Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 24 December 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of 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)

• 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

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)

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)

Just a short housekeeping note that everything below this comment and Wikidemon's comment regarding "made-up nonsense", edit warring and disruption (what?), and his behavior being fine and not the issue, is part of a different and unrelated ANI notice. Not sure how it got merged, but I just wanted to make that clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the matter at hand here. This is all spawning from an admin who was much too thick-skinned and erroneos I might add in what he was stating was a personal attack towards himself. Even if anyone felt the comment should be removed, the manner in which he came to Law Lord about wasn't the right manner as Law Lord shouldn't have been accused of making personal attacks. Law Lord came to this Noticeboard about that admin's behavior, and suddenly the issue was removing this harmless comment of this editor finding some of 'some admins don't have good manners' as if it were some hurtful insult. Cheers dude (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That has absolutely zero to do with anything. --Smashville 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to go with the closed section further up about Law Lord's userpage, rather than this article issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the editor and the fact that he had already written the exact comment in a different thread...you can never be too sure. --Smashville 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I noticed that CD had posted that here and then posted it in the intended section about the Law Lord, without bothering to remove it from here. I could have removed it myself, but I thought it was better to just leave it here, for its unintended entertainment value. Baseball Bugs 13:48, 22 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)

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)

As user:cheers dude rightly says, the terms 'son' and 'extremist' don't amount to uncivil remarks to warrant a block demanded by tou and sikh History. You need to state exactly where on the Sikh terrorism or Sikh extremism related articles I have actually been abusive. Kind regards Satanoid (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have been abusive enough as demonstrated here. Like I said above. To make fun of the Guru's children is offensive, but to make fun of the brutal murders of two children in it's own right is offensive. --Sikh-history (talk) 11:02, 22 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)

Here is a classic example of a personal attack. Now insulting the Sikh Guru's children aside, to make an off the hand comment about two young children who were brutally mudered is simply not on. I agree with most of the comments here. I do not think you have enough experience to make a comment on this user. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 11:00, 22 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 are, 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)

I appreciate it LessHeard! As CalenderWatcher still hasn't been able to come up with arguments to refute any of the opinions I've provided, but rather continues to try to debate with you on irrelevent matters related to me, and has only brought up the manner he believes I gave my opinions in, referring to it as "scolding", I'm assuming that may be the real issue here. To the users whom I directed my comments to, if you felt the manner I came off in that original comment was harsh, I do apologize to editors I directed those comments to.

As for Guy and CalenderWatcher, however, redirecting this entire discussion to my edit history and making attacks based on sockpuppets, something about Brooke Hogan, etc., is far more incivil than anything I've said in this discussion. Thus far, I haven't entertained these users' attempts to throw off this debate by responding on irrelevant matters pertaining to myself they have effectively turned this discussion into, and I refuse to. This is not the place for it. If they have a beef with me and would like to have a full-fledged debate over it, they're more than welcome to take it to my user talkpage or another forum and discuss matters civilly with me there, but I feel their comments and incivility don't contribute to the matter at hand so this is not the place. Cheers dude (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see you are still determinedly missing the point, so let me spell it out once more. People come here to discuss policy issues with the admin community. The input of long-standing non-admin editors is also very often helpful. What is not helpful - actively unhelpful, in fact - is newbies chipping in with no apparent knowledge of the issue at hand, the policies involved, the past and present users being discussed, and even the content area. Your editing shows absolutely no evidence of expertise in this content field, and unless you are a sockpuppet you cannot plausibly have any significant experience of dealing with Hkelkar, to name one of the more prominent accounts under discussion. Your "tell the nasty man to go away" style complaints are also not exactly improving your standing. And as noted below you seem to have weighed in on the wrong side most of the time, which indicates that you are a newbie not a sock; as such you should be wary of getting involved in things you clearly don't understand very well. And you should be doubly wary of asserting that the problem lies with everybody else and not you. Now I suggest you go and find some articles to work on. God knows why I am bothering to write this, I doubt you'll believe it any more than you've accepted any other comments, but this is just my opinion: your clueless verbiage is annoying me, and I'd rather you didn't thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If the above comments just written by Guy aren't a clear example of what I'm talking about in terms of unacceptable, incivil behavior from this administrator, I don't know what is. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you don't know what is, I'm afraid. I requested Guy to address you in non antagonistic terms and that is exactly what he has done - I never had a problem with most of the content of his remarks other than the vague sockpuppet accusation, and he has now clarified that he does not think you are one (don't worry, CalenderWatcher was also unaware that I was addressing form and not content and didn't understand my response either - I am polite but obviously not so good at communicating as might be desirable). Guy appears to be correct, in that by attempting to educate seasoned practitioners you are exposing your own lack of understanding. It really would be better if you gained more understanding of the intricacies of maintaining this project before making statements that generate much more heat (as a byproduct of friction) than light. You are being advised to desist commenting upon matters you are not familiar with; it is good advice, now addressed in the appropriate civil tones, and I suggest that you do so. It is not incivil to point out your faults, when you choose to exhibit them against the advise of old hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding. You've certainly misunderstood the meaning and rhetorical intent of Guy's conditional clause as an accusation rather than a logical inference in your hurry, so I wouldn't talk of others not understanding if I were you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion as I'm not into playing games. As I said, the comments were uncivil and out of line. In regards to me providing feedback, show me a policy that states that states that editors must have a certain amount of edits before providing feedback on this page. Until then, I will keep providing feedback. If you don't agree with that, too bad! Cheers dude (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, at least one editor has been or was banned from this page for constantly commenting without being familiar with the subjects discussed, so there is apparently precedent for consequences--if not explicit policy--regarding continual uninformed feedback. But if you're looking for a rules-based approached, I'll note that policy and rules here are not written in stone and handed down from on high, but evolve from consensus, so if you keep demanding to be shown policy, you'll likely find it will be created just for you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that blatantly stalking an editor that disagrees with you and drawing them into an edit war is a pretty quick way to get invited to a block party: . --Smashville 00:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: My edit has been wrongly used by the following statement made by Cheers dude in the closed discussion below. Cheers dude said -"The behavior of these two users is clearly disruptive and incivil and as noted here even by the user who made out the complaint ". (stress mine) No, I did not say that in the diff to which Cheers dude has linked. The only purpose (and obvious) of that edit was to keep both discussions categorized so that they can be addressed appropriaretly. I'm not sure how and why Cheers dude is interpreting in the way s/he has claimed. --RoadAhead 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on CD's own user page, he was previously 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and you can see he's been contentious from day one, although "day one" was only early November, so unless he had another IP before that, he's still a newbie chipping in. Baseball Bugs 14:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

Please see my comment above. Again, none of this should be brought up in the debate above like it was which is titled Vandalism and Dispruptive Behaviour Despite Earlier Ban Satanoid. If these are legitimate concerns, redirecting an entire debate in an uncivil manner to myself which is what was done above is not how to address them. I'd be more than willing to discuss matters like this with these users or anyone in the appropriate forum, that is, if their willing to behave in a civil manner and not make accusations of sockpuppets and similar attacks. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• In my experience editors who seem to think that it's always everybody else who's wrong tend to have a short and turbulent life on Misplaced Pages. Another piece of useful advice: when a significant number of people tell you that ou are wrong, it's usually because you are wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of these two users is clearly disruptive and incivil and as noted here even by the user who made out the complaint they've effectively thrown off the debate and turned it into an entirely different issue and continue to in the above thread. Cheers dude (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who created the "Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher" sub-section? Despite your unwillingness to digress from the actual topic, you seem to have no problem in continuing it here.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• The language used, and the views expressed here, are in my opinion well within the bounds of normal "civility" on Misplaced Pages. Nobody has leveled any insult. The "accusation" of sockpuppetery is nothing of the sort. It is a fair comment that a very new user engaging in debates here is unusual and an expression of the view that, unless you are a sockpuppet, your edit history means you probably aren't experienced enough to comment. In other words, you are being given the benefit of the doubt that you may have more experience than your edit history suggests. I see nothing worthy of any action. Unusual? Quite 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! As noted above, I'm done with this discussion as I'm not into playing games and engaging in antics. As I said, the comments were uncivil and out of line. In regards to me providing feedback, show me a policy that states that states that editors must have a certain amount of edits before providing feedback on this page. Until then, I will keep providing feedback. If you don't agree with that, too bad! You might want to do that on my user talkpage as I don't even intend on looking at this thread anymore. My advice to certain users is to quit harboring grudges over prior debates on this noticeboard. Now I'm done! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers dude (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I'm not involved, other than the action I'm taking. This discussion is pointless. The OP was requested to step back, yet continued to push the issue. Now, by the OP statement directly above, he's done, so this particular thread now no longer serves a purpose. May we get back to our originally scheduled Misplaced Pages issues? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING violation

And while you are arguing Satanoid carry's on writing creepy message and vandalising my page. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And with that, I gave him a week off. A WP:OUTING violation is enough for me. I don't care if he hasn't been warned about that before, he's known long enough to quit screwing around and he won't stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm heavily involved with him over at Sikh extremism and Sikh terrorism, I would like to ask for review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay by me. The chilling effects of attempting to out editors are huge; the editor in question could use some time off. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have requested Oversight of the above diff. Don't post oversightable material on a noticeboard, please. Jehochman 11:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes it difficult to review the block, but yes, fair enough. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Catch-22: Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. One way around this is to email Oversight and let them place the block. Jehochman 11:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I completely forgot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few more diffs that need would need to be oversighted. See Sikh-history's talk page for more attempts at outing.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi All, I am actually quite scared by Satanoids behaviour. I feel like just deleting my account and leaving wikipedia. I do not wish to take the chance that he thinks I am Randip Singh (someone he obviously hates and thinks is an extremist ). I am very scared. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Best thing to do in that case is to retire this account, and come back in a few days/weeks to make a new one. You might have to avoid certain topics for a bit, so it's not easy for them to point and identify you again, but it'll let you get back to editing without such fears. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have decided not to run away. Speaking to my Professor, he has convinced me I would be bowing down to those who would wish to stifle freedom of speech. Thanks you for all your concerns.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:14, 23 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)

There has been some recent disruptive editing of the Bates method article, so I think a 1-week ban from the article could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

More Canvassing: , , .— Dædαlus 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going thru Seeyou's contribs to get rid of the canvassing edits. I can't plant any sanctions on him because I'm involved (and have been for a while), so I leave that to other editors. Likewise, I'm not going to try and understand AE's instructions because I was absent for the most recent spate. -Jéské Couriano 02:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week, because of disruptive editing and canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Azad chai

Azad chai (talk · contribs), also known as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), is back. The contributions of Baboner (talk · contribs) and 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are very similar to contributions of the banned user Azad chai. Usually he goes around making vandal edits to the articles and calls Azerbaijani people baboons or makes other racial slurs. CU data would be stale by now, but the contribs leave no doubt that it is the same person. Grandmaster 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I caution administrators not to fall for this report. The strawpuppetry has to stop. This 'vandalism' from this new strawpuppet and the similar is to associate legitimate positions with sockpuppets. See this particular edit by Azad chai, where Karabakh is written by it's Azeri variation 'Qarabaq' by this Armenian wannabe. VartanM (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of VartanM. Does he think that the admins should not react to vandalism by Azad chay, and his evasion of ban? Grandmaster 08:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like repeating myself, so I bold faced my point for your viewing pleasure. VartanM (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it would be good to see real evidence of "strawpuppetry", other than speculations around the spelling of some words. In any case, ban evasion has to be dealt with. Grandmaster 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... what's strawpuppetry? Stifle (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Straw_puppets "They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur. They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute." VartanM (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating term, I'll have to remember that one. Thanks. Now your above comment makes much more sense, I thought you said 'the sockpuppetry has to stop'. --Golbez (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Apparently it is meant as a reference to socks being used to set up editors from the opposing camp. Grandmaster 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This one too: 70.21.172.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They all appear to be the same person or a group of people. Grandmaster 11:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with, thanks. Grandmaster 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Vartan is implying that these new apparently pro-Armenian contributors are actually Azeris in disguise. No matter. We dispose of trash no matter its perceived nationality. To believe otherwise should cause you to leave the project. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Said the pro-Azeri administrator ;) (That should cancel the pro-Armenian tag) Thats exactly what I was implying and asked you, the administrators, to get down and dirty and find the roots of this stink, and not just mask the smell and say how nice it now smells. VartanM (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But I would be really thrilled to see some real proof of Vartan's allusions, other than speculations over spellings. I heard this all from User:Fadix, now indef banned, who is the real generator of all conspiracy theories for a certain group of editors. But of course such claims cannot be taken seriously, unless supported by strong evidence. Grandmaster 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was already provided. This was filled by you on Feb 22, Yerkatagear was the last active user, with his last edit on Jan 13 on Jayvdb's talk page, His baseless criticism discredited the concerns. The next sock become active after you added his name. Checking his prior contributions we can see that the user started editing after two months of silence and a day after you filled the checkuser. As reported, when you filled the checkuser no socks were active (at least for over a month) they only become active a day after you filled them. One of the series of sock was possibly AdilBaguirov according to geographic location . You can keep screaming conspiracy theories. This socks magically appear every time you need to vilify the Armenians, just like during the recent elections when all the eyes were turned on us. So under those circumstances, the fact that this pretending Armenian wrote Karabakh under its Azeri variant makes a lot of sense. VartanM (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, nothing but bad faith assumptions. Btw, Verjakette/Erkusukes/Yerkatagear is still active, as one of the recently registered Armenian editors, you can ask all your questions to him. You know who that person is. Grandmaster 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, please tell me who this new Armenian user is. is indeed interesting. With all the IP addresses that this user has used, as well as his knowledge of Misplaced Pages, he knew that his oppose vote would be rejected and that he was only discrediting the opposing side. VartanM (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See last CU on Erkusukes, the clue is there. As for the voting, is Divot (talk · contribs) Azeri? He did the same thing as the IP, with the same result. If a certain group of editors did not want to be discredited, they should not have engaged in meatpupetry and vote stacking in the first place. No need to blame others for your own deeds. I think this thread needs to be closed, the issue is resolved, and further discussions about this are pointless. Grandmaster 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so eager to close this? I have a legitimate reason to believe that Azad Chai and other socks associated with him are strawpuppet accounts. The timing and the way they edit articles all point out to their strawpuppetness. Thanks for the info on Capasitor, lets see how long it takes 'till this "Armenian" gets himself banned and a new set of Capasitor socks appear. VartanM (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing the IP accomplished is for you to now point your finger at a certain group of editors and accuse them of meatpuppetry. And thats my proof, confirmed by you, that a certain group of editors engages in strawpuppetry, Thanks. VartanM (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you talk to the guy, ask for his name, maybe meet up to check his real life identity? You are in the same geographic region. Making bad faith assumptions will result in nothing, no one is gonna take them seriously. Remember the story with Ehud and the controversy, that resulted in an arbcom case and proved you wrong? And it is not just me accusing a certain group of editors of meatpuppetry, the entire community does, even Jimbo said that there was an "offsite campaign". If you have another conspiracy theory, there are ways to deal with that. Ask the admins or maybe the arbcom to investigate it, but you'll need something better than speculations. Grandmaster 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You claimed there was no evidence, I provided it, now you're claiming bad faith assumption. Here is more, perhaps you forgot, when we make allegations of strawpuppetry, the straw puppet makes them himself. It's interesting that he starts making those charges which will associate him with Rovoam. Then your awaited reply... I always knew that it was User:Rovoam behind all those accounts, and the above post is another proof. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC). When Dmcdevit run the checkuser and came to the conclusion that it's possibly Adil, based on geography, your reply was: Thanks. It is unlikely to be Adil, because all those accounts push extreme Armenian POV, while Adil's POV was quite the opposite. , and more interestingly another allegation by you: Rovoam has a geographic location close to Adil,... Do you know something about Rovoam we don't know? Dmcdevit wrote: Unrelated, and I have no idea about Rovoam, because the edits are too old and the only IPs we have marked for him were from open proxies. How do you know both live near each other? And now you claim that I should ask that new "supposed Armenian" user to answer, when you claimed it was obvious that those series of socks were Rovoam, who from his own admission was not Armenian. But not surprising, this new user you identified got himself blocked for this remark. As for Ehud, I'll give you a short answer, It was Adil. VartanM (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is starting to get way too personal. Vartan, if you think you have good enough evidence, submit it for a Checkuser. Otherwise, these accusations back and forth are getting out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by user

OK, let's wrap this up and give Steelerfan and Kalajan some breathing room. Steelerfan has apologized for his disruption ("trolling" and "stalking" were probably a bit too strong) and addressed the issues raised. If it resumes, then we can deal with it, but if not, the issue's basically settled. I don't believe rollback removal is called for, and that discussion has died down. What seems of interest to everyone at the moment, the "adoption" (and if anyone wants my take on that whole system, feel free to ask on my talk page) of Kalajan, is an issue between Steelerfan, Kalajan, and any potential future adopter, and is not an ANI matter. --barneca (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Steelerfan-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few days while I've been on, I've noticed Steelerfan-94 "troll" several times over several pages.

