page that has cited sources, and replace it with unsourced info that simply reflects his own point of view. And when it became clear the majority was going with Merge he decided to add a Merge Proposal to the Submarine sandwich page saying he now thinks All Sandwiches should be merged into Sandwich. That proposal isn’t going well for him as it is being seen as intentionally disruptive editing. So, after he reverted my edits 3 times in a row today, I added a 3-RR warning to his talk page hoping he'd stop, but instead he responded by adding the same warning to my talk page and then reverted my edits for a fourth time, and then reported me to the admins.
Here's a few examples of Kevin's wp:Good faith efforts in this situation:
- Kevin's first action in this situation was when a week after I posted the Merge Proposal Tag, Straw Poll and RfC he politely claimed that "no consensus has emerged to support a merger. Result: close RfC and remove merge tag. Cheers!", and then unilaterally removed the merge proposal tag and closed out my RfC, instead of allowing me to pursue that process which goes for 30 days, and despite the fact that the poll results at that time stood at 6 to 3 for Merge (now 11-6). When I caught on to what he'd done I reversed it and confronted him and he politely admitted he was wrong, but continued his polite but tricky tactics.
- His next shady action was when he removed a pic of the British Holland 1 submarine that a cited source in the article said the sandwich was named for saying it was an "unrelated" image that had a bad date under it, and then when I restored it and removed the date under it to satisfy his complaint, he turned around and removed it again and replaced it with a pic of a different submarine not mentioned in the article and then dated it himself by putting WWII under it. I just walked way from that one.
- Then he decided to tell me what he thought of me on my Request For Mediation page by making a new section called "Wiki-Drama? BTF" (my initials) and stated that "You are cluttering the discussion with so much wikidrama and distorting the processes by continuing to vomit your emotional rhetoric". When called on that one he again politely apologized and then changed his comments to be less offensive, leaving my remaining replies looking overblown. I thanked him but reverted his edits and ask that he just use the Strike Out tag, but he reverted my edit and told me if I didn't like it then call an Admin.
- Then he took things a step further by placing a Merge Proposal tag on the Submarine Sandwich page suggesting it and other sandwich articles be merged with Sandwich stating that "Since there seems to be a strong and vocal group advocating a reduction of the number of articles about sandwiches, I suggest that we study the options including a more complete merger to one article about sandwiches". As I said before, that one isn't going well for him as it is being seen for what it is.
- Then he started making changes to the Hoagie page which contradicted what its own cited sources said in order to try and boost the notability of the page that was facing a merge. When I caught this, I change the content to accurately reflect its sources, then he reverted my changes, then re-re-revert, and we ended up here.
Just as I have stated about the Phili-phile, SummerPhD, I feel that Kevin Murray may fall into this category regarding the current situation: Consensus is not the same as unanimity. "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best."
I had avoided taking things here as I thought or hoped it was not necessary, but now that we're here, I hope that you will give Kevin Murray the "reality check" he is asking for. Thanks! BillyTFried (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's amazing to find this oddity sandwiched in amongst heavier disputes. I don't see why we need multiple articles for the same subject. I recall a TV ad featuring Subway founder Fred De Luca, in which he said, "Some people call them submarine sandwiches, some call them hoagies; I call them Subway Sandwiches." I see the same illustration is being used for both articles, also. Maybe the complainant could explain what the practical difference is between a sub and a hoagie? Baseball Bugs 12:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:LAME, anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Verging on WP:LAMEST. – ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It needs more meat. Baseball Bugs 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sick of eating hoagies! I want a grinder, a sub, a foot-long hero! I want to live, Marge! Won't you let me live? Won't you, please? --Smashville 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It needs more meat. Baseball Bugs 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Verging on WP:LAMEST. – ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:LAME, anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Seeyou
Well, .. this has been going on for some time now, and to specify, I'm referring to the noted user's apparent unwillingness to follow, or even understand our policies here. A quick overview of the said user's talk page notes that many, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor over various breached policies, including, but not limited to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, WP:TALK, WP:CONSENSUS.
Many of these 'conversations'(re: see talk page), have not really had the desired result, and the editor in question refuses to either understand the policy, or acknowledge that he or she had done anything wrong. Please weigh in.— Dædαlus 08:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, let me just message that this report was made after the final warning was given to this user regarding the insertion of OR.— Dædαlus 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh that's awkward. He hasn't done anything blatantly negative I don't think, but he doesn't seem to understand most of the policies you linked to...--Patton123 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Bates method article is covered by the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and Seeyou has been notified, so this discussion could be moved to ArbCom Enforcement Noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Strange type of vandalism
Well, I don't know where to put this, so I think this is the best place.
I randomly got to an article a few days ago, and by reading, noticed something was kind of wrong. Looking in the history I noticed someone re-pasted the same thing twice, replacing outside links and sources and whatever it was. At first I assumed good faith and I reverted it, but the next day the user seems to have comeback and done exactly the same thing again (see history). The strangest thing is that most of his edits on other articles look OK, just the ones on this article are inexplicable. I thought about trying to ask him what and why, but I didn't want to get too much involved or blamed for harracement or knows-what. But I still think someone should look into this. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- You won't--well, shouldn't, and it wouldn't be believed if you were--get accused of harassment if you post a nice message on the user's talkpage saying "Hey, I saw this edit on this page. It looks a bit off to me because of XYZ, but maybe I'm missing something? Could you let me know what you were aiming for?"
- That said, it looks to me like bog-standard marketing drivel, and you were right to remove it. // roux 09:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'd be really glad to be informed that an edit I made seemed unusual or otherwise off. Something like "Hey, I noticed your edit to LMNOP. (provide diff) It seemed a little unusual to me and might actually violate WP:FOOBAR, so I reverted it". Fast and easy for you (easier than checking contribs for a pattern of vandalism), and helpful to the receiving party. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit war/socks/username redirects
Edit war brewing at Mississippi between an IP and User:Christchild777 and myself (myself to the extent that I keep reverting to preserve sourced content until a consensus is met). I believe the IP and Christchild777 are the same person. Interestingly, Christchild is now redirecting his/her userpages to User:N/A and I wasn't sure of the policy on that either. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 15:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
98.194.199.220 (talk · contribs)
Anyone have any idea who this IP actually is? He keeps leaving me bizarre messages about kangaroo courts and admin abuse, but I've never had any dealings with them... --Smashville 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe he's Captain Kangaroo. Toddst1 left a final warning. Tan | 39 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- WHOIS record here, if needed. It's a Comcast IP. VX! 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't Captain K die? I'm being haunted! --Smashville 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)