• Trolling and advertising his own Wiki at WT:GUNS, see - Also see this where Steelerfan-94 has been told not to do it, and has threatened to take it to "one of my MANY administrator friends". Add sarcastic comments as well.
• Stalking other user's edits.
• Further trolling towards a user who had only been online for 1/2 an hour. Also see User_talk:Steelerfan-94#Re:IDK if you know this and User talk:Steelerfan-94#My talk page

I'm not sure what to do here, so I thought I'd bring it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also been a little worried lately. Some comments here worried me a bit. ayematthew ✡ 12:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gave a final warning; further abusive commentary and spamming will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seicer, seems the appropriate action. Also strongly suggest removal of rollback. — neuro 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that suggestion. ayematthew ✡ 14:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with that suggestion. I agree with seicer's warning - but disagree with removal or rollback. I don't see any good-faith additions being rollbacked. He warned Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) for misuse of rollback here - if anything, it seems Scorpion0422's rollback rights need to be revoked. D.M.N. (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See , , , , and . Just a few -- and having Rollback is about trust. If we can't trust him, he shouldn't have rollback. ayematthew ✡ 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, those examples show the editor using rollback to remove unsourced info, vandalism and generally poor IP edits. Black Kite 14:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

They seem like using rollback to revert good-faith non-vandalism edits to me. ayematthew ✡ 14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see rollback abuse. This edit is reverting unsourced and really shitty material; this was unsourced; ditto; etc. Typically, that is not covered under rollbacks -- an undo with a description would be preferred, but this is not abuse by any stretch. seicer | talk | contribs 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem is the editwarring of the advertisement primarily. Whether it is undo warring or not, edit warring is not acceptable, especially for someone with a tool which could aid them in committing it. It's simply being preventative. — neuro 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've mentioned me (adoptee), I'm not going to accept another user as an adopter. Kalajan 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Steelerfan is well-meaning but misguided, generally speaking. And he is not ready, by any stretch of the word, to be adopting new users. That's not a personal dig; he's just not ready, as he doesn't have a firm enough grasp of how things work yet. I don't believe he needs to be either blocked or banned, but I would suggest that he not continue adoption, and that he be adopted/mentored by an experienced user for a couple of months until he finds his feet. // roux   19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this as well, but do with that what you will. ayematthew ✡ 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

At this stage I should state, even though this occured earlier in the year, Steelerfan-94 used sockpuppet accounts as an attempt to harrass/joe-job banned users. D.M.N. (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But the past is the past, and by the way, that's why they don't have perpetual any more. And by the way, me and steelers are doing fine, I don't know what's your problem with him but I don't like it one bit. And by the way, Steelers is nay but depressed, for he's had a family incident or somewhat. Kalajan 20:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Steelerfan as a person. I have valid concerns with some of his behaviour, especially in light of his lack of understanding of basic policy and community norms. In light of those concerns, I think he should cease his adoption of you, because he's not teaching you things correctly. Yes, there is a lot of room for interpretation in WP policies and guidelines and community norms. That's fine. But he shows a basic lack of grasp of many of them, which is a bad thing to be passing on. That's all. As for his family issues, I am very sorry that he is experiencing them, but Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and if he is unable to contribute constructively he should take some time off. But I don't think that a recent family tragedy explains the not-infrequently problematic nature of his edits, which are more of an ongoing pattern. As far as I can see, most of the problems--which I stress are not enormous, and mostly seem to be good faith but misguided attempts--are easily addressed by a period of mentoring/adoption by a patient and more experienced editor. But until that sort of mentoring occurs, I really feel he should not be adopting anyone else. // roux   21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best option is to give Steelerfan a mentour, and find Kalajan a new adopter. ayematthew ✡ 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I provided my evidence at the beginning of the thread. I don't have a "problem" with him or anyone for that matter. D.M.N. (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For example when my grandad died, I wasn't myself for months, and precisely the year following my Granma died, so that is a major depression, kind of what Steelers told me on email. Kalajan 20:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Steelerfan is a menteur mentoring? *blink* ♪BMWΔ 22:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would like to apologize for my actions, And I would never ever think of rollbacking edits on a talk page!! This is no excuse but my grandmother died a couple weeks ago, I'm really upset now, and that might explain why I've been....IDK. I admit, I really haven't done Kalajan justice in the stuff I've though him, since the last month (with my grandmother) I really haven't had the time nor the desire. Again I apologize for my uncivil actions, I humbly ask you don't take my rollback rights away since I've not abused them. I think it would be better for everybody if Kalajan was adopted by somebody else, I would like to pick somebody though because I know his personality more than anybody on here,

(I wany him to go to somebody right). I'm not emotionally fit right now to teach a user to become a good wikipedian. Again please accept my deepest sincere apology. SteelersFan-94 01:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is a sort of EUI situation, impaired temperament, perhaps. Hey, I retract any suggestions on the basis that I am in a very, very similar position. — neuro 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a hand full user's in mind that I would like to take over his adoption. I'll get in contact with the one me and him see best fit for the job. I on the other hand, am going to take a few weeks off from here, maybe longer IDK. SteelersFan-94 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be adopted by any one other than steelers. Kalajan 11:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and why would that be? ayematthew ✡ 11:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kalajan, don't worry about being adopted or not being adopted. Right above this you can see that Steelerfan-94 says he's got some people in mind he thinks can handle it. Just take a step back and relax for a bit.  Hazardous Matt  14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New editor User:Johnnysmitthy deleting text in multiple articles saying ' no reference must go wiki rules!'

A new editor removing loads of text from Christian related articles because there is no reference and also stating that he plans to use 'other IDs' for editing . I'm not sure what to do about him. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're being trolled. Indefblocked, but as always open to review ;) EyeSerene 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was also looking at this and am ok with an indef block for now, let's see if an unblock request shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, although the edit history doesn't look very promising I'd be happy to be proved wrong. EyeSerene 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a sock, because it seems that he know quite a lot about wiki. Dontcha think? Kalajan 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that the person is automatically blocked, even if they do have a sock, it could be legitimate (not saying that it is... well.) — neuro 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

SA - once again

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#user:ScienceApologist filed.

This one came to my attention via WP:WQA.

Please see the entire discussion here, with the most grave and concerning being SA's phrase "... have taken our collaboration to other venues explicitly to avoid you" (emphasis mine). ♪BMWΔ 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought disengaging from situations was to be encouraged per WP:DRAMA? Am I wrong? I just gathered like-minded users of all stripes and had them help me come up with ideas for how to make a decent science standards page that we could point editors to in hopes that they might be able to have some guidelines for how to edit wikipages related to science. The current wording has some problems, but the collaboration is far from moribund. The issue is that the talkpage had attracted too many distractions. We need some space from the various disruptive influence that continually derail the discussion in order to do our work. However, I'd like to keep the proposal status up at least. We still haven't completed our work yet. M'kay? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is not an isolated incident. See this edit summary. He had said he would take a break until after the New Year. I think we should enforce that good idea. SA appears to be engaging in gratuitous incivility that only serves to provoke other editors. Nobody has provoked him recently. To say the least, I am exasperated that SA is thumbing his nose at those who have tried to help him in the past. This situation cannot continue. Jehochman 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, There is no such thing as the F-P effect. It is just shitty researchers doing shitty research. That's a quote from a fairly famous physics professor about cold fusion. If you missed the allusion, I'm sorry. However, it's always funny when people who aren't familiar with the environment and ideas around the subject interject their own off-base interpretations for situations. Jehochman has a really poor history in this regard. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support a block of indeterminate length, as this incivility is obvious hindering users from working constructively on Wiki. Garden. 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, since Gandalf has been unable to change that tag from proposal to historical this encyclopedia has totally been ruined. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I nearly overlooked SA's latest actions, mainly because I have recused myself from most science-related matters, but working behind the scenes (see also: ) to implement broad changes to avoid "nagging" editors is not what I consider constructive. Per the rationales given above, and the community's exhaustion of attempting to work with this editor, I would suggest a block of an indeterminate length to be reviewed in one month, and with a periodic review of actions henceforth. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The words "enough is enough" come to mind. // roux   17:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could give notification to SA. Oh wait.... Crdamon, if you cannot give an unbiased notification, please let someone else do that. seicer | talk | contribs 18:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess it's okay to be rude and uncivil to "Crdamon". Just so that you can sleep with yourself at night, seicer. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some ideas:

1. Admonish Gandalf to stop his obsessive disruption in the ongoing project to make content standards for Misplaced Pages. We wouldn't have to collaborate with like-minded users over e-mail if there weren't so many distractions from the peanut gallery of wikistalkers and content-haters.
2. Desysop Jehochman for a wide range of problematic behaviors including his continual fishing expeditions in checkuserdom, his blatant conflict-of-interest promoting of certain kinds of search-engine optimization, and his obsessive drive to "reform" users who are working just fine without his "help", thank you very much.
3. Desysop and block seicer for personally attacking expert editors and scientists like myself and User:R while he adds little to no content to the encyclopedia. You can also block him for wikistalking me. He shows up every time there is a complaint to yell and scream and stamp his feet: "Ban SA! Band SA! Ban SA!" Hasn't he done enough damage to this project already?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:ScienceApologist

I think that at this point, requesting a community ban of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I am in support of a community ban for an indeterminate period to be reevaluated at an undetermined point in the future.

Per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban, ScienceApologist has been proven repeatedly that he is disruptive in a specific area of Misplaced Pages, notably science/pseudoscience-related articles. A topic ban may be effective, but only if it is enforced, but that has thus far shown to be ineffective. He has also exhausted the community's patience to the point that multiple blocks and editing restrictions have not given the results desired.

SA is also under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, although this has been proven ineffective. SA also has 14 blocks that I can count, that are not adjustments or refactors.

In reply to the "wikistalking" commentary, I was a mediator for Cold Fusion, and as such, I implemented editing restrictions for the duration of the mediation, and although SA initially agreed to be a participant of the mediation process, he refused to participate in a constructive manner, and was thus removed as a result of the mediation, and the disruptions that ensued post-mediation due to edit warring and general hostility, I have passively monitored SA's contributions, as has other administrators. He has been the subject at ANI/WP:AN/AN, RFC and etc. far too many times, and his general negativity, as expressed here and elsewhere, is not warranted.

Relevant links may include:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban: User:Pcarbonn from Cold fusion and related articles
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#Please_review_this_case
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#diffs_just_from_November
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
• Two rejected ArbCom cases:
• A previously failed Request for Mediation.

I am still reminded of this quote, which I have whored around extensively: "I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." Penned by Jimbo Wales at 22:51 5 February 2008. seicer | talk | contribs 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What a lark! Seicer is an "editor" who appears to me to revel in the punitive model. I think he takes particular pleasure in his ability to cause certain administrative actions (in particular blocking) that give him the ability to remove editorial privileges from others. At this point, Seicer is exclusively involved in "admin actions". He has essentially ceased from doing anything related to content in the encyclopedia. My first encounter with him exposed a side of seicer that to me indicates he was doing mediation as a way to get a power-trip: enjoying that he had "final say" over disputes. What ended up coming out of that mediation was a newly empowered cold fusion promoter who was so excited that he wrote an article in a cold fusion periodical about how he got Misplaced Pages to promote cold fusion "properly". That's what the cold fusion arbitration ended up being about. Since I pointed out problems with seicer both to mediators and on his RfA, he has been relentless (not passive) in showing up every time punitive measures against me are discussed. This is not the first time he has called for a ban, but I think he's emboldened by the last ban with which he was involved. Unfortunately, the problems with administrators like seicer is all they want to do is obsess over discipline and punishment. A year ago, I admonished seicer to stay away from me. He cannot. He is an administrator obsessed, fairly drunk on his own perception of power. He's not here for the good of the encyclopedia. He's here solely to play the community game.

Quite apart from this, seicer's presentation is fairly full of a great deal of pedantic innuendo, harebrained misunderstandings, and false accusations. I am tempted to go through it and point out its various ludicrous features, but I'm willing to spare the general audience this critique. If you would like me to present my response to seicer and perhaps see some examples of his lack of sound judgment and reason, shoot me an e-mail.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No current opinion...I see SA's name here a lot, but have never really looked at his edits...I just think it's funny that you did exactly what he said you would do...also, maybe this would be better on WP:AN? --Smashville 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

explitive deleted - I wish it was not coming to this, but SA is by far his own worst enemy. I don't quite know how I feel about a full site ban, maybe a term limited ban on 'science' broadly construed? (to mean anything that uses the word science in it (pseudosciences, medial sciences, etc.)? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So I'd still be able to nominate parochial documentaries made by self-promoting New Age gurus for deletion? Or are those science-related too? How about articles on mathematical functions? Mapmaking? Banking panics? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

off the top of my head, without thinking it through? I'd say stick to politics, ethnic cleansing, and myspace bands. Even without a restriction, I think you'd be better off personally by spending a few months away from any subject you actually care about. It's why I don't spend much time on politics, I care to much to do a good job. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That response pretty much indicates that you really haven't thought it through. I think you misunderstand the ways editors like myself operate. We aren't here to improve Misplaced Pages in general, we're here to make sure students don't get misled. I'm not a politics expert, so I have no way to evaluate politics articles, nor would I want me to evaluate politics articles. I would want an expert to evaluate politics articles. Likewise with ethnic cleansing and myspace bands. I appreciate your attempts to offer me advice on how I would be better off "personally", but actually find the suggestion ridiculously rude and condescending. I appreciate your perspective and the way you work on articles. Perhaps you could afford me some respect? After all, what have I done to you? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment does get at some of the differences between your and my views of the project. Since I'm not being compensated in any way by the project, it is a hobby, a way to spend time that is stimulating, but not 'work', therefore any part of it that causes me stress is to be avoided. I understand your desire to encourage this to be a real reference work, my view is that rudeness and editwarring are not the way to achieve that goal. I think you would get much more mileage towards protection of students by working to get flagged revisions implemented in all article space. In addition, my first comment was exactly my reaction to reading the headder (f*, this is not going to help). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't support flagged revisions because I have too dim a view of the vetting of who would be a "flagged revisioner". I think that Misplaced Pages should remain a wild-west frontier of secondary and tertiary source research because the last thing we need are fake and unaccountable systems for determining articles that have passed content tests that are arbitrary simply because the Misplaced Pages community is arbitrary. As long as experts are not accepted as experts at Misplaced Pages, flagged revisions will not work. We need to make sure that Misplaced Pages maintains its reputation as a reference work that needs to be double-checked. That said, even though I don't support flagged revisions, there is no point in keeping poor content in the website that most students check first when doing their homework. While I have docked considerable points off of students who have cited Misplaced Pages as a source for various facts they have included in reports, I am under no illusion that students turn to Misplaced Pages first even if they don't cite it in their papers. An ideal system would allow for a recognition of experts, but barring that, an ideal system would have enough people watching over Misplaced Pages articles making sure that the content is maintained at a level close to "tolerable". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any indefinite ban of SA. Banning SA would hand a major victory to the POV-pushers, quackery advocates, and other malcontents who have campaigned and canvassed on and off wiki for his removal. As well as to the administrative vested contributors who have been using this conflict to win social points. SA is often the only editor actively working in a given area of pseudoscience who is interested in upholding NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and if there is a perceived failing of his behavior it is our doing because we have valued civility over building a serious reference encyclopedia. Skinwalker (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support ban - Looking through the links to past cases, it is painfully obvious that this user has run out of chances. Even cats can reach the end of their 9 lives if they aren't careful enough. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So you're into the Misplaced Pages:Punitive model, are you? Let me ask you, will banning me improve the articles upon which I'm working? What's your evidence? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence. Parapsychology: featured article created in SA's absence, ongoing war zone and poorer article since his arrival. Atropa Belladonna: war zone during SA's presence , significant imporvement within a few days of his page ban. Note also that as soon as SA was booted, peace broke out among the warring editors, here , , , . Consider also all the good work editors like Mr Darwin , and Annalisa Ventola could have done if SA hadn't driven them off Wiki. Consider also the number of Good or Featured articles that SA has in (the last two years - all I've checked) made significant contributions to in the three months prior to them attaining that status: zero and zero. The fact is that this editor contributes nothing to the encyclopaedia except disruption and grief. The door is wide open - has anyone got the courage to apply the boot. 94.229.69.147 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Parapsychology" was a featured article? I hope it was in the section labeled "Fiction". Baseball Bugs 21:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That really is the heart of the problem here, this notion that your supposed invaluable contributions to the project should give you a Get Out of Jail Free card for incivility. Whether an article gets better or worse without your presence is not something that I take into consideration, nor should anyone else, so let's drop that red herring, eh? Somehow, though, I don't think the project will fall to ruin without your removal from it. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a get-out-of-jail-free card for incivility. In fact, I have, on my user talk page, a procedure for dealing with perceived incivility. Some people have used it and it has worked very well. I encourage you to use it if you think I've been uncivil to you. Whether an article gets worse or better is ultimately all that matters to me. My goal is and always has been to make sure that Misplaced Pages articles would not be hawking snake oil, saying false things were true, or promoting intellectually bankrupt ideas as on-par or better than the mainstream understanding of the subjects. That's the entire reason I edit. If I could be convinced that banning me would achieve this goal in a timely manner, then I would be clamboring for it. However, I'm pretty convinced from time I've spent away from Misplaced Pages that when I'm gone certain sectors of this encyclopedia tend to degenerate rather quickly. We still have problems on parapsychology related to this. Anyway... the point is that you simply are not interested in encyclopedia content. That is very problematic, in my book. It makes you a very problematic Misplaced Pages user -- one who apparently thinks that the community trumps content. I'm pretty sure the "project" will not fail if I'm indefinitely banned. It runs fine when I'm not around. It will just fill up with fringe/pseudoscience cruft, weasely rewordings, original research, and unduly weighted prose that will drive students to research the deep deep connections between quantum electrodynamics and near-death experiences. Anyway, thanks for your input in this matter. You've taught me a lot about your idealizations with far less arrogant verbosity than I employ. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, claiming that I am "not interested in encyclopedia content" because I don't excuse your long-running incivility for the sake of your contributions it quite a fallacious argument. "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work", as noted above, is exactly the mindset tat I really do not care for around here. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you are not interested in encyclopedia content because you wrote: "Whether an article gets better or worse without your presence is not something that I take into consideration, nor should anyone else, so let's drop that red herring, eh?" That attitude is essentially saying that you're not interested in encyclopedia content. And Jimbo Wales is simply wrong with that quote as evidenced in general by Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing. Jerks who do good work should be welcomed and channeled appropriately. I actually mentor a couple (yes, there are people who are more uncivil than I, does that surprise you?) to help them get their content contributions into Misplaced Pages. Jerks they may be, but with the appropriate help they are not disruptive to the Misplaced Pages. The nice ones who fuck up the content, they're the real problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any ban of SA. It would be a sad day for WP to loose a contributor like SA, even for finite period of time. On many article pages he is the last line of defense against unscientific, esoteric fringe/pseudo-science. The fact that he is sheer impossible to wear down by the repeated inclusion of unencyclopedic information, that he takes a stand and preserves some of the seriousness and credibility of Misplaced Pages, earns him nothing but my greatest respect here. --Dschwen 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of the drama appears to have been content disputes related to the reliabiliity of sources and minor incivility, per the findings in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Without particular diffs presented here, it is not feasable to search out all of his edits to see their quality and nature. Some of the opposition to this editor seems to be from those with a fringe agenda to push, so a community ban or topic ban might be too convenient. The case for such a ban has not been made in this discussion, so far. All that have been presented have been generalities. Please link to a specific archive in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, not to the general topic, leaving each reader to do endless searching. Edison (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose First, I have not been involved in any dispute regarding SA, either in his favor or against him, with the possible exception of an AFD or two he was involved in (none stick out in my mind, but I would not be surprised if I commented on an article he nominated, etc.) That said, I believe SA should not be banned. I think far too many editors (myself included) would rather avoid the drama from challenging fringe views constantly inserted by POV pushers. SA refuses to back down, which has led to his many blocks. I think this is more a reflection on the fact that he is constantly piled on by various editors for removing questionable/doubtful/fringe material, and that he does lash out when pushed beyond a certain point. I don't think there is anyone here who wouldn't have blocks on their records if they chose to stay as involved in such contentious and emotional issues as SA has. I think the fact that he is one of the few editors willing to stand up against the fringe theories and unsubstantiated claims made by some authors should earn him a commendation, not a petition for a ban. Has he crossed the line in the past? Yes. Will he likely continue to if he is not banned? Almost certainly. However, unlike a vandalism-only account or deliberately disruptive editing, SA as a contributor is a net positive. I believe many of the disputes that SA has taken the brunt of the blame in is due to his history, and that if taken alone, many of the editors he has been in disputes with would be determined to be provacative and at fault. Again, I oppose the ban, yet encourage SA not to rise to the bait of POV pushers and to try to maintain as civil of an attitude as possible, even in the face of disruption and attacks. If for no other reason, maintain this civility to prevent a block or ban in the future, even if the editor in question is the first to break WP:civil. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - yes, he's fighting the good fight against fringe-pushers. So are other people. While the most vocal, Misplaced Pages will not be over-run if he's gone. Compare this to Betacommand, who we eventually got sick of even though he was doing a large and thankless task, and he got stripped his bot's rights. I would've not commented otherwise, but seeing the below section... I think he's creating more heat than lgiht. Sceptre 20:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• oppose Per Theseeker and Edison. Having civility issues doesn't change the fact that SA is one of the few editors willing to deal with the absolutely thankless task of handling POV pushers. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - SA creates a battlezone within these articles, driving away all but the fringe advocates, and a few hardy defenders. If SA were removed from the mix, I believe an increased number of reasonable editors would participate in editing, and the quality of the affected articles would improve markedly. SA just doesn't get it, and probably won't get it any time soon. They have been given more than enough chances already, and their behavior is becoming worse rather than better. We must drawn the line and say that disruptive editors, no matter what their editorial outlook, will not be tolerated. Jehochman 20:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As noted earlier, here are further relevant links and/or cases,

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, where SA was cautioned in 2006 about such acts.
• As such, he has been blocked three times for violations, logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans.
• Not a serious death threat, but worth noting. seicer | talk | contribs 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban ScienceApologist's work here is too valuable to cast away. Other solutions are needed. Enigma 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seicer, since you started this thread, would you be so kind as to request arbitration. As is typical, we are not getting a clear result here. This mess needs to be resolved. The death threat issue resulted in a final, final warning from User:FT2. Things are going in the wrong direction. Let's clean up this mess. Jehochman 20:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Ban I have been trying to overlook the combative nature that SA brings to Misplaced Pages. When I saw the WQA report, I knew it could not be dealt with quietly, and brought it here. Unfortunately, the completely 110% retaliatory thread below about Seicer was perhaps the final straw ... we could always give him 2 weeks rest, during which time he can determine if he actually wishes to a) play nice b) contribute and allow/assist all to contributing to this project. When he comes back, first negative interaction makes him history, permanently. ♪BMWΔ 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So is every negative interaction to be interpreted after my proposed two-week ban as automatically my fault? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose and file a request for arbitration per Jehochman. PhilKnight (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications; and filing a RFAR... just takes some time. seicer | talk | contribs 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We should not be trying to help SA to improve his game, and to manage the endless civil POV-pushing by fringe and pseudoscience advocates, not punishing him for being just about the only person prepared to work for neutrality on these articles. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban because SA does do extremely good work, often largely unsupported, preventing fringe theories from getting undue prominence, which is vital for any reference work to maintain respectability. I should, however, register some serious concerns about some of his actions, including this and the thread below. Some sort of measure would be desirable here, such as stronger protection against fringe theorists so SA doesn't have to get so worked up, or some people to support or guide him. Hut 8.5 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per Hut, Skinwalker, etc. dougweller (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban it is good that someone has the energy to oppose all the quackery on English wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support. NPOV is the golden mean between quackery and elitism. SA falls squarely into the latter category -- his user page makes clear that he does not agree with the true defition of NPOV -- his criterion for article inclusion is not "documenting verifiable facts and published POVs without judgment" but "presenting the opinions of his preferred scientists as true." What's really amazing to me is that he's been pulling this nonsense for three years, and nobody's put a stop to it. Quackery and elitism are equally false -- but elitism is much more dangerous, because it wields power. Ungtss (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I like working with ScienceWatcher, but only because he is on the same side of me (perhaps paradigm rather than side?) I would never, ever want to be on his bad side. Hrafn, Orangemarlin and now Sciencewatcher are all editors I have admired and feared for understanding what it means to try to raise the quality as well as quantity of articles on wikipedia, but simply do not mix well with the cranks and quacks they often oppose. I despair at losing another knowledgeable editor who knows what science is, how it works, and most importantly how to verify it, but despair even more that a lack of civility is going to be the downfall of yet another good editor. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:seicer

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Close. This does not help the encyclopedia at all. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am unhiding this so all can see. Jehochman 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been hidden again, per Smashville. All can see if they click "view". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that at this point, requesting a community ban of seicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I am in support of a community ban for an indeterminate period to be reevaluated at an undetermined point in the future.

Per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban, secier has been proven repeatedly that he is disruptive in a specific area of Misplaced Pages, notably scaring off editors who are scientists. A topic ban may be effective, but only if it is enforced, but that has thus far shown to be ineffective. He has also exhausted the community's patience to the point that multiple reminders to disengage with users with whom he has a demonstrated vendetta have not given the results desired. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I request that you refactor or remove this unhelpful addition. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this unhelpful? I truly believe that the community would benefit from a removal of seicer. I have pointed this out many times. We could make a deal, you remove your expletive deleted post about and I'll remove this related request here. They seem to be similarly posed. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to prove a WP:POINT. D.M.N. (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I'd agree with you if I really didn't want to get seicer banned. But I actually do. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he's an admin, therefore, this isn't the forum. --Smashville 20:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Childish, pointy, and wholly indicative that this user simply doesn't get it. This section should be stricken from the discussion. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ageist, are we? You know that many of the people who are active administrators and editors on Misplaced Pages are children, right? Some of them do very good work. As for the suugestion that the "user simply doesn't get it." I agree with you 100%. I would love it if someone were to help me get it. Unfortunately, I can't find anyone willing to mentor me. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. SA, could you please settle down and stop the incivility and pointy comebacks? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a mess. I don't much care for the term "incivility" as it gets bandied about in such a way these days as to make me question what its definition really is. I decided to engage in this conversation (normally I stay the hell away from them) because I want to see what's going on here. Visions of Gianoplumbs dance in my head, you see. But, Gwen, for you, I will archive this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SA, would you mind removing this section? It's clearly pointy...I get that you're frustrated, but chances are that if this influences anyone, it's going to work against you... --Smashville 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Don't delete anything. Leave it here for everyone to see. If SA wants to refactor their own comments, that is their choice, but they may not delete anybody else's remarks. Jehochman 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I did remove the section. Jehochman put it back. However, I think it is my right to put hat and hab on discussions I wish to archive. I do-so now again. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment Er, so ... ArbComm won't accept cases until January. Until then, SA is free to go about his way with the incivility on a willy-nilly basis, or shall someone be keeping an eye on him? Just checking, as a truly uninvolved yet concerned editor. ♪BMWΔ 21:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Having people "keep an eye on me" is rarely a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right: incivility, lack of belief that rules and policies apply to you, the failure to recognize that everyone has both a right to edit and has something to add to Misplaced Pages are the more common problems... ♪BMWΔ 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess your feigned commitment to civility doesn't extend to me. No, feel free to put words into my mouth and personally attack me. It's all in a days work as a self-appointed civility policeman, isn't it? In any case, the "lack of belief that rules and policies apply to you" is not something I have. I'm very aware as to how Misplaced Pages policies and rules apply to me and I'm reminded of this incessantly. I'll also point out that your claim that everyone has a "right" to edit Misplaced Pages is wrong. We are all here as volunteers for WMF, and the foundation can ask us to leave at any time for any reason. As to your final claim, while I too believe that everyone has the ability to add something to Misplaced Pages, there are a fair number of people who, while they may have something to add, tend to add (or subtract) things that make it worthwhile for us to consider showing them the door. Anyway, I suggest you take some of your own medicine and give yourself a level 1 civility warning. I consider "civility" to be wholly in the eye of the beholder. I have a system on my talkpage for dealing with perceived slights of incivility. I encourage you to avail yourself of it. I think that when people do it, it really helps. I have just done it for you. I have explained that your comment strikes me as particularly uncivil. Care to refactor? (I won't hold my breath.) ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anything uncivil above...merely a polite distillation of the issues that raised this thread (and the ArbComm) in the first place. "You" is not being used to specifically refer to YOU, it's a general statement. ♪BMWΔ 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a back and forth here. Let ArbCom deal with it if they are going to, otherwise it's obviously not something ArbCom feels needs to be addressed, in which case nobody here should be taking it upon themselves to try to do any ad hoc enforcement/vigilantism. I highly recommend, however, that anyone who complains about civility at least be civil in the complaint, otherwise it's obvious the problem is not as one sided as they pretend. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

99.49.233.250

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

Editor has returned from being blocked for harassment (wikistalking and reverting), the editor is back and doing the same. (Is there a more appropriate place for such reports?) --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a week. While not strictly WP:AIV material, no-one will complain if you report such obvious cases there. Best, Blood Red Sandman 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account

User:Elnerdo hadn't edited in over a year, and all of a sudden inserted attacks on some IP talk pages for IPs that had never edited. These talk pages are currently up for speedy deletion. As I'm not an admin, and therefore cannot view deleted contribs, I don't know if this is normal behavior for this user, but if the user has had no history of randomly doing this, I'd be willing to bet it's compromised. PCHS-NJROTC 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, but last edit was 17 December, so I'd allow for Editing Under the Influence as a defence Or those being his own IPs (no excuse, but still). Report again should they do it again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So wait... those are his own IPs? PCHS-NJROTC 19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you're saying IF those are his own IPs. PCHS-NJROTC 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What? Note: I just blocked the account as it looks like having been compromised. — Aitias // discussion 19:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't to me, yet, in so far as this isn't the behaviour of a compromised account. They always do something bigger (WoW, the giant etc) because they're trying to exploit it. In this case, it was one good and three poor (non-article) edits. It just doesn't have the MO. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Elnerdo's other edits all look good. Why should he suddenly start vandalising? — Aitias // discussion 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not very vandalism. It's the adding of inappropriate material to three, related, IP address talk pages. Are they his? Is this EUI? Is there a sane reason for this, or at least a reason short of "compromised account"? The answer to the latter could be yes, and that's where WP:AGF steps in, especially since the last edit was 5 days ago. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And he's replied: they are his own IPs. Will you unblock now? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Already  Done. — Aitias // discussion 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fab. Thank you. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WorldFacts and USS Liberty Incident

SPA acccount (see ) User:WorldFacts, recently received a block for edit warring on USS Liberty Incident see . First thing he did on his return today was to re-introduce the same material yet again. See . He has also left a bad faith message on the blocking admin's talk page see . His edit continues to give undue significance to fringe material and duplicates material already in the article. As noted on his block message here and here WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. One of the editors, Narson, accused on being a meat puppet of Jayjg actually inserted a paragraph into the article on the subject of Moorer (WorldFacts pet subject) some 6 or more weeks ago.

The block doesn't seem to have worked, WorldFacts has been disruptively editing the article for some time and User:BQZip01 is attempting to mediate on improving the article. I can't see mediation working unless the editors involved a) using the talk page as intended and b) taking part in the dispute resolution process. The article seems to have attracted a couple of SPA who have disrupted the attempt to improve the article by introducing fringe material with undue prominence and making bad faith accusations of censorship and "cover up" against other editors. As a result many good faith editors are reluctant to get involved in improving the article.

I would suggest that the article is placed under a 1RR provision so that any editor that reverts more than once or reverts to re-introduce contentious material is blocked. Justin talk 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This maybe stretching it, but wouldn't this fall under WP:ARBPIA? The incident involves Israel and took place during an Israeli-Arab war... Rami R 21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look as I'm still online. The article would certainly fall within that overall umbrella as it has become linked to the Middle-East conflict and US support for Israel. However, it might be perceived as stretching a point, I think I'd prefer to see the current issues discussed and see if my suggestion for a 1RR probation on the article receives community consensus. Thanks for the suggestion though, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it if it had wider community consensus. Justin talk 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I must apologise for User:WorldFacts who has become obsessed with one of the lesser distortions of this article. Moorer is undoubtedly a significant source and is not being treated properly. But ultimately, he and his colleagues are the retired US military establishment demanding that a real investigation be carried out and the official record brought into line with what eveyone knows and the RSs tell us about this incident. There seems to be no real dispute, in 1995 (according to the "International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence") "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately". Can I be sure that that was the mainstream 28 years after the event (13 years ago)? Why, yes, I can - even the very pro-Israel JVL accepts it was true when it was written, only laughably claiming that subsequent FOI releases have exonerated Israel "even of criminal negligence". The RS version is roughly what the article will say when it's written to policy.
However, in the meantime, ANIs like this (an earlier one sought to smear others editors as antisemitic) are an attempt to lock the article into it's current laughable state and prevent a whole raft of real issues and sources that have been edit-warred out once from ever being re-included. (The trick is to introduce trivial and non-policy objections and then falsely claim improvements are edit-wars).
And if you wonder how an article can have got this bad and not been corrected earlier, then have a look at the really serious editing problems currently plaguing this article. Even when consensus is reached, it's proved impossible to get the necessary agreed edits to stick, there is rampant edit-warring not from WorldFacts but from others very much more effective in imposing their POV. Most editors (5 against inclusion, 2 in favour) object to a particular quote coming from a very problematical source - do you suppose it's possible to keep it out? No, edit-warring rules when it comes to inclusion of, in this case, what at least two of the 5 opposing editors think is a straight-forward lie. PR 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that PR should apologize for me. However, I do not not fault PR for doing so. Instead, I'll accept the apology to others by proxy in the spirit it is intended. Before I begin, I would like to point out an amazingly brazen LIE printed by none other then Justin. The Lie: "WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page." Any look at the discussion pages of the USS Liberty will show that between September and today, I have added an extraordinary amount of commentary. There are several archives with commentary I have made. See USS Liberty incident archive 4, 6 and the current discussion page. Just thought I'd point that out. Many others have agreed that my entries should be included. When others agreed with my comments, and there have been many, I have generally stayed out of discussions with others. But one major attempt at reconciliation, available in Archive 4, shows that I have gone out of my way attempting to appease other editors, taking their respective views into account.

That being said, I certainly would not apologize for attempting to add (and add, and add, ad infinitum) a reference to a notable report as the USS Liberty incident page requires a serious dose of reality. The persistent minority who continue their edit war AGAINST the Moorer Report have never been able to successfully argue against the entry. This fact is confirmed by the fact that a link to the Moorer report does exist on the USS Liberty incident page. As some of us already know, truth and reality have nothing to do with how Israel is allowed to be portrayed to the public. A link to the report is acceptable. Damning Israel via displaying contents of the report is not.

It is also not surprising that I am described as the one in an 'edit-war', when I am ADDING valid information, and those who delete the entry are removing facts from this article. Oddly, they imply they are not in an edit war, but I am. Curious, don't you think? A war requires 2 sides, so an edit war has 2 sides.

What is most important is which side is getting clandestine support from within Misplaced Pages and which side gets the majority of editors, both inside and outside of WikiPedia(*) to agree with him. My entries have been agreed to by a majority of editors within WikiPedia, but alas, that minority of editors who wish not to have the entry, and who miraculously are not involved in an edit war, and who are also deemed (by themselves!) to not be pushing their own POV, are getting their way.

I am most satisfied however, by the word on the street. People CAN read. People DO read. In those locations where the minority of editors here do not have the level of control Wiki provides the select few, the commentary shows without any shadow of doubt who is right. That would be me, of course. (*)Please check here. Wiki Articles and their discussions threads are read by more then just Wiki Editors. WorldFacts (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I really am not sure how to respond to this. The majority of wikipedia? I doubt the majority of wikipedia gives a damn either way or has even visited the article. Clandestine support? Ah, everyone supports you they just arn't saying it? Wikireview agrees with you? That is likely more that they hate Jayjg for various reasons and is hardly relevent to anything. Oh, and the moorer report is mentioned in the article. It doesn't need a poorly formatted giant ass section just for it.

Accusing Justin of lyingis also a little strong. You left a message full of bad faith assumptions on my talk page before you were blocked, including a statement that you "have found that talking isn't productive...", followed by more accusations and the usual load of dross about censorship. I do not think it is unreasonable for Justin to describe the fact you have edit warred to the point of 5 reverts in a row plus several other reverts without discussion as "WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page".

As a final point, PR accuses eveone of trying to keep the artice stagnant, yet he has refused the offer of BQZip01 to mediate because of ludicrous claims that the USAF will put pressure on him to get the result they want. There is a limit to how far we should pander to conspiracy theorist accusations. That limit is now behind us. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack

The above is a typical example of how the SPA on the USS Liberty Incident have frequently resorted to personal attacks against editors who are merely trying to help them understand wiki policies. As another uninvolved editor pointed out here and here, WorldFacts has not dicussed this proposed edit of his on the Talk Page since November 12. The edit is problematic not only because it introduces fringe material with undue significance, its duplicating material already in the article and the source quoted is a blog by a fringe author on a hard core porn website.

Could I please ask for an admin to intervene, the continued personal attacks and disruption by SPA editors are wearing everyone down. Justin talk 23:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with protocol

I have an opportunity which concerns a small group of administrators. Because of the heated exchanges of the past, I am interested in starting a conversation with an unbiased administrator . If you decide to assist, please don't acknowledge here. They follow and watch everything I do. Send me an email to . I would like to have a chance to discuss improvements without incurring disadvantages from the aforementioned. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely to happen. It's probably best to lay out your concerns, concisely and unemotionally, with diffs to support your assertions. People who are already involved will note themselves as such, and the community at large views possibly-biased statements accordingly. // roux   22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a quick look at his Talk page shows the source of this report. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Even odds this is about this debate about whether to include a quote attributed to Einstein on the Insanity article. The complainant appears to feel he is being oppressed by a couple of admins. An outside view suggests that the complainant doesn't quite understand how consensus works here. I don't see any admin abuse evident. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No admin abuse, and probably a little too much niceness based on this: "...Thank you. Genisock2 (talk) ... There you go, JennySuck. Now after I squeeze the last load on your puss, I back hand you towards the door". For crying out loud, this guy wasn't blocked for what really good reason? ♪BMWΔ 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. I missed that one. Jesus christ, who was asleep at the wheel on that one? // roux   23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support any admin who gives a lengthy block, to be removed only with a topic ban or a mentorship, or both. If a problem starts in Insanity, where will it end? ThuranX (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If he starts messing with the baseball pages, he's toast. Baseball Bugs 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Talk:Insanity#"Well Known Quotes" is that what should have been a simple discussion rapidly became far too emotional for no good reason. It's a simple matter, any experienced wikipedian would see the obvious and appropriate solution of transwikiing to wikiquotes, and that's it. No one is being repressed here, JPH turned up the drama to a grossly excessive degree over a minor content dispute. Admins aren't perfect, but people should listen when they make reasonable suggestions. No listening to reasonable suggestions here. No idea if this is characteristic of elsewhere, but in this case it was too much. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Undent. Reviewing JPH's talk page, I hadn't remembered for my above comment but it turns out I did have dealings with him during his initial edits to wikipedia. Since that time, apparently he has not learned that hostility is not welcome. As an editor, I don't mind turning up the civility during initial learning when noobs are usually more hostile than necessary. This is nearly a year later and the hostility is still there, apparently being used to win content disputes. JPH is leaving a bad taste in my mouth and I see no reason to ask for an unbiased administrator to review anything. This problem is not "Because of heated exchanges in the past", it's because of current (as of December, 2008) belligerence. He has been warned, next personal attack or incivility gets a block, then start escalating. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson received a last warning for personal attacks way back on May 28. Not only that but his trangressions go beyond just calling people hacks, shams, pricks and generally being a dick, he's also engaged in simple vandalism , removed AFD tags and posted copyright vio images. I beleive I'm one of the "admins" (he calls all other users admins by the way) he's referring to. Mostly because I spent quite some time posting about various Misplaced Pages policies, asking him to cool off etc. on his talk page. --Quartet 14:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I redacted the email, diff is here. — neuro 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing a quick review of Jeffrey Pierce Henderson's contributions over the last few weeks, I find that this is an interesting talk page comment. I still can't quite tell whether he is genuinely this worked up or if he simply has a fondness for hyperbole. Nevertheless, calling for media campaign and the personal involvement of Jimbo, threatening the project's tax-exempt status, and doing a bit of all-caps YELLING seems to be a...disproportionate response to what amounts to a very minor content question.

I am very concerned that unless this editor learns to stay cool – and perhaps have a cup of tea when he's about to hit 'save' – then he will continue to find himself frustrated by editing here, and probably won't be allowed to do so for much longer. I am also very concerned that an editor who has been editing regularly for the better part of a year hasn't already internalized those principles. If this is to be a 'final' warning, then it really must be final. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He may have been here a year more or less, but his actual edit count is very low - less than 200. I've read some of the interactions with Quartet, and I'm pretty sure that the problem is with JPH, not two admins viciously abusing their power for the fun of it. Were I the boss I'd put up a permablock and wait for an unblock request to explain what's going wrong, but I'm not and I've never had to negotiate the complexities of being an admin. I'm not sure what to do, but I'm sure something should be done, and common sense is probably better than a strict interpretation of the P&G. ThuranX suggestion makes sense to me. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to work with him but my patience quickly ran out when anything I said to him went totally unheaded. As a result I've stopped trying. I'm not stalking him by any means, however quite a few pages that he edits including his talk page are on my watchlist and I've watched him closely. And I'm not an admin and I've made that clear to him. By the way, this just appeared on this talk page ]--Quartet 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I can't tell you how much it means to me that I might be able to continue learning more about how to edit here on Misplaced Pages, but most importantly I am happy that I might continue learning how to debate important issues in a more peaceable and constructive manner. I want to thank the three admins who emailed me concerning my troubles here and want to assure all interested that I will heed and act upon all their suggestions. Furthermore, that I will conform to and abide by all the laws rules and regulations concerning editing articles in Misplaced Pages and will obey the spirit of the law of civility in future edits. I sincerely apologize for making that aforementioned comment and hope others will see past it. I want to put this behind me and make reconciliation if possible, but the problem I am running into is being repeatedly harassed by a small group of admins who refuse to let me advance to becoming a better editor. Just recently one of them threatened me again merely because I asked for help here, hence my request for an email. My problem is this. I don't know the protocol for getting assistance. I am not even sure I am in the right place! I have asked around outside Misplaced Pages to other editors and found that I am not alone. Am I at the right place to complain about a small group of admins, and am I safe from harassment form those admins when I post my concerns here? Thank you in advance. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this threat. // roux   17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

JPH: The very, very first post on your Talkpage: "If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question" ♪BMWΔ 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want this whole problem to go away, please read and take to heart WP:AGF. You may also want to consider adoption, and relying your adopter for advice for a while. You could also try politely asking an admin or two - they're usually helpful and pleasant if you don't insist on something without being aware of our rules. Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be quite complicated, yes, but that's a reason to patiently try to learn them rather than assuming they are intuitive and then insulting a bunch of people when it turns out you are wrong. This isn't a message board and we don't like flamewars. Note that on Talk:Bench press#Big James Henderson you actually posted an edit that ended up standing, after discussion to figure out the sourcing. Discussion works if you're willing to ask questions. Keep in mind that after this latest round of attention to your previous history and this noticeboard posting, your actions will be under close scrutiny by a larger number of editors than before - it's the reality of being flagged as problematic. So please be polite, and ask questions. I will happily try to help if you have an issue you are unsure of, and I am pretty confident any answers I give you will not get you into trouble. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I second what WLU posted above. Talk:Bench press#Big James Henderson was a pretty good example of working out a problem without getting uncivil. Talk:Insanity#.22Well_Known_Quotes.22 is not how to go about discussing changes to an article, especially this edit . And that edit was not the result of being harrassed by administrators or being held back from being a better editor. As I wrote on your talk page back in May - the key is to just learn what you may have done wrong and come back with better material that works within the policies and guidelines. Getting worked up about it and picking fights, calling people names and making threats about having admins stripped of their duties will only cause everything you do to be scrutinized further. Stay cool. And remember - anyone can edit your work at any time - and it's okay if they do. Articles are never finished... --Quartet 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My lack of knowledge has resulted in problems. I will review everyone's posts again and seek out assistance for future interaction, edits, and issues. I consider this thread finished, but I will keep returning here over the next couple of days to read any new posts to this thread. For all the advice and action, I thank everyone who posted to this thread, my talk page, and emailed me. I have learned a great deal and look forward to learning much more from you. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lack of knowledge" was responsible for this?? Okay.... Well I'll raise a toast to the hope that new knowledge helps curb your temper. BTW - does this new conversion mean you're handing out apologies for all the users you've insulted in the past? If so, mine can be posted on my talk page. Thanks! --Yankees76 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:News4a2

I am requesting admin review of News4a2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recent activities (I'm too involved to act). User has edit warred, and almost certainly violated 3RR, at Physician assistant (which has now been protected), has made numerous personal attacks diff, diff, and asserts these activities will continue diff. Perhaps a block is in order (my AIV submission was bounced here). --ZimZalaBim 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with ZimZalaBim and several others. I've stated my reasons for that disagreement. One of the parties siding with ZimZalaBim has just been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. As ZimZalaBim has Wiki-stalked me to the Physician Assistant page from the Industrial Espionage page by following my contributions link and deleting all my edits and contributions WP:Hound, I question his objectivity and motives. For all I know ZimZalaBim might be another sockpuppet of that same individual, Nomad2u001. The position of these parties is to block my sourced contributions, either by wholesale deletions of my contributions without compromise or revert of anything I add. This posting here is just the latest attempt to block my contributions to Wiki articles under the apparent guideline, "If you can't stop the message, kill the messenger." Either Misplaced Pages is open to contributions from all, or it isn't. And if it isn't, it isn't credible.News4a2 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The political commentary above didn't help your case. Provide good diff's in defence, and lay off the "either Misplaced Pages is xxx or else...", it will help :-) ♪BMWΔ 23:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What political commentary above? I was serious. I don't care if ZimZalaBim claims he's an administrator. ZimZalaBim wiki-stalked me to the Physician Assistant page from the Industrial Espionage page. He's deleted my contributions on the Industrial Espionage page without reason and again on the Physician Assistant page. He doesn't like my contributions so he deletes them, wholesale, as Nomad2u001 did. Now he's trying to block me from further contributions. I seriously question his motives. What else should I think? For one, he's using IP blocking software to disguise his origination -- -- and why hide if one is on the up and up?News4a2 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing ... these "personal" attacks alleged by ZimZalaBim (and roux) were me accusing Nomad2u001 of being a troll. And, guess what, Nomad2u001 was a troll with a lot of aliases and would have continued being a troll wrecking the integrity of Misplaced Pages had I not brought up the actions.diffNews4a2 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm "using IP blocking software to disguise origination"? Huh? --ZimZalaBim 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I consider this attempt to identify me and post an IP address harassment, and request the edit posting an IP address be removed from the page history, etc.--ZimZalaBim 05:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block

For WP:OUTING above, as well as the long stream of incivility and personal attacks. // roux   06:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Outing -- "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers (defined by Wiki as SSN, NIN, etc.), home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct" -- nothing there lists an IP Number. ZimZalaBim is using software to cover his tracks and for what reason? Kinda makes one think.News4a2 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I'm editing while logged in, and have no idea what he's talking about regarding cloaking my IP address. But if he's trying to uncover and post a users IP address, that is wrong. This is getting absurd. --ZimZalaBim 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's someone with Checkuser abusing their rights, the posting of an IP address is not outing. Perhaps you have indeed at one point or another edited without being logged in. Your IP address would have an edit history. That's not going to go away. It's a pretty childish and perhaps an uncivil thing to do, but I don't believe it's Outing whatsoever. News4a2, you really need to stand down on this, as you're currently escalating this beyond WP:DRAMA. ♪BMWΔ 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks to me like a case of harassment and attempted outing, well worthy of a block. PR 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The posting of someone's IP address is certainly bad form, unless it is being done to demonstrate a pattern of abusive behaviour (sockpuppetry to stack discussions or evade 3RR, making personal attacks while logged out, linking with previously abusive account, etc.). An IP address can potentially reveal or imply personal information about an editor — if the IP is linked to a large ISP, it may only suggest the editor's country of origin; if it is a corporate IP it may identify an editor's employer or school.

In the context of this report, I see no edits made by the reported IP address anywhere in the last 500 edits to physician assistant (going back to mid-September), industrial espionage (going back to the article's creation), or User talk:News4a2. Bringing up the edits putatively made by a registered editor while logged out serves no apparent constructive purpose in this context. Drawing attention to a logged-in editor's putative IP address serves to chill participation, inflame a dispute, and potentially enable harrassment. Not only that, where the IP given is incorrect, the attempted outing is apt to confuse future debates and discussions.

Whether or not News4a2's actions constitute a violation of the letter of policy, posting someone's putative IP address where there is no relevance to the discussion at hand is certainly a violation of the spirit of the harassment policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now cautioned News4a2 that we take this sort of issue very seriously, and warned that he will be blocked if he does it again: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal insults from User:Hikingdom

Hikingdom (talk · contribs), after remaining inactive for quite some time, started to add links to various blogspot hosted and other blogs to several articles (diffs:, , ) . After I reverted his links per WP:EL and WP:NOT, he undid my edits multiple times. He also blanked my warnings from his talk page twice (diff1: DONT POST HERE, diff2: ). After I explained in the article talk page that his blogspot links are not valid external links, he started making personal attacks: (diff: "You get a life too. Wasting thousands of hours on Misplaced Pages for no money. hahaha ", diff: "You have a life? OK. LOL."). Note that, between these two personal attacks, he had been warned by Rgoodermote about his taunting remarks.

I would request an uninvolved admin to take a look into the behavior of this link spammer. He is promoting two links: a blogspot link where a pirated copy of a book has been posted, and also the personal blog site: www.bangladeshihindu.com . --Ragib (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How is "You have a life? OK LOL" a personal attack?

First of all, the blogspot link is not a pirated copy of a book. That book was available for free online under the domain name "bengalvoice.com. However, the author decided to move it to a blogspot. http://bengalvoice.blogspot.com/ For more information, contact, email redacted About the BangladeshiHindu.com blog. Well, it's obviously not a personal one since there are a series of writers such as Dr. Richard Benkin, William Gomes etc. It's a group blog. Hikingdom (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, the link is to a personal blog hosted at blogspot, with prominent "calls for donation" buttons on the site (may or may not be made by the purported author of the book, no way to determine that). The second link is to a nn blog. Doesn't matter if it is a personal one or maintained by a group. Finally, I have linked to the diffs to Hikingdom's taunts. These should be checked by an uninvolved admin. --Ragib (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sense of logic is utterly surprising. You are telling me that the site is not notable because it has a donation box? Misplaced Pages has a donation box. As I said million times to you, the article used to link to this book before when the author used to host it under his website, http://www.bengalvoice.com/ As that site is under construction now, the book is hosted in blogspot by the author. They have an email address to the author in the blog. Also, do you think it makes sense someone to actually sit down and type the whole thing if the author is not involved?

"may or may not be made by the purported author of the book, no way to determine that"

Then why are you saying that this site has a pirated book in your previous post? If you are not sure about something then you shouldn't abruptly conclude. The issue of piracy is a serious accusation and I expected a little bit more logical thinking from you.

About http://www.bangladeshihindu.com/ site, well, I am not trying to create a wikipedia entry out of it. This website, definitely takes into account the modern issues of Bangladeshi Hindus. Not to mention this is the only website concerning issue of Bangladeshi Hindus. Therefore, this site should be put as an external link. Just like IndianMuslims.info, which is also a group blogging platform concerning Muslims in India. Hikingdom (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, Ragib also thinks prominent writer, Salam Azad is not notable. You can find his books in all the major libraries all over the world. He is obviously trying to propagate his extreme nationalistic views and remove sources that show struggles of Bangladeshi Hindus Hikingdom (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"He also blanked my warnings from his talk page twice" - You might want to strike that, that is backed by policy. — neuro 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:John254 harassment, forum shopping, editing others' comments

User:John254 was warned earlier to not continue any attempts at perceived harassment or outing of an admin, User:Cirt, who he is involved in a *VERY* contentious RFAR with.

• He endorsed a motion to undelete talk page contents that were removed for privacy reasons. THREE Arbiters said no.
• He then took the matter to DRV in response, where another Arb said to close the forum shopping request as disruptive, and a final Arb, Bainer, closed it here.
• John254 then took the fight to User:Durova's user space, edit warring with her on her pages.
• Finally, I warned him to desist from trying to find out any personal information about the administrator User:Cirt.
• There was some back and forth, which was fairly civil. I went to leave well enough alone and was done, but then he alters the content, nature, and meaning of my post here, neutralizing that he received an official warning, which any user can give.
• Durova cautioned him that altering another's comments is a blockable offense.
• I restored my full warning here, keeping it in context. I don't care if he blanks or removes it, but changing it to link to my userlinks is downright bizarre, downplaying my warning and altering the meaning.

Can someone please review this repeated hounding of an administrator in good standing, User:Cirt, by this editor User:John254? This kind of harassment and bullying is just odious. rootology (C)(T) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither Durova nor Cirt were actually willing to expressly state "the talk pages of Cirt's prior accounts must remain deleted for privacy/security reasons", perhaps because it quite simply isn't true. In that case, please stop making insinuations to the same effect. Since there was (and is) no apparent reason for Cirt's user talk pages to remain deleted, and since the Arbitration Committee had not forbidden their restoration, it was reasonable to request that the community restore them at DRV. If editors are to utilize their own userspace to present evidence to the Arbitration Committee, and permit users to comment on the talk page, it makes little sense for them to be able to arbitrarily censor comments on the basis of a bureaucratic interpretation of the "userspace privilege". For Durova to claim exclusive control over the talk page for her evidence is as untenable as for me to assert authority over the comments on User talk:John254/Homosexuality and medical science, merely because the page happens to currently reside in my userspace. My neutralization of Rootology's section header does not constitute an alteration of his comment, since the header is not reasonably construed as his signed writing. John254 06:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Chiming in with Root's request. John's responses to feedback have been unduly aggressive. He's been warned for WP:POINT twice today. Since then he's continued expanding the scope and pushing new boundaries. Durova 06:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, we need to tell John to, at the very least, stop jumping head first into drama (irony!). Say you what you want about him, but it gets on my nerves to see him flitting around and making noise as much as he does. Sceptre 06:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• +1 for that. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Mr. Darcy talk 13:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And now he's continuing his meme of harassment against Cirt in reply to Gwen's administrative warning, with a nice dose of personal attack against me for standing up to his bullying of a privacy-sensitive administrator. On top of that, he's now saying that Durova and Cirt can be blocked for protecting Cirt's privacy, which is preposterous. rootology (C)(T) 15:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

sSome people don't learn... cluebat time? Sceptre 15:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've given a last warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a sad day for Misplaced Pages when daring to substantively respond to the accusations against me is being used as a basis to make further unjustified accusations and the most dire warnings. John254 15:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's sad you don't want to stop the harassment, I don't know, but if you don't stop it, I will, by blocking you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by Deanb

I've transferred the follow from WP:AIV as this is a more appropriate forum. Kcordina 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deanb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user has been uploading copyrighted content falsely tagging it under GFDL for a while. His latest one is a re-upload of the image File:TA Skyline.jpg, which was taken from here, and has been deleted in the past. Another one is File:TA Skyline2.jpg from here. This is despite continuous warnings spanning several months. In the past, he also uploaded File:TA.jpg (from here) and other images I can't remember (althouh this version of his talk page says a lot. Also in reply to a previous warning, he indirectly stated that he had no intention of stopping ("Do us both a favor and stop 'being bored', OK?"). I know that the warnings weren't from last month, and one may argue that there aren't sufficient 'warning levels'. However, because he is a long-time registered user who is ignoring basic warnings, I think some kind of administrative action is in order. I have filed an ANI on this user in the past for an entirely different issue, but can't find it right now. -- Ynhockey 08:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems a bit complex, more appropriate for an WP:ANI report, IMO. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that he's been given clear notice of blocking, but he's certainly been pointed to policy many times. Copyright is a potential legal land-mine for Misplaced Pages, and if he refuses to respect our copyright policy, his contributions do not belong here. I am giving him the templated copyright warning, with notice of potential block. If another admin feels that he's had warning enough and chooses to block now for the protection of Misplaced Pages, I certainly wouldn't find that inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl 13:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Moonriddengirl. I believe that Deanb should be blocked because of numerous policy violations which add up to a stream of persistent subtle vandalism. Copyright violations are just the most serious cases, but there are a bunch of other things he has been doing, which display that he never really 'got the message', despite being told nicely a million times. I respect your decision however, and won't pursue further action unless another admin reading this has already decided to act (based on the previous evidence). If the copyvios continue though, I will probably take the liberty of blocking him unilaterally as after this warning, it should be considered a clear case of vandalism (please correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ynhockey 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Aparna rajesh

Some assistance with this user would be appreciated. Aparna rajesh has been active on Misplaced Pages for at least 18 months, which is ample time for him to be familiar with some of our basic guidelines and policies; no doubt he is a good faith contributor and clearly his first language is not English, but that's no excuse. Persistant problems include the uploading of copyrighted images without the necessary infomation, copying text from other websites, creating articles with little or no context, and making what appear to be nonsense edits. He has been alterted to these problems innumerable times - see comments currently on his talk page, and also these comments which were blanked a few months ago. In the past few weeks I've told him twice about copying text, and yet recently created articles The Cut (2007 film) and The Fox with Nine Tails contain text copied straight from asiandb.com and hanbooks.com. Clearly these comments are either not being read or not being understood, and without some form of intervention this is likely to remain a problem. PC78 (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning on the user's talk page. I've also cleaned up/deleted a handful of the edits, but would appreciate more help with that. PC78, since you seem to know a bit about this user, would you be able to sift through and do some tagging on the articles that are copyvios? That'll hopefully get other admins involved, since it seems like this is a large scope issue, either way (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can do, but I think most of the copyvios have already been dealt with one way or another, often leaving very short stubs stuch as A Resentful Woman. Tagging articles may also be a problem; he removed the speedy tag from Takipsilim earlier this morning. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I guess I was wrong; per your request I've been through this user's contributions as far back as 7 November, and, in addition to some cleanup, have identified the following copyvio issues: Template:Multicol

• 303 Fear Faith Revenge
• A Chinese Ghost
• A Ghost Story of Joseon Dynasty
• A Woman with Half Soul
• Akai Ito (mobile phone novel) (partial cv)
• Chobun
• Coming Soon (2008 film)
• Dae Jang-hwa Hong-ryeon jeon
• Ellam Avan Seyal
• Eoh Wu-dong
• Friendship (film)
• Jang-hwa and Hong-ryeon

Template:Multicol-break

• Janghwa Heungryeonjeon
• Night Fairy
• Remodelled Beauty
• Story of Jang-hwa and Hong-ryeon
• Stray Dogs (1983 film)
• The Beauty of Black Rose Castle
• The Coffin (film)
• The Devil and the Beauty
• The Executioner (1975 film)
• The Haunted Villa
• The Sin (2004 film)

Template:Multicol-end A few of the above seem to originate from forums or blogs, which I'm not so sure about. I don't know if the best course of action would be to tag these for CSD G12 or simply remove the copied text. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Resolved – blocked

Daleep123 (talk · contribs)

A simple review of his contributions will show this to be a vandalism-only account, at least for the last 6 months. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Long-term edit war on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Two editors have been involved in edit warring since before the Nov. 4 election. While several other participants quit as soon as the election was over, Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · logs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs · logs) have continued. This article has previously been locked because of this war: the first was just prior to the election; the second, at the end of November. Instead of locking the article again, both these editors should be blocked. Oh, and they have spent volumes of text sniping at each other on the article's talk page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't see it immediately, has WP:MEDCAB been tried? — neuro 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, an agreement to participate wasn't forthcoming. This has been going on so long that I'm not sure. I'll look in the archives. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

An AN/I report seems unproductive at this time when we seem to be on the verge of compromise. csloat (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

...or is the ANI report a threat in case compromise fails? Just being Devil's Advocate here... ♪BMWΔ 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but I didn't know that threats were considered an appropriate means of ensuring a compromise here. In either case, I'm pretty sure a compromise will be reached soon. csloat (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Rabindra_Baral - persistent copyright violator

I request that an administrator review this user's history of contributions and assess whether or not the user should be blocked. A quick look at the user's talk page shows a lengthy record of complaints about blatant copyright transgressions, (one of which wasted a chunk of my time, before I realized that I was cleaning up a lifted article). The First Nepal - Tibet War that was just deleted also showed, if I recall, edits by a User:Rabindral, who has since disappeared. A previous incarnation of User:Rabindra_Baral, I imagine. Thanks, -- Wormcast (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note at the users page advising them of the discussion here. I have also left a warning. JodyB _talk 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tavix

Tavix (talk · contribs · logs) is again actively moving some 200 articles in the last 90 minutes which he knows and has been asked numerous times to stop and for which there is a previous ANI thread. It centres on the use of the dab (Canadian football) primarily because he knows that I have clearly expressed that I find this is almost never a suitable disambiguator for biographies of football players. The user is clearly being disruptive in trying to antagonise me. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCP and specifically WP:QUALIFIER. (football player) is the preferred dab when there are no other football players with the same name as these players often play more than one code of football and there is no need for further and more specific disambiguation. The dab "Canadian football" is also a poor choice because it is not an adjective describing the person as is preferred and is often misleading as the player may be American as well as having played other codes of football. I would like to see User:Tavix clearly asked to stop these kind of disruptive moves and if continued, short blocks and requirements to discuss and gain consensus for any page move. It can be seen from his talk history and previous ANI thread that the user has often moved articles without understanding of the guidelines and styleguides. It would also be useful for an admin to mass-revert his moves of today. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Where in the previous thread was it established he was incorrect? Naming conventions are supposed to be simple, but they are not supposed to be incorrect. Are these players football players or American football and Canadian football players? --Smashville 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• They didn't get anywhere in the other one, just one admin and DoubleBlue saying that there should be a consensus. Tavix (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor choice in moves, grammatically horrible, confusing, and what do we do with Jeff Garcia and Doug Flutie (to name just a couple) ♪BMWΔ 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• May I ask, how is it grammatically horrible? It is simply the name of the sport that the person played. Tavix (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doug Flutie was the first one I checked out. He doesn't even have a parenthetic qualifier, as there is presumably only one notable Doug Flutie. But it does raise an important question, about anyone who might be on a disambig page and has played in both CFL and NFL. I would think they should only say American football or Canadian football when there's one in each. Usually you want to keep the qualifiers as general as possible. Baseball Bugs 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• If there is a person who played both American football and Canadian football, you would look for whichever sport they were most notable for playing. That is usually equivalent to the number of years they played the sport. Tavix (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doug Flutie (dropkicker)? --Smashville 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)]

• The position the person played is only to be used when there is two players who played the same sport becuase you want the more general disambiguation. Tavix (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Everybody, There is nothing incorrect with what I am doing. The reason "football player" isn't a good disambiguation because it could get confused with Association football, which is known as football in the majority of the countries. If you ask anybody from Europe, Asia, or Latin America, "football" is Soccer. So "football player" is incorrect and misleading. It is also for consistency with those people who play "American football" because the people who play American football use "American football" as the disambiguation already. If there really is that big of a deal about it, get a consensus together, but at the moment, I am doing nothing wrong. Another note, a person who played baseball uses the (baseball) disambiguation. It is never (baseball player). A person who played hockey uses the (ice hockey) disambiguation, it is never (hockey player). There is a general consensus (but not official) that in the world of sports, you use the name of the sport to describe the person. Tavix (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One flaw in your thinking is that the specific players are likely to be only on American or Canadian football teams anyway, so a soccer fan is not likely to be looking for them. Another is that what if some guy actually did play for both a soccer team and an American or Canadian football team? What would you do then? Worse still, though, is that your own comments suggest a bias of some kind against American and Canadian football, which I can assure you with a complete lack of bias are much more interesting games than soccer is. Baseball Bugs 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anyone that would play (professionally) both American/Canadian football and Soccer, so I don't think we would ever need to figure that out. If that happens though, (football player) or (footballer) is probably best as it covers both sports. "your comments suggest a bias of some kind against American and Canadian football." I'm completely sorry if I seem biased, I'm really not biased whatsoever against the sport. I am a huge football fan, and more in generally a lot of sports. I also enjoy soccer and I used to play it way back when as well. So sorry if I seem biased. Tavix (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I note your previous move of a player of both Australian and American football to (American football). DoubleBlue (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nice noting skills there. =) However, I say that between soccer and a type of football, not two different types of football. Tavix (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Above you correctly state that more general disambiguations are desirable but then you contradict yourself and say that (football player) is not specific enough. It is precisely that the general dab football player is preferable since many players play in more than one code of football. It is only desirable to be more precise when there is more than one football player with the same name. Baseball and hockey are the only exceptions to the WP:NCP guidelines and I frankly think they are misguided. Nonetheless, football is what is under discussion at the moment and football players are far more likely to be notable for more than one code of football than baseball players are to be for more than one code of baseball. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, actually the thing is that (football player) is highly too general, with my reasons stated above. It's almost like saying John Doe (sports player) because football refers to about 10 different sports. Tavix (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point here would be that it's a change that's not necessary. It amounts to "busy work". There are plenty of articles that need actual improvements. This effort improves nothing. Baseball Bugs 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain to whom this is directed. Clearly the moves Tavix has done from (football player) to (Canadian football) and (American football) are not only unnecessary but harmful. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, you hard headed DoubleBlue, why do you always have to go out and say these moves are harmful when in fact, neither of the moves are actually harmful. People will find the article just as fine wheather it says (football player) or (American football). Tavix (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely. Hence there is no reason to have changed it. Baseball Bugs 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear - the changes he's making are pointless. Baseball Bugs 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's basically for consistency. It's not like it is harmful or anything. Tavix (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is harmful to unnecessarily dab a person with an overly-specific dab that makes it misleading. If John Doe is the only John Doe notable for playing football but he's an American who has played both American and Canadian football, then surely the best dab is (football player). To move to John Doe (Canadian football) is misleading and unnecessarily violates the general guideline for dabs to describe the person rather than the sport. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• So it violates guidelines, and is pointless busy work. Baseball Bugs 20:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• And there's another flaw in his argument. This is the English wikipedia, and in the English-speaking world, it's called soccer primarily. So if he's going to say "American football", he needs to change all the soccer players from "football" to "soccer". For "consistency". Baseball Bugs 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pssst. // roux   20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't violate any guidelines. There is an exception in the third paragraph in WP:QUALIFIER that allows my moves. I don't see what Baseball Bugs is referring to by moving "footballer" to "soccer" for consistency. It already has a consensus that anyone who plays "soccer" is known as "footballer". Tavix (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The common sense exception is for "awkward or overly-long disambiguations". How does (Canadian football) fit that exception over (football player)? DoubleBlue (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) Indeed there is such a consensus. Just as there is a consensus that we use the least-specific meaningful dab available. // roux   20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Which consensus is that? Please bear in mind I am using the least specific dab available. It is the same reasons for the ice hockey people to use (ice hockey) and not (hockey). Ice hockey is the name of the sport, not hockey. Tavix (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:NCDAB: "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)"." // roux   21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• No need to copy the mistakes of others and they have much less likelihood of hockey players playing multiple codes of hockey. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Who said those are mistakes? "Ice hockey" is the name of the sport. Tavix (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that Tavix continues these moves unabated. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nice noting skills. =) Tavix (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How about you start noting the genuine lack of consensus for your moves and stop? Hmmm? ♪BMWΔ 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no lack of consensus whatsoever. Sorry, but no. Tavix (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "No lack of consensus?" Who, besides you, wants this? Baseball Bugs 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat problem.

Over on Talk:Gratin, and the article space, there's been some conflict about the number of potato-in-cream-sauce articles needed. A new editor, User:Believe It Or Not, has been trying to separate the page into three separate articles, against apparent consensus and the status quo. He's pretty insistent on it. As well, two IPs, 86.144.204.217 and 81.157.213.116 have supported BIoN's edits, as seen in the edit history. last night, User:Michael Grossman showed up on the talk page, and as his first edit, supported BIoN's position. I removed, because it sure looks like a sock/meat issue. He reinserted it, and I've left it there. I'm asking an admin to review the situation, and if needed, look into it further.

I came to this page by browsing the 'recent changes' page, and offered an admittedly unsolicited 3O, but it sure looked like a stalemate as far as the regular editors were concerned. I find it suspicious that a page which has scant traffic for months suddenly attracts four editors (two IPs, two accounts), who all hit the page within hours of each other, all supporting the same major revisions to the article. I also find suspicious that a new user's first edit is to a talk page of a nascent, yet both contentious and stalled, conflict. Thanks to whatever admin looks into this. ThuranX (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles about potatoes-in-cream-sauce? *blink* ♪BMWΔ 19:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, we have at least three. What's bad is we have more candidates for a sockfarm ABOUT potato-in-cream-sauce dishes than we have articles about potato-in-cream-sauce dishes. 4:3 is a bad ratio on that. ThuranX (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, what's with all the edit-wars re: food items lately? We've had the hummus wars, the hoagie conflicts, and now the gratin contretemps. Anyone want to join me in creating a pool on what comestible will be the next victim?? GJC 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The great hoagie conflict of 2008. POV pushers will, of course, redirect it to "the hero wars" or "the grinder action". Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Until an unseen flotilla of 'Sub conflict'ers rises up to ambush us all. (Can some one please look into this?) ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's AfD conduct

Badagnani has just suggested that I be banned from Misplaced Pages for nominating an article for deletion. Normally I would let this go, but this has now happened several times (see my previous comments here and here). Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm starting to feel intimidated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I was contacted privately by Cordless Larry). Have you actually been warned formally to stop deletion nominations in this field? I'd be surprised if you had. Badagnani's conduct on the specific AfD is incivil and unnecessary in my opinion. There's no reason to focus on the contributor if he has a legitimate worry about the content, and to suggest you should be blocked (as opposed to banned) is misguided.

Somewhat slightly unrelated, but the actual content issue might be worth raising at the Misplaced Pages:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been formally warned, no. I don't see why I would have been since I have always provided justification for my AfD nominations and many have been successful, including ones where Badagnani previously suggested I be blocked. I presume that Badagnani is referring to the past suggestions that she/he has made that I be blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any suggestions? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The larger issue is whether the articles on Spanish Germans, Australian Indonesians etc. are appropriate article subjects. The statistics are included in official fact books and there are a lot of theis type of articles. Apparently he took issue with your multiple nominations of articles dealing with this type of subject. I don't think his comment was helpful. Perhaps you could ask if he's willing to engage in a discussion of why he thinks those articles are worth including. Maybe someone knows the best place for a broader discussion? As far as his comment goes, I'd ignore it. I suspect he was just frustrated. Don't take it personally and happy holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'd be happy to ignore the comment but this is the fourth time it's happened now by my counting: here, here, here and now this time. They also did the same to another editor here. I got an apology once before, only for this behaviour to resume. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellno2 editing major policies without seeking consensus

Hellno2 (talk · contribs) Started actively editing major wikipedia policies. I reverted him, pointing out that big changes in policies must be discussed in talk pages. However he ignores me. Please intervene. Mukadderat (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• User warned both by myself and Seicer. The next major edit should probably result in a very short block as the behaviour will be very disruptive to all the editors who have the pages on their watchlists. Spartaz 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about improper block by User:Phil Sandifer

I was recently blocked for 24 hours for nominating three articles (Michelle Stith, Tim Bowles, and Body thetan) for deletion. All three were nominated on the grounds that there were insufficient reliable, third-party sources (WP:V and WP:RS). This is a perfectly normal nomination rationale. Rather than discussing the issue, or attempting to find the appropriate sources, Phil Sandifer blocked me, claiming that the deletion nomination of three marginal Scientology articles was "egregious disruption" and POV-pushing. See ; note that he later changed the wording from "mass" to "batch" after he apparently realized that 3 articles might not count as the former. In contrast, User:TTN routinely nominates dozens of articles a day for deletion (many of which are merged or kept), and, while this has raised considerable discussion and controversy, a perusal of his block log shows that he has never actually been blocked for it. Note that I am not saying that someone else got away with bad behavior and I should therefore also be entitled to do so. I am saying that even more substantial "mass" deletion nominations have been discussed by the community before, and no consensus to consider them disruptive has ever emerged. It was grossly inappropriate for Phil to block me for a mere 3 nominations in one day, with no discussion of any kind.

I believe the purpose of this block was to create a chilling effect and to prevent the application of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and other policies and guidelines to Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. *** Crotalus *** 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified User:Phil Sandifer about this thread. No opinion on actual complaint. Exxolon (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically I dismiss these sorts of threads as BS, but this one might have some validity. From what I can see - and I might be mistaken - there was no discussion or warning from Phil Sandifer about the block, or any chance for Crotalus to explain himself. Further commentary should probably wait for a statement from Phil, however. Tan | 39 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explanation from Phil as well. A quick examination doesn't reveal blockable behaviour to me, either.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that mass nominations, using Twinkle, of previously discussed articles in an area under an active arbitration case in which one is a participant, and in direct support of a POV is active disruption, and well justifying a 24 hour block. I glanced over the talk page a few hours after the block, after I saw that an unblock request was made, in fear that perhaps I had overreacted. However, I was dismayed to find that, even in the face of a patient and clear explanation of the issues, Crotalus displayed no understanding of the problems with using automated tools to nominate articles for deletion in accordance with a POV he has clearly and openly pushed on Misplaced Pages. That nobody else responded to the unblock request makes me suspect that my dismay was not an uncommon reaction.

Frankly, as a user whose contributions amount almost purely to POV pushing, I would consider 24 hours a pleasantly light response. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? If that's really your statement here, this needs to be escalated. Tan | 39 21:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I am highly disappointed. Are you open to recall? Is there any way you would voluntarily step down as an admin? Bstone (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Three noms is 'mass' now? // roux   21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on here, fellas. Bstone, put down the shotgun and step away from the Arbcom button, allright? No one is, or should be, calling for anyone's admin resignation here unless there are a shitload of other problems that I'm not aware of. If we can discuss this calmly and either get a valid explanation or "oops, I messed up, I won't do it again" apology from Phil, then we can close this and move on. One questionable block a bad admin does not make. Tan | 39 21:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Given User_talk:TTN#Request_at_ArbCom, he might actually be sanctioned in the near future for the indiscriminate mass noms. Best, --A Nobody 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Crotalus Horridus has been wronged, and gave a lengthy explanation on his talk page. It does not appear to me, an outside observer, that CH has disrupted anything or pushed any kind of POV except for his interpretation of our inclusion policies- which is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring to AfD. Reyk _YO! 21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• I am disappointed at Phil's statement above, especially the claim that I am pushing a POV. I consider my actions to be the opposite - pushing NPOV, and trying to maintain the same high quality and neutrality on Scientology-related topics that we maintain on other parts of Misplaced Pages. It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed desirable, to remove low-quality sources regardless of whose POV they support, and to nominate articles for deletion when no reliable, third-party sources are available to substantiate them. I also do not consider myself to be a party to the arbitration case simply because I have posted evidence, though of course it is ArbCom's prerogative to determine who is involved and to what extent. Incidentally, I will be leaving for Christmas vacation soon, and may not be able to respond to further comments left on Misplaced Pages for several days. *** Crotalus *** 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh give me a break. You've been heavily involved in the case, and your views amount to "the sources that do not support my preferred POV are unreliable sources." Presenting your contributions as improving NPOV is absurd. Frankly, the correct response for tendentious POV pushing of the sort you engage in is a permablock. I threw up 24 hours for a particularly inspired bit of idiocy in the hopes that perhaps you would take the hint. The underlying fact remains - use of automated tools such as Twinkle for POV pushing edits is inappropriate, and the edits amounted to a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. A brief (which is what the block was) disruption block does not seem to me particularly out of line. In any case, the block is resolved now by default. I will not block Crotalus again for disruption, as at this point I seem to have reached the point of being involved. As there is no outstanding issue, and my involvement with the matter ends here, and as the overall tone of this section has completely jumped the shark with braying calls for my desysopping, I'll not be stopping by to throw any more chum to the adoring crowds. I stand by my decision. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was only one call for desysopping by one of the more easily excitable editors. However, I gotta say your complete lack of contriteness in the face of perhaps five or six other agreements - and zero disagreement - that your block was improper is disturbing. This is not adminly behavior, by any stretch. Mistakes will be made, but if you don't acknowledge them or act mature about it when they happen, I start to lean towards action being taken. Tan | 39 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I disagree with the assessment, and disagree with the attitude that discussion over... two hours can possibly generate any sort of meaningful consensus that has innate persuasive force that ought bear down upon me with sobering resolve. If the block were still active, I might respond differently and consider lifting it on the grounds that the message of caution had been sent, but there were concerns about the block. But as I stand by my assessment that Crotalus's behavior was actionable disruption, and as there is no block to rescind, I see little that I can do. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could attempt to explain yourself, and why you think Crotalus's behaviour was so objectionable. It's not obvious to me or to anyone else here that Crotalus has done anything wrong at all. If you could provide some diffs that show ongoing POV-pushing that would be one thing, but all you are doing is going "I'm right, so nergh!" Reyk _YO! 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know bad admins when I see them. Phil is a great editor but a bad admin. He is refusing to take any responsibility for his utterly bad block. Tan, want to join me in support of desysoping? Bstone (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, and I'd appreciate it if you acted a little bit more like the 28 years old your user page says you are. Tan | 39 22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Tan, I just have to ask you to be more WP:CIVIL. You've stated I am "bitch"ing, said "fuck" and now you are indicating I lack maturity. You have read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, right? If not I would gently suggest you to go review them. Thanks! Bstone (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please step off of your soapbox, please. There is no basis or rationale for desysoping, and all administrators make mistakes from time to time (this is not a review of this administrator's actions). We would have zero administrators if we allowed all to be desysoped for every minor infraction. seicer | talk | contribs 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Admin abuse! Hang him, quick! Tiptoety 21:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Motion to Desysop Phil Sandifer

1. Support Admind must be held to a much higher standard than editors. Minimally, Phil needs to be blocked for 24 hours. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be punishment, nor prevention, and out of process. --Rodhullandemu 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. No fucking way. Tan | 39 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Fuck no. This was one error, not grounds for calling for someone's head. Jesus. // roux   21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Silly idea. This isn't the place for this anyway. --Rodhullandemu 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose as on balance I think I have seen more good than bad from Phil Sandifer. Best, --A Nobody 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Not necessary. I would be satisfied if Phil would apologize for the block. *** Crotalus *** 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose- I'm more concerned with getting this wrong righted than with retribution. If Phil Sandifer continues to abuse his power we can discuss desysopping, but I don't see any reason to expect he'll do that in the future. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
7. This is a fucking joke, right?. No fucking way. I don't have much opinion of Phil, but really? One possibly bad call, still under review? for a 24 hour block? There are legitimate cases where a 24 hour block might call for a desysop, but this doesn't read like that. It's a shitty call on Phil's part, however. He could have closed them as contrary to an open Arb-case, issued a talk page warning, and brought it here for review, all actions which I would've supported, so long as there were no predications of double jeopardy attached to Crotalus' renomming after arbcom. Phil looks to me to have made a shit-tastic decision, but it's also a no-harm-done decision. Admins can note in your block log the block was reversed, and that'll be that. ThuranX (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Delays in unblock reviews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move along. We aren't desysoping anyone here. Want to discuss the delays in block reviews? Please seek a new thread or venue. This thread has been tainted. seicer | talk | contribs 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I will not comment on the merits of the block for obvious reasons, but I am very concerned about the fact that an editor's unblock request apparently went more than 23 hours without being reviewed. The promise is made to blocked users that their block will be promptly reviewed by an uninvolved administrator on request and we should keep that promise. After all, we should always bear in mind that for a blocked user, Misplaced Pages has become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—except you. It would probably be helpful if more administrators kept an eye on the requests-for-unblock user category as well as the unblock-en-l mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost always watch #wikipedia-en-unblock, so I see most requests. The problem is, most of the time people write like 1000-byte unblock requests. This just complicates things, and makes me less likely to deal with it. Apparently, I'm not the only one, because from my experience watching that channel, there is an inverse relationship between how long an unblock request is, and how long it takes for the request to be addressed. J.delanoy_adds 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1500+ admins and not one- not a single one- answered the fellow's plea for an unblock. And in this case it was a horrible block is absolute violation of policy. Yes, the system is utterly broken. Bstone (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, go bitch somewhere else. You don't help the situation, you only inflame it. Tan | 39 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not a very civil response Tan, please consider moderating your response. Exxolon (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

←Bstone, how about instead of complaining about the current system you try and fix it? The whole reason this section of the thread was started was to address the issue, not sit around and complain about it. Now, I must agree with J.delanoy, often times I see a unblock request that is 1000+ words and simply skip over it. I think it would be a good idea to have some kind of limitation to the number of words. But, that is just me...some admins have more patience and time. Tiptoety 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am simply observing where this poor fellow was failed by the system. Perhaps you can be a bit more tactful? Using words like "fuck" and "bitch" are typically not received well. Bstone (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Exxolon, puh-leeze. Look at Phil's talk page. All Bstone has done is call for Phil's head and berate admins for being the cause of a "broken system". Moderation of response considered, declined. Tan | 39 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Bstone's edits or viewpoints, resorting to epithets in reponse isn't going to help. Nor is resorting to sarcasm. You could easily have gotten the same view across in a civil fashion viz :- "Please consider continuing your complaints about the failure of the unblock system somewhere else. Bringing this issue up here repeatedly is only likely to inflame the situation" - exactly the same viewpoint but a much more civil tone. Paradoxically, resorting to "bitch" is actually more likely to have a contrary effect to the one you wish - inflaming the situation more. Exxolon (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Tiptoety For some reason Tan has decided to steer this sub-thread's conversation to me and not about the issue. Now I claim that with 1500 admins there ought to be enough to answer blocks. 23.8 hours is way too long a response. I have some ideas for improving on this. Would you like to hear them? Bstone (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While I obviously have a temper, I'm not the one calling for desysopping. Look at the response you got above - what is that, eight resounding NOs? I had to essentially warn you about harassment on Phil's talk page. You can try to act like the calm one here, but your actions show otherwise. Tan | 39 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to continue to disrupt this conversation about admin responses to blocks or would you like to discuss my ideas? I have a few and I think they may help. What say you, Tan? Bstone (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the system broken? I've responded to a few unblock requests today. The ones that are still up are either waiting for discussion from the blocked editor, or they're complicated issues that aren't clear-cut enough to undo another admin's block over, so they're waiting for input form involved parties and the blocking admin. A delay means that there was something about the request that made admins reluctant either to deny or to unblock, not that no one reviewed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What an odd and pointless thread. Crotalus doesn't IMO have much of a cause for action here, quite simply because he put up an unblock notice immediately and no admin felt it warranted an unblock.

Heck, I was one of the people he was arguing with in the original AFDs in question - I wouldn't have blocked him (I responded on the AFDs saying "no way" in the standard fashion), but his lack of awareness of how it could have come across as querulous disruption indicated a severely worrying lack of good judgement. (This is by the way not a statement of assumption of bad faith - I am fully confident that Crotalus' actions are all undertaken in sincere good faith and he's as dedicated to writing a good encyclopedia as any of us - but my subjective impression of his judgement calls toward our common goal. I'm sure he'd say the same about me. Welcome to Misplaced Pages ;-) ) So I didn't unblock. I did discuss the matter on his talk page, in a hopefully productive two-way fashion - I don't have anything against Crotalus, I'm just unsure of his good judgement, as I'm sure he may have qualms about mine. That's fine, y'know.

Basically: his appeal was to put up a "please unblock" notice. Plenty of admins keep an eye on these, and not one who looked at it was inclined to act upon it. Other people who objected to the block didn't find an admin willing to undo it. That means the block was basically supported, as far as I can tell.

Given that, it's hard to see what the point of this thread is likely to be, and the call for desysop on a block no admin could be found to object to is, uh, what? - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• As Phil says, I think that mass nominations, using Twinkle, of previously discussed articles in an area under an active arbitration case in which one is a participant, and in direct support of a POV is active disruption. Whether it is block-worthy or not is a judgement call well within the bounds of normal administrative discretion. Probably Phil should not have blocked, but almost certainly Crotalus should have held back pending the arbitration, since this is a contentious area. This thread amounts to "The nasty admin done me wrong" and then a succession of "yes he did" and "no he didn't". If one applies WP:AGF, the entire matter vanishes in a puff of smoke. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am deeply concerned by the actions taken by some here who think it is acceptable to unite arms to force an administrator out of their respective position because of one mistake. It is, in irony, egregious disruption to assume the worst on one instance. With respect to the unblock(s), I also find that there is an direct relationship between complication and response timing. Caulde 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• That is a terrible attitude. If I were an admin I'd have unblocked immediately. The fact that in nearly 24 hours only one admin took enough interest in an unblock request to comment, and didn't act because they happened to turn up with only 20 minutes left, doesn't mean the block was supported- just that nobody cared. That's a massive problem. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Due disclosure: I have given extensive evidence in the arbitration case related to these actions. Phil, would you be willing to retract the word idiocy? It doesn't reflect well. Crotalus, would you be willing to exercise greater restraint regarding matters currently under arbitration? Three nominations isn't a whole lot, but the use of automated tools and a rather transparent tit-for-tat WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale does look POINTy. Probably better resolved with discussion than with either the tools or calls for anybody's head. Durova 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will grant that "idiocy" was an over-dramatic choice of words. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect many people looked at the unblock and decided not to deal with it. And if there were an inverse relationship between complication and response time, then complicated issues would be dealt with the quickest. I think you mean a direct relationship. Grandmasterka 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Amended, with thanks. Caulde 23:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Grandmasterka on this. The fact that an unblock request received no response in twenty-three hours doesn't mean that it wasn't seen for twenty-three hours. I know that I have on occasion looked at an unblock request, concluded that any action I took would likely make matters worse, and left well enough alone. Call it a 'soft' denial of unblock — I think the block should probably stand, but actually posting a denial would be inviting a lot of time-consuming and pointless argument. (Heck, it might even lead to talk page protection or an extension of the original block.) I'm not saying that that is necessarily what happened in this case, but I'm sure it is what happens for a lot of unblock requests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! That admin turned me into a newt! Well, I got better. Baseball Bugs 23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the Wiki Witch traded the mop for a broomstick. If you drink this potion I promise it'll upgrade your newt to a toad. ;) Durova 23:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Awright! I'll hop right on that. Baseball Bugs 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

*Rolls eyes* Move on people. Bad decision by Crotalus to inflame an already controversial area, and bad idea by Phil to consider that a blockable offense. Is there anything else that needs admin assistance? Aside from the moronic call for Phil's head, which deserves a trout slap, there's nothing. — sephiroth bcr 23:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Persian irredentism everywhere

Resolved – Nationalistic editor complaining about nationalism other than his own; subsequently blocked for 3 weeks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How many times should I complain abut this problem? How many times? How many times wikipedia administrators will CONNIVE or at least IGNORE Persian irredentism destroying the historical articles? I have complained about the issue many many times at different levels, in different places here in wikipedia. But nothing happened. "THEY" continue their plan. But nothing definitely nothing has been done against this PROBLEM.

Nevertheless, I will report the problem here once more.

Extended content

Methodology of Persian Irredentism Persian wikipedia users work like a beaver. Either as loggend in or as "NOT LOGGED IN". They trace the wikipedia and look for articles where the word "Turkish" has been used. And without any discussion or any kind of action in book, they just BLANK it and write "Persian". They are like as if in some kind of viral illness. They do not respect anyone here. They don't care if that "idedntity" (Turkish) is referenced or not. Even though you reference with multiple academic, peer reviewed sources, they just BLANK it. And write Persian. They change other words in terms of Persian point of view such as city names, spelling of the person names, etc. Without contributing anything just BLANK the idedntity of the people and places and MAKE IT PERSSIAN. 1. They search the article. if they can (this is the most of cases) they just swap "Turkish" with "Persian". 2. If they can't accomplish "Persian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Persianated". 3. If they can't accomplish "Persianated" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Iranian". 4. If they can't accomplish "Iranian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Shi'ite". 5. If they can't accomplish "Shi'ite" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Khorasanian". 6. If they can't accomplish "Khorasanian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Transoxianan". 7. If they can't accomplish "Transoxianan" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Timurid". 8. If they can't accomplish "Timurid" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Asian" or "Central Asian". 9. If they can't accomplish "Asian" or "Central Asian" thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "... disputed. Persian or ...". 10. If they can't accomplish "... disputed. Persian or ..." thing, they again use the same sources to reference, and BLANK the idedntity with "Turkic". For them, It's not important if it's Persiaan or Persianated, or IRanian or whatever. It's just removing the word "Turk" from the article. Since Iran was administered by Turks for a thousand of years by Turks, notably Great Seljuq Empire, Atabeqs, Qajars, Akkoyunlular, etc. They have a hatered against Turks and try to revenge in that way. Just a few minitues ago an obviously Persian wiki user wrote down on my talk page that there is no such a thing called "Turkish Civilisation"! Sources of Persian Irredentism They have a set of books to use for referencing their "Persianating" actions: Books from Columbia University Press Encyclopedia Iranica ( a Columbia University project) Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge University Press) You can find millions of references to these sources. Obviously those three sources are BIASED and most probably commisioned to those universities by Iran nationalists for a good prise. What is the Result Result of this "plan" is that many notably personalities of Turkish history are now not Turkish. Most of them are PErsian, IRanian, etc. Isn't there any Turkish man on the history? am I the only Turk on the earth since the beginning of times? No! It's not only personalities. Also empires, states, beyliks, geographical places.... All now gone. We have a Persian world from Marathron to Yellow Sea. We have Persian history from Mete to Mustafa Kemal. All not Turkish. All are PErsian. LEt the universe be PERSIAN! A public awareness about the "condition of" English wikipedia will end the interest of millions of people in wikipedia. This Persian irredentism is threatening the legitimacy of entire encyclopedia. Someone should be responsible for this. Infected Articles Al-Taftazani (They have already noticed this.) Abu Mansur Al Maturidi Ulugh Beg Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni Al-Farabi Sebük Tigin Alp Tigin Toğrül Great Seljuq Empire Khwarezmian Empire Seljuq dynasty Oghuz Turks Kara-Khanid Khanate Atabeg Atabegs of Azerbaijan Sultanate of Rûm Danishmends Ghaznavid Empire i can write down a hundered. What is the Quid Pro Quo I am not threatening, try to understand me, but if wikipedia administrators go on IGNORING Persian irredentism, Turkish people (however you define it) and also Tajiks, peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan, will start perceiving that wikipedia has a secret agenda. A secret deal with Iran Secret Service or any other agents working for Persian Propaganda. Is wikipedia for everyone but Turks? Is wikipedia the bakyard garden of Persians? Decide. --Polysynaptic (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What is all of this nonsense? If there actually is an issue here, is there anyway you can sum it up in an intelligible manner without random capitalization and ranting? John Reaves 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you condense your complaint in a few paragraphs? What administrator intervention is required here? Is this a content dispute that requires dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious once you display it like this...

Persian wikipedia users work like a beaver. Either as loggend in or as "NOT LOGGED IN". They trace the wikipedia and look for articles where the word "Turkish" has been used. They just BLANK it and write "Persian".

He's auditioning to be the next Time Cube guy, spouting wisdom like a never-ending upside-down waterfall.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you... l'aquatique |✡| talk 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's complaining about a concerted effort to expunge the descriptor "Turk", "Turkish" from articles by a group of anti-turk POV editors? Exxolon (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Exxolon is correct. I would point the OP in the direction of Misplaced Pages's reminder to assume good faith about other editors. If you have concerns, let's discuss them calmly and rationally. Maybe there is something we can do to help. TN‑X-Man 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wall. Of. Text. Was gonna TL:DR this, but I read it. I wish I'd TL:DR'ed this. Paranoia strikes deep, I guess. nothing to see here, but I know where the first block should go when it's time to hand them out. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Polysynaptic's conduct

He is a highly problematic user and unfortunately removes sources from the top universities in the world, sources that meet WP:RS, replacing them many times with non-English nationalist fringe sources that do not meet WP:RS. He has also been blocked once for nationalistic attacks for one week , and he continues to make personal attacks with racist overtones:

Note the comment came after I challenged his source: . His response to a source from Cambridge University which challegned his fringe source was: "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap."!!

He was blocked once for these type of edits for one week:. Basically the user summarized it well, he thinks Cambridge University and Columbia University are bought out by “Iranian nationalists” and are "Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge Encyclopedia are Persian nationalist crap"(quoting his own word)! and that he can use non-English and homegrown fringe sources(that do not meet WP:RS ) to replace them. This is not a dispute of the article, but one can not even have a conductive atmosphere with such a conduct. And if other users use sources published by Cambridge University and Columbia University from the top experts in the world, then they should be deleted and stopped. Although he himself summarizes it well: You can find millions of references to these sources. (mentioning cambridge and columbia universities), not understanding that the reference to such sources rather than nationalist rants as above are due to their credibility. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. Blocked for 3 weeks. The "mentally damaged Persians" comment was particularly nasty. Moreschi (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

same vandalism from different accounts

These users have done the same vandalism to chess articles: User:64.24.45.59 User:64.24.45.165 User:Tutuman I have warned all of them. Tutuman has just done the same vandalism to Threefold repetition for the second time. These are all probably the same person. Is there a way to stop it? Bubba73 (talk), 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tutuman also vandalized White and Black in chess four times. Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would continue to monitor their contributions and warn them as necessary. If they persist with the vandalism, you can report them to AIV. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I watch articles, not editors. The editor is vandalizing several pages, some of which are not on my watch list. Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:64.24.45.59 and User:64.24.45.165 are from the same ISP, so it is possible that they are indeed both Tutuman.

It looks like ZimZalaBim has initiated a conversation with the user on his talk page. The user appears to be inserting references to a chess player (who does not have a corresponding article). Hopefully he'll respond to ZimZalaBim's note. TN‑X-Man 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only is he inserting a sentence about a redlink, he is inserting it in inappropriate places, in places that have nothing to do with the player. Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there is user:Tutuman2 (note the "2") doing the same vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And another IP address: 64.24.41.70 Bubba73 (talk), 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tutuman2 blocked indef as a sock, Tutuman blocked for a week and pointed to WP:N. I'll look at the IPs now. --Rodhullandemu 23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Range for the IPs is a /21, 2048 users, but will see if it stops. Please notify me if it doesn't. I predict little collateral damage would be caused for a shortish block if it needs to come to one. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Given this response which, to be honest, ain't gonna get him unblocked, I've now indeffed the main account Tutuman. I think we can live without him from now on. --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet KosovoLegacy (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He made a change to one article today. Is it a bogus change? Baseball Bugs 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is basically the same change that Tutuman, Tutuman2, and the three IP users above made to about six chess articles. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mdandrea

Hello everyone,

The Arbitration Committee received a block appeal from User:Mdandrea. Rlevse investigated the sockpuppetry accusation using the checkuser tool and has confirmed that the users are not sockpuppets and has decided that the two users are indeed unique users. However, I noted that there were still considerable disruption of the article in question, and that the users were slightly deceptive by initially totally denying any sockpuppetry accusation.

It was decided that Arbitration Committee invervention was not necessary (see this comment by Newyorkbrad that eloquently describes when we feel it is appropriate to intervene). Given there is new evidence that the community is unaware of, we are passing this information onto you all so you can review the original block. It is the recommendation of Rlevse that the block duration be reduced to two weeks, as this was not a serious case of sockpuppetry as was originally suspected.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now this is excellent ArbCom communication! // roux   21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you can expect further notifications like this from me in future. Seems we're coordinating well right now. :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anhydrobiosis

• Anhydrobiosis (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Nominations of articles such as S (AfD discussion) for deletion always raises flags. I've spent a while reviewing this person's contributions history, and there are a lot of questionable ones, too many I think to ascribe to a new user who immediately leaps in to the use of Misplaced Pages:Twinkle without knowing how to drive it. Some examples:

• — reverting User:NawlinWiki for "vandalism"
• — Erasing sourced content from Global financial crisis of 2008 and then warning the editor who actually added that section for removing content.
• — section blanking and source removal
• — reverting edits that actually corrected grammar and fixed a problem with an unclosed <ref> element
• — reverting the removal of vandalism
• — reverting a good faith attempt to neutralize some clearly unbalanced content
• — reversion, with the edit summary "typo"
• — reverting the addition of an interwiki link to an article on the French Misplaced Pages
• — reverting the addition of another interwiki link
• — reverting article cleanup
• — reverting article expansion
• — reverting good faith attempts by editors to fill in sections that had been previously blanked by vandals
• — reverting a fact correction
• — reverting a fact correction

Add to this this content addition, the nomination of insult for speedy deletion (which xe then self-reverted), these two false corrections of "hanged" to "hung", and I think that attention is required here. And by nominating S for deletion, this person has gained it.

Incidentally, these edits are a good reminder to the "I've never seen a good edit by an IP!" crowd. Most of the good faith edits involved here — the article expansions, the spelling corrections, the fact corrections, and the vandalism reversions — were by editors without accounts. 24.82.231.23 was indeed correcting Misplaced Pages. (Lipatti recorded the Waltzes in 1950, not 1948. I've checked against a source, which I'll put into the article next.) 67.173.89.212 was also correcting Misplaced Pages. (Our article is based upon a source that was written in 1968. But more recent sources confirm that the winter of 1978–1979 did smash the 1951–1952 record.) 72.133.197.212 was removing vandalism. 74.65.225.204 was correcting grammar and bad markup.

In comparison, Anhydrobiosis is an editor with an account, note. At the very best, xe shares the "All edits by people without accounts are vandalism!" philosophy espoused by some. Don't adhere to that belief, because this is where it leads to. ☺

But to return to the main issue: Even assuming that this isn't bad faith, and vandalism under the guise of countering vandalism (which vandals have done before), should this person be driving Twinkle or MWT? Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

Is a legal threat? Exxolon (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• AFAIK, merely saying that something is against the law isn't a legal threat unless you actually threaten legal action. This person is skating on thin ice though. I think a warning would be appropriate. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thinly veiled, yes. His talk page is also of concern. He's currently blocked, however. It has the same effect of trying to bully contributors that a full-fledged legal threat would, Reyk, so it's just as bad as if he had outright said, "Change X or I contact my lawyers." -Jéské Couriano 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see your point. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the block be extended to indef pending a possible retraction of the threat? MuZemike (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not for IPs. -Jéské Couriano 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it should be extended until the legal threat is retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I thought that Verizon IPs are dynamic and a lengthened block would catch collateral and be easily evaded... -Jéské Couriano 23:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama and User:Die4Dixie

The Barack Obama article is supposed to be on probation. There is this one editor, Die4Dixie who is trying to push his personal interpretation on what constitutes membership in a denomination. He has an agenda to try to demonstrate that Obama is not actually a Christian. He also presumes to know how often Obama goes to church. As a result, he is fomenting an edit war on the Obama page over whether Obama is still a member of the UCC denomination. Forgetting the content dispute and POV-pushing, he's in violation of the 1RR probation rule on that page, and obviously is accelerating disruption. Baseball Bugs 23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Talk:Barack_Obama/Article_probation#Notifications, he hasn't been given notification of such probation, so I will now do that. Any further edit warring by D4D will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 23:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As this user already knows,(as I even pointed it out on his talk page) the "they" for the last edit was not the Obama's, but rather the other editors. I clarified that here ], here ], and on the talk page there] so he knows what he has written here is is false. He has continually iserted unsourced material ,which I have removed. I have no agenda about trying to disprove he is a christian, as I have been happy to let that stay in the box. Attribution of an agenda is bizarre. I asked an academic question without the slightest attempt to make an edit related to the question. The continous insertion of unsourced material is the problem her, and this users inability to assume good faith and attribution of motives. Prior to this ani , I edited the page ( self reverted) and added formerly, which I felt to be a good compromise.Will provide diff in aminute.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The continued isertion of unsourced material , which I have removed twice. Please refer her to the article probation status about unsourced materialDie4Dixie (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You continue to put your personal spin on what constitutes membership in a denomination. That's original research on your part, and is against the rules. Baseball Bugs 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The article is under editing restrictions, which forbids disruptive edits, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And he was notified of probation, here: He chose to ignore it. Baseball Bugs 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That certainly dcoesn't say what probation means. Please use the correct channels for notification.. Not even a link to it. Now I understand.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the oine wanting to put unsourced material in . the onus is on you to provide your source for what constitutes mabership and affilitation.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

His last known denomination was UCC. Unless you can provide proof that he left the denomination, NOT your personal spin on it, then he remains in the UCC. Baseball Bugs 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So says your original reseach . Provide a reliable third party souce that substantiates your claim. Die4Dixie (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards