Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 4 February 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Overly hostile editor at the DYK talk page

User:Politizer has been overly hostile to people who do not agree with him for over two months at the Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know page. Recently, he posted a response saying this in the edit summary: "clarification about yet another Ottava Rima factual inaccuracy. come on, man, learn your shit already". I asked him not to put personal attacks in edit summaries because he has a habit of it. He responds with "don't want personal attacks in the edit summary? fine, I put it in the edit itself" in the edit summary and this in the edit: 1) "Hey genius" 2) "Once again I am in awe of how poor your understanding of DYK is. Non-admins can update Next, and they do all the time. You fucking moron." 3) "this is how you repay me—by whining about the same old bullshit and being too thick-skulled to read or understand anything I say.".

The user has attacked others besides myself, but it is harder to dig through the archives (I can easily find my name and match the conversations). For instance, there was this where he was warned about his hostility by User:NuclearWarfare. This original diff shows his use of edit summaries to further hostilities ("haha, that's just precious..... oh well. gonna try to avoid this thread now"). As you can see here (" hi asshole :-D") I am not the only one who he does this to. Upon looking at edit summaries, he does it frequently such as here. As a side note, he also has a strange habit of issuing "final warnings" as a non-admin (examples): 1 and 2. (these were found on the same pages as diffs related to the user's actions above). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the other comments right now because I'm in a hurry and other people will be better able to piece through them in an NPOV fashion. As for the final warnings, I issued those two because the users were VOAs who inserted libel into BLPs (for the one) and attacks against living individuals (for the second). But that's really irrelevant to this thread. Politizer /_contribs 04:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Any user can issue any warning. Final warnings aren't limited to an admin. Grsz--Review 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Using "bitch" in one of the edit summaries as you can see above shows that there is a problem with how the user handles vandals. I removed the last two, but the above is enough to show a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really much for me to say here, other than I urge people reading to read the entirety of the most recent discussion (the bottom portion of WT:DYK#Closer look, starting from "I would really like to know who promoted it.") rather than only the diffs that Ottava Rima provided. Politizer /_contribs 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And another response...regarding Ottava Rima's "I'm not the only one he does this to" diff, that edit was in response to one of Ottava Rima's buddy editors, who had already attacked me just a few edits before that (in that diff, scroll up in the conversation to Malleus' comment "More experience than you of counting?" If you're unfamiliar with DYK and me, this comment was mocking me for having once challenged one of Ottava Rima's DYK nominations for not being expanded fivefold.) This ANI thread would mean a lot more to me if it were something other than just Ottava Rima and his friend wanting to tattle on a guy they don't like. Politizer /_contribs 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why User:Politizer has no warnings for these type of comments in his/her recent edit history. Looks like there should be a warning for being chatty around the holidays (Misplaced Pages is not your personal chat room or some such), but it seems that an editor who is this hostile would have lots of warnings for personal attacks given on their talk page. I'm not going to be reading the entire conversation because no one felt the comments by this editor were serious enough when they were made to warn him/her from making them. --KP Botany (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, which comments are you questioning if they are hostile? The one set (the old set) were deemed hostile by Nuclear Warfare who mentions that. The recent set says "You fucking moron" and "this is how you repay me—by whining about the same old bullshit and being too thick-skulled to read or understand anything I say" which seems blatantly hostile. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning if any comments are hostile. What I am questioning is whether or not you considered the comments blatantly hostile at the time they were issued or continued to engage him at the same level, and, if the latter, why there is an AN/I discussion about an editor who has no user talk page warnings.

It's hard as an outsider to see what is going on. Your comment about his edit summary, in the first diff you list, is an aside, and an order to him, not a request. Obviously your telling him not to do an admin-only task that apparently was not an admin only task was more important than the command to stop being hostile. If his behaviour was so bad, it should have merited a direct civility warning, rather than an aside to the more pressing issue of his editing pages he shouldn't have (which, I assumed you were wrong about, because admin only edit pages are protected). He next calls you a "fucking moron," and this does not merit a civility warning on his user page. Huh? I'm lost at what he is doing now that tops that, but, again, it did not merit a civility warning.

The exchange with Nuclear Warfare does not appear to have been escalated by Politizer. The conclusion about this exchange seems to be that Politizer was whining about something that happened in the past, not that he was being particularly hostile, and, again, it didn't merit a civility warning on his talk page. So, again, I'm just lost about what is going on here.

I checked out his talk page, going back 500 edits, and I don't see a pattern of this editor receiving civility warnings. Congratulations, barn stars, thank yous, holiday greetings, yes, but civility issues? No, I don't see it there, and I don't see that the way it has been handled according to the diffs you provided, that it's all that big of a deal right now.

Please reread my post where I don't say anything about questioning the hostility of the editor's comments. Then please reread the diffs and consider them from the angle of someone looking to see what is going on, and I think you might see that in both cases you read something that wasn't necessarily there. Potty mouth? Yes. The hostility though, if it was really an issue with this editor, probably would have gathered more comments and some serious user talk page warnings and discussion. I can't find this. --KP Botany (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of talk page warning does not justify a user's behavior, nor does it mean that their continued disruption should not go to ANI. It is obvious that there is a discussion involving a DYK issue and he is being disruptive with his language. He has a history of being disruptive with his language. It seems that you want to justify bad behavior because of a previous lack of oversight. Why would you do something like that, by chance? What possibly motivates you to want to bend over backwards to make it seem like someone has the right to act in this way? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "being disruptive with his language" means. Misplaced Pages has no rules against using language that you don't like. If you believe I am disruptive, please comment on the substance of my remarks, not the words in which I put them. Politizer /_contribs 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see my self bending over backwards about anything. You raised an issue in a public space, it sounded dreadful, I clicked on links, it seems overblown. You keep making what I am saying into something completely different, though. I think you're not paying attention to what others are saying. Which is not unusual when someone is upset about a situation, so it doesn't matter that much. However, I don't see Politizer coming across the way you have presented. And, I only looked at the diffs you provided to show this, and his talk page, because it (the latter) was rather boring, and I wanted to see a really bad and nasty editor who was getting away with murder--I had a paper due and was procastinating. What I see is someone who has been foul-mouthed on Misplaced Pages for a long time, and no one has really called him on it. When I reviewed his talk page to see how many other editors were outraged by his behaviour I found a bunch of congratulations, DYK comments, barn stars, and holiday greetings. The issue isn't justifying his bad behaviour, but, rather, trying to decide why it's become such an issue now, when it does not appear, from his talk page, that it has been a real problem before this for any other editors. Anyway, someone did give him a talk page warning to chill out with the bad language. He seems to have taken it rather mellow. --KP Botany (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I stated that there is hostility. I never said there was a large amount or anything. I didn't characterize it in any way. Therefore, the large portion of your claim that what you saw doesn't meet what I stated seems to have no connection to what I say. Compounded with your claim that I am upset, which is clearly not the case, I think it appears that you are trying to dismiss me as someone who is emotionally upset and wanting to whine about it. Clearly, that is not the case. As I stated before, you have characterized his comments in a way that is apologetic. Combined with your recent posts that demean my initial entry through claims of an emotionally charged entry, I feel that you are simply trying to rationalize bad conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So then, a trivial amount of hostility that you're not upset about....definitely sounds like the kind of thing that needs to be brought to ANI. Politizer /_contribs 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see anything that requires any admin action. The editor hasn't even been recently warned for incivility, so there's absolutely no call for a block over this incident. This barely warrants a wikiquette alert, and only because both sides of that argument need to take it down a notch.

And on the point being bickered over: if there's a page in the DYK project that only admin are allowed to edit, why isn't it protected? -- Vary Talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to Vary Because it's not a page that only admins can edit. The pages that only admins can edit (Template:Did you know and the queues) are protected; as I mentioned in the conversation that sparked this ANI, the DYK rules clearly state that non-admins can edit Next, and in fact most of the editing of Next is done by them. Just for some clarification. Politizer /_contribs 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There was. It was the DYK queue. Then that was moved onto the Template talk page and was no longer protected as before. The protection was lost for whatever reason. Only admin are allowed to edit the main page and this loophole allows for a contradiction against a greater consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only admins do edit the main page. Nothing moves from Template:Did you know/Next update to Template:Did you know except through an admin; the admins generally review the stuff at Next before they move it to the queues and the template. So that's how it goes: anyone can move hooks from the DYK suggestions page to Next, and then only admins can move them from Next to the template. Politizer /_contribs 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd how Vary seems to apologize for the user's edits that were made just recently because he wasn't warned over them. He was asked by me not to continue. He was asked by NuclearWarfare not to be so hostile. So even then, there were two warnings. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to interject something here, as a disinterested third set of eyes on this. Ottava Rima, he wasn't exactly asked by you not to continue, he was told. (See again the DIFF that you yourself quoted above. Granted, the response was a bit on the hostile side, and Politizer should not let things escalate to this point. IMHO, what I think needs to happen here is a warning for Politizer to try adhering to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF a bit more, and refrain from letting things like this get the Wiki stress level up. Like your userpage says Politizer, think happy thoughts. When you feel like you're going to type something that you know is going to fly in the face of civility guidelines, back off from the keyboard a minute, breathe, and take a moment to compose your thoughts in a more productive fashion. Here are a few suggestions:

• Turn negative statements into neutral or positive statements.
• Try disagreeing agreeably.
• Never start a sentence with "You", always start with "I" or "We". You tends to sound attacking, where I or we is more neutral. Try, instead of "You're wrong to feel that way!", "I regret that you feel like that." It puts you in the position of taking the moral and conversational high-ground.
• Try nodding your head when you type your response, soon you'll be looking for more affirmative statements to type than negatives!

All of these can be applied by not only the editors involved in this dispute, but also all others that are reading this. Edit Centric (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2009 (

(outdent edit conflict) To provide some context, Mid-December Ottava and Politizer had a argument regarding the use of block quotes in size calculations. Thread 1, Thread 2. Both Ottava and Politizer have had their altercations, but nothing that, at this stage, deserves admin attention. Edit Centric is spot on. » \ / (⁂) 05:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• A few more - 1 ("I'd rather not go back to dealing with that imbecile at wt:dyk") and 2 (taunting). Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If he has in fact been advised by uninvolved editors that his conduct of late is out of line, then take it to wikiquette if you must. Taking something like this straight to AN/I (do not pass go!), especially when there is no urgent admin intervention required, just increases drama. I'll say again, though, that both sides of that discussion needed to disengage: you'd both be better off dropping the issue, taking the advice above and using it to avoid escalating any future conflicts you might have. -- Vary Talk 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this at the DYK talk page are a disruption to a process. Wikiquette does not deal with that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly what the Wikiquette alert noticeboard deals with. Other than your terse order to Politizer to "Stop now," it seems like there was no attempt at dispute resolution at all. AN/I should not be your first stop for something like this. -- Vary Talk 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken. This is about disruption at a process through language. This is not a content dispute. Therefore, Wikiquette is not acceptable in any regards. ANI is for immediate action in terms of disruptions. Your persistence on the matter is quite interesting, especially when you overlook the fact that the one you are defending even admitted that he was personally attacking. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, the only thing I've said on the subject of Politizer's comments is that both of you needed to disengage and that immediate admin intervention wasn't warranted. (And since no admin tools have been used as a result of your complaint, it seems that none of the admins who've read this thread disagree on that point.) I'm not defending anything but the clearly stated intents and purposes of our various noticeboards; Wikiquette alerts is for "impolite or uncivil communications" (as the template at the top of this page that asks "Are you in the right place?" explains). Whether or not the problem is a content dispute is irrelevant. And I think it's 'odd' and 'interesting' that you seem to equate comments about your choice of venue with defense of cursing and heated talk. I can disapprove of losing one's temper and of overreacting to lost tempers, can't I? Feel free to have the last word, if that's what you're wanting, but I do hope you'll try to avoid this sort of unnecessary escalation in the future. -- Vary Talk 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Disengage from what? I didn't throw insults, nor do anything but talk about the topic. I don't respond in kind to him. That has always been obvious. The fact that you try to skew what others can see serves no purpose. Or do you have some reason to do that? It wouldn't be the first time you did such things. I could count at least three times you did the same thing before. Seems interesting that you would show up again and contradict the blatantly obvious and try to make it seem that someone repeatedly using edit summaries to attack others is appropriate. Perhaps you need to disengage, because your comments here are completely off base. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, these are moot at this point, we get it. There's been disagreements. Again, a warning for Politizer to be better about adhering to WP:CIVIL, and quite possibly a nudge for Ottava Rima, try my suggestions above. I looked a bit at the two threads cited by \/ (reminiscent of OJ Simpson? Sorry, just HAD to!), and it looks to me like Ottava is fighting an uphill battle on consensus issues. Ottava, those suggestions might work in the context of these discussions as well, instead of the apparent finger-pointing and recriminations that I'm seeing. (Instead of the "you're wrong" conversation track, try "Hmm. You know, you might be right there, however the way I'm reading this guideline, and I could be wrong about this, but...") Try that. Edit Centric (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement? No. There are attacks. Why would you attempt to soften his actions with such coded language? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of content disagreements, Politizer has crossed the line several times. I'm going to give him a warning and ask him to act more in line with our behavior expectations here. RxS (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist edit warring on BLP violations

Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit warring across multiple articles to insert more or less identical poorly sourced / unsourced claims that a Palestinian-American professor, Rashid Khalidi, printed a "fabricated" or "bogus" quotation in a New York Times editorial. This has continued for several days despite numerous warnings, talk page discussion, discussion at WP:BLP/N#Henry Siegman - "anti-Israeli" criticism and reversions from several different editors. I have found five articles so far:

• Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here: leading to indefinite article protection.
• Henry Siegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:
• Moshe Ya'alon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:
• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A single edit by Historicist in what looks like an edit war by multiple parties but it is hard to tease out.
• Arnaud de Borchgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). One edit, no edit warring.
• Alleged Ya'alon quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Original location of this material, created by Historicist then turned into a redirect per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

The edits have been reverted and/or opposed on the talk pages by Nbauman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), GrizzledOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), myself, and Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the first four of whom removed or refactored the material on BLP grounds, and the last suggesting administrative intervention on the Khalidi talk page. I can see at least a couple editors who added or restored Historicist's material, but Historicist seems to be by far the main editor involved.

This continues a month's long pattern by Historicist of adding poorly sourced derogatory content to the encyclopedia, then edit warring it in against consensus. The presence of administrators has in the past not been enough to stop the edit wars or to keep the talk page discussion fair or civil - there was full page protection at least twice. The earlier trouble dates back to the period when Khalidi was a political football over the John McCain "pals around with terrorists" smear of Obama. I bring this report with some reluctance because in the past these reports have turned into forums for making ridiculous accusations against me for my role in keeping the peace.Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Many of the edits you provide as diffs are old and some of them aren't reversions. If you think there's edit warring you should report it to the appropriate board. Instead you are stringing together edits to make it look like edit warring and casting aspersions on his motivations, this strikes me as being disruptive and tendentious. As I recall, in one of the cases you cite Historicist signed on for mediation and you refused and obstructed for months. Without commenting on the merits of the content he's trying to add, it's not like he's making it up out of whole cloth and without any citations. I find your attempts to treat every content dispute as a battle that requires administrator intervention unfortunate. Personally I find that you are aggresive with warning templates and abusive in your accusations of edit warring and other accusations where there is none. Certainly Historicist could act with more prudence, but he's not the only one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the matter at hand - you are an involved party here, having defended historicist and participated in edit wars and accusations on Historicist's side, and I'm tired of dignifying these tit-for-tat complaints with a serious response. Historicist's diffs speak for themselves and show edit warring BLP violations against consensus. Four editors reverted on BLP grounds, and the sourcing for this derogatory material is unquestionably weak. The problem is that as in past incidents he does not stop unless he is stopped. This has gone on for months and it has now flared up twice the last three weeks, resulting in long term full protection of the article both times. Neither policy, nor warnings, nor pleas to follow BRD, nor failing to obtain consensus, have prevented him from simply reverting again and again, until the article in question gets protected. There is nothing to mediate here. It is a behavior problem. This is the correct forum for such things. Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon mentions part of the problem, but not all of it. In the same obviously inappropriate paragraph that Historicist added (and both ChildofMidnight and he then reverted into place), Historicist also attributed to Efraim Karsh a comment about Khalidi's "blind nationalist belief," that it "reduces his academic work to the level of mere 'political polemics.'" In fact Karsh said nothing of the sort, commenting only on a specific quote of Khalidi's that it "may have some merit at the level of political polemics." Historicist's addition is, in other words, a blatant misrepresentation of source material, intentional or otherwise, on top of the other issues. In fact I do not see how ChildofMidnight should be editing this article either, however, as his interventions have been almost entirely to replace not just poorly sourced but mis-sourced material, while attacking editors on the page but refusing to engage or discuss the content. His replacement of this paragraph without any explanation in talk is just one of several examples over the last months. In most articles I would be more willing to deal with this, but considering it is a BLP I think that administrative action is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are both setting a new standard for false accusations, personal attacks and incivility. Are we to believe that if there were a legitimate instance of edit warring you wouldn't have reported it immediately? Making false accusations is itself an offense, so save us the fake dramatics. You've brought up concerns over the content, and now you need to work through the discussion and dispute resolution remedies to decide what can and should be included if anything. Did you try rewording or was the edit simply reverted in its entirety? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight seems to have some weird problem keeping his cool about this page, and for some reason has been shielding Historicist via edit wars, personal attacks, assumptions and accusations of bad faith, etc. Most of this seems to come from thin air and/or a complete misunderstanding of BLP. BLP violations and POV pushes do not have to be rephrased or agreed on - they are deleted on sight. Yet we have worked with the problem editors for months to try to make peace, without any improvement in their behavior. I did not include him in the initial report because until now most of this was a little stale and his role in the latest flare-up was relatively slight, but this report seems to have triggered this bizarre reaction again. A review of his record on the page shows that he has been seriously disruptive and quite at odds with policy and editing process - he probably ought to stay away from the page as well. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If a comment is false, it helps to say why (and please do show what I said that's uncivil). I addressed earlier, here, your replacement of an earlier paragraph created by another editor that substantially misrepresented the source material. Again here you arrived on the page, without discussion, to do the same. What's odd to me is that over this time you still won't see that it is in fact extremely shoddy material that is being added to this article, and that this is why people continue to remove it. Instead you seem to think people should somehow just fix it even though you admit the material is problematic and show no ability or attempts to do so yourself. This isn't complicated in any case. The material Historicist added here, and you replaced, clearly misrepresents the underlying sources. My experience is that when editing is this bad on a BLP, the editors responsible are prohibited from editing the page. If we aren't at that point now I think we must be pretty close. Mackan79 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Content issue

The most obvious issue here is ongoing edit warring that resists all attempts to stop. However, lest this get into a discussion of content and the applicability of BLP, please note that the only reliable source offered to date is an editor's note in a New York Times editorial noting that the widely repeated quote (which did not originate with Khalidi) could not be verified and does not appear in the source it is generally attributed to,. The source does not say that anybody "fabricated" anything. The material disputed on BLP grounds includes accusations that are synthesis, opinion, or original research, or sourced to editorials appearing on pro-Israel attack websites / organizations Middle East Forum and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA, which has a notorious history here - see CAMERA#Misplaced Pages Campaign).Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite the explanation of WP:BLP guidelines, I had to revert his changes as well. He seems rabidly insistent that his derogatory and poorly sourced opinions be included, despite consensus against him. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Rabidly insistent"? How about this comment where you say "Historicist's butchery of the English language was just so painful, that I had to go and vent my frustration somewhere." That sounds like a personal attack to me. I think everyone involved could do a better job of following the appropriate dispute resolution protocols and civility guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the use of this remark to get at Khalid Rashidi and Henry Siegman is questionable. Both the Camera and the Commentary piece flaunt the 'bogus' claim to a purpose, to smear the former's scholarship and the latter's competence. For the record, the phrase translated as 'sear into their consciousness' did not arise with Moshe Ya'alon, but was IDF jargon, used in contexts for harsh military, as opposed to political, measures against any Palestinians involved in any form of revolt against the Occupation, during the intifadas. Both the Ricki Hollander, Alex Safian, and Jason Maoz's pieces from activist sites make out that this is a total fabrication, one drawn 'ad nauseam by Arab news services, neo-Nazi websites and leftist bloggers', and the innuendo is obvious. Yet Hollander and Safian's own construal is questionable, and like Maoz they ignore the fact that a distinguished Israeli scholar like Yoram Peri uses it in his highly regarded book,Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy,US Institute of Peace Press, 2006. Peri is on the other side of the political fence from both Khalidi and Siegman and yet uses much the same language of Peri's remark, which created an uproar in Israel when it, and his remarks before the rabbinate some weeks earlier, were published. I suggest in the meantime that Historicist dig out what is now an idiom in Hebrew, and provide wiki editors with the full Hebrew text, so that at least those fluent in that language can examine the source and its translations, and allow us to judge for ourselves. Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - My choice of adjectives is not the issue here. The edits by which Wikidemon has asked for administrator intervention IS. If you wish to accuse me of harassment, derogatory statements or such, please do so within the context of this issue, or do so separately. Looking through Rashid Khalidi history, you appear to have a record of supporting Historicist's edits. As I see it, you are not an unbiased party. Pot kettle black?GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional civility issues

• I've seen enough from User:Historicist here and elsewhere to know that the user hasn't really adopted what you might call "expected norms" of Misplaced Pages editing. I am of the opinion that a short block could be appropriate, especially if the edit warring continues. I would keep a watch on the situation and impose it myself if needed, but I've been attacked by the user in the past as being biased on a number of fronts, so he wouldn't view me as a neutral assessor in this case. And I probably wouldn't be, since the user has been rather uncivil to me in our past encounters: he said I was "disturbingly aggressive" (apparently for asking him on his talk page to avoid personal attacks) and then said I have a "bizarrely twisted mind that renders (me) of questionable use as an editor of Misplaced Pages". Interesting. But that wasn't the best doozy. Later, he said I was guilty of "Holocaust minimization, lies, ... defense of pedophilia, insensitive jokes about the Holocauset (sic), obsessive attacks of people who ctiticize (me), and ... threats. Yikes. As I said, someone in a more neutral position should really have a word with User:Historicist to help him understand WP's expected good editing and civility practices. Good Ol’factory 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say your comments show clear signs of a bias against Historicist and I don't see how bringing up old gripes does much to help the situation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's purpose was not to help heal anyone or any situation. It's purpose was to put the user's specific behaviour in this case in the context of a broader pattern of incivility and problematic editing. If that disturbs you, look away. But any admin who is going to address this will benefit from knowing the whole history of problems with the user, and this was intended to assist him or her in that. Good Ol’factory 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that what you offer is a one-sided portrayal rather than a fair assessment of all sides involved. In this very thread there are examples of problematic edits from others, but you've ignored them. This is a content dispute, and while it's certainly appropriate to remind Historicist and everyone else to use dispute resolution protocls rather than editing back and forth over content, I don't see anything to be gained from your negative characterizations and assessment of one party with whom you've had difficulties in the past. If he's expected to show restraint so should you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was one-sided—the personal attacks were leveled against me. The target of the attack usually can't help but be "one side" of the issue, and the target is not a neutral party. That's why it's not me who is pursuing the issue as a type of "mediator", as I stated above. Any admin who is neutral and is further interested in pursuing the issue could (and I expect would) examine the entire thread of our discussion to see what my comments were, so your concern that I am being "one sided" is a red herring. If you yourself would care to examine the discussion, I think you'd probably conclude that I had "showed restraint", as you put it, whereas he did not. (Or, just ask the user—he could simply tell you the "other side" of the story.) The entire point is that the user's behaviour has, in the past, gone well beyond mere "content disputes" into personal attacks, which they very well could end up again. Let's try not to have such a spider's-eye-view of the matter. I would prefer that editors try to address the underlying problems and not just deal with every issue as a discrete content dispute with no connection whatever to previous or future actions. Good Ol’factory 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A little reality check

• User:Good Olfactory appears to engage in rapid-fire requests to delete categories, many are useful, but when I happened upon him he was attempting to eliminate two Holocaust related categfories and do so in the language of Holocause minimization, his claim was that "merely" suriviving the war in Europe as a hunted Jew in hiding was not Misplaced Pages worthy unless the Jew in quesiton had been in a death camp, his casual dismissal of the mass murder of millions of European Jews outside of the death camps is the definition of Holocaust minimization. I have cooperated with Good Olafactory on other articles. But Holocaust minimization is vile. I am troubled that he is still defending his remarks and behavior.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• User:Wikidemon patrols the Rashid Khalidi page. It took me three months of many-times-per-day editing argument on the Rashid Khalidi talk page to enter the straigntforward infoormation that Khalidi was a PLO official in the 1970's and 80's. This despite the fact that the info I was struggling to enter was sourced to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times Pacifica Radio the New York Times several well-known reporters who interviewed Khalidi in Lebanon as a PLO official and academics who have written about the periof. Wikidemon and accomplices argued for three months that all of this evidence was invalid. The arguments Wikidemon used them are the same kind of personal attacks on me that he is using now.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that unruly POV pushers always accuse the accuser? That's one of the tiresome things about dealing with the Palestinian/Israeli partisans, they're so jumpy. My record is clean here and that morass is not really my little corner of Misplaced Pages. Historicist keeps trying to source disparagement of Khalidi (and possibly other opponents of Israel) to political attack blogs, think tanks, letters to the editor, and opinion pieces by partisans and pundits. The text he tries to insert in the article does not even follow from those non-reliable sources. For example, the Republican presidential campaign talking point he was pushing for months, that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO but lied about it (and hence, his supposed friend Barack Obama, as Sarah Palin put it, palls around with terrorists) did not have good sourcing, was flat-out contradicted by some sources, is denied by the subject of the article, and may in fact be simply untrue. It's pointless to argue content here though. Now he's been trying to add to five articles material implying that Khalidi fabricated a quote, which is clearly untrue. These ongoing BLP violations, however blatant, are a content issue that we could easily deal with on the article page. The months-old behavior problem, which shows no sign of acknowledgement or abating, is not proposing the material. Anyone is free to propose content for the encyclopedia. It's the drama when he does not get his way - gross incivilities, wikigaming, and accusations against those who disagree on the content, then when asked to stop, blowing smoke by accusing others of the same thing. Historicist has been the source of most of the edit problems on the page, with occasional fly-bys from less frequent editors. Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is whether crtiticism is allowed

• The material at immediate issue consists of:
• 1) A fabricated quotation, published by Khalidi no fewer than four times. It was not only removed, the removing editors implied that the quote was not fabricated. Note that the correction ran 22 days after the fake quote. In that time the Times contacted Khalidi (departmental scuttlebut) and Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote, and failed. If Khalidi couldn't rind it, and the Tiems couldn't find it, its a fake. The quotation was first published by journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, without a citation. The citation to a particular Ya'alon interview was first published by Khalidi. That is, he fabricated the citation to a source twhere the quote did not appear. In a junior professor, this sort of fraudulent scholarship lieds to denial of tenure.
• 2) an academic article about a second instance of Khalidi publishing a quotation from a Christian cleric with a fabricated attiibution to a Zionist, and also making a verfiably false claim about a book by Theodore Herzl. That is, I was adding to the Khalidi page three well documented instances with good sources in which Khalidi published false information about what a Zionist had actually said.
• 3) an assertion by a distinguished historian Efraim Karsh making a widely shared criticism of Khalidi as writing books more as a propagandist for the Palestinian cause than as an objective scholar. Similar statements appear on the Misplaced Pages pages of many of the pro-Israeli historians whose work contests Khalidi's claims. I point out here that Khalidi self-describes as an advocate fo the Palestinian cause and actually worked for the PLO as a young man as an official propagandist. Many historians view Khalidi's work as part of a centuries old tradition of nationalist historians promoting their national cause. It is not a category to be scorned; most of us regard Herodotus as a nationalist historian, he gives about as balanced an account of the Greek cause and the Persian Empire as Khalidi does of the Middle East. When historians write as partisans, it is appropriate to say so. I admire some of Khalidi's work, I use some of it, but I recognize it as an entirely one-sided account of reality, polemic in the best sense of the word.
• My purpose in adding the material critical of Khalidi was to begin a section that might, with time, develop into an appropriately-sized section on academic criticisms of this highly controversial academic.
• The real issue here, as I see it, is whether well-soruced material critical of Rashid Khalidi will be allowed onto his page, or whether anyone trying to add such material will be required to run the gauntlet of a months-long battle on the talk page and subjected to false accusations and personal attacks.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were rejected because you provided poor sources, inflammatory/libellous language and made personal inferences on the facts. Just as you are doing here. Just taking what you said of Khalidi's quote issue...

• "fabricated quotation" - There's a world of difference between "unverified" and "fabricated". Perhaps you could provide a source where Khalidi specifies his source for the quote, and the original interview transcripts (I assume they're in Hebrew), so that editors can view it more impartially? Perhaps a neutral 3rd party who has done so?Failing that, the NYT wording of "unverified" has to be accepted.
• "In that time the Times..."

1. "... in that time..." - you imply that the NYT investigated the quote for 3 weeks (actually, you said so specifically, elsewhere). There is no source documenting when the NYT first questioned the source. If one is to accept your argument, then CAMERA has been researching the issue for the better part of 6 years? And it took them that long to figure it out? Is this the subject of a feature film?

2. "contacted Khalidi" - this isn't mentioned anywhere in the NYT article.

3. "Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote" - he did? Your source? Where does it say that?

4. "fraudulent scholarship" - this sort of statement is potentially libellous and has to stay out of BLPs. I don't think anyone rejected the possibility that an error was made. But an error is quite different from fraud. Your use of inflammatory language is not justified. If he has committed academic fraud, then surely you can find neutral 3rd party sources which have covered the issue of the alleged fraud?

This is an example of how you failed to support the allegations you brought up. Inflammatory language, poor extremist sources and a failure to address any concerns which the other editors brought up. It is not, as you claim, a vendetta to slander Ya'alon. You could help by finding a source where Siegman specifies his source of the quote, and the original Hebrew transcripts. It'd be original research, but it would at least help cast some light on the issue.GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can we please not argue content here? The content is poorly sourced, as most of the editors on the various pages concur - and Historicist's argument above is as leaky as a sieve. Per a whole bunch of policies it is the responsibility of the editor proposing content to provide adequate sourcing, and obtain consensus for disputed edits. That is not going to happen unless there is a new development because the sources are just not there. The reason this is an AN/I issue isn't specifically that Historicist keeps trying the more prudent editors' patience with months of these weak proposals, but that he causes unending trouble when they are rejected. By revert warring poorly sourced material into the article again and again, he leaves the well-behaved editors few options. I will revert him once, or maybe twice, but he will take every one of these edits up to 3RR, badmouth those who disagree with him, and if he didn't get the last revert he will start again another day. Dispute resolution, discussion, etc., have not seemed to work here. If he does not stop the only reasonable outcomes I can see all involve administrative intervention.Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Long answer to rhetorical question

In a spot check of Historicist's edits, I see two main focuses - articles about politics, and uncontroversial articles about various Jewish and Israeli organizations. With respect to the former, nearly all of Historicist's edits are to repeat criticism made by pro-Israeli or pro-American partisan groups and individuals of people perceived as anti-Israeli or anti-Western. Overall it displays a weak appreciation for our standards of neutrality and sourcing, in that the criticisms are backed only by primary source citations to the group leveling the criticism, and many make claims not contained in the source or contain on-Wiki editorializing.

As an example, Historicist's most recent edit ats the moment is adding to the "criticism" of Amnesty International article, and to the "praise" section of NGO Monitor a claim that the Asian Tribune has "praised" NGO Monitor for "pointing out" that Amnesty International is biased against democratic regimes. Omitted are the disclaimers that the Asian Tribune is a tiny online newspaper published by an expatriate living in Sweden, that NGO Monitor is an Israeli partisan group that defends Israel against its repeated run-ins with Amnesty International over Israel's human rights record, or that the source in question is a five-paragraph editorial in the online paper that serves as an introduction to a reprint of an editorial written by NGO Monitor's Executive Director that appears in the New York Sun. Surely, if there is criticism of Amnesty International worth noting in this encyclopedia there must be stronger sources. A more serious problem is that the material misrepresents the sources. The Asian Tribune does not praise NGO Monitor or its director, and does not endorse their editorial or the conclusion - it merely reprints it word for word.

As another example, a couple weeks ago Historicist created an article about Gary Gerstle, who is apparently "one of the nation's leading historians" (though the citations come online from his own department). He then created an article for another professor, Janice Radway, with little content other than that her scholarship is noted for "radically anti-American" for covering American oppression, domination, and imperialism, cited only (and with a long quote by) Gary Gerstle to that effect. The link is not online so I cannot tell if that is what Gerstle really said, but the fratricidal tendency of history professors to tarnish each other's reputation is not the stuff of encyclopedias, at least not unless it can be cited to neutral reliable secondary sources.

So in answer to the rhetorical question of whether criticism is allowed, yes, if it meets all of the various Misplaced Pages policies on verifiability / accurate reflection of sources, reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, BLP, WEIGHT, and so on. Even at that, criticism is generally supposed to be worked into the article for context, and should be relevant to the notability of the subject of the article - not just criticism for the sake of criticism. However, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for repeating poorly sourced partisan accusations. And it is certainly not a place for edit warring poorly sourced material against the protests of other editors, then calling them names for disapproving of your substandard content.Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Guinness Question

This is getting me wondering, if there's a Misplaced Pages record for the longest thread in an WP:ANI posting... or perhaps the greatest number of forks. If there is, I'm curious which we'll hit first - a record, or an admin doing something? I'm not certain. Better check the records... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That would probably go to one of the many discussions that got moved to a subpage. This isn't even close. :) — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Defending falsehoods on Misplaced Pages

The Henry Siegman page contains the bogus quote as an example of Siegman's writing. I inserted a brief statement explaining that the New York Times has established that the quote is bogus. It is, in fact, an inversion of what Ya'alon actually said, and, as such , something of a canard. Which is, of course, why Rashid Jhalidi has published it four times. User:GrizzledOldMan and USER:Wikidemon immediately removed my explanation. I expostulated on talk. They accused me of various high crimes and misdemeanors. If they are sincere in their protestations that they wish to uphold Misplaced Pages standards for reliable, souced information, they will insert information from the New York Times establishing that the quote it a fabrication on the Henry Siegman. Their failure to do so establishes that they are simply interested in using Misplaced Pages to promote anti-Israel propaganda.Historicist (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that personal attack, which you repeated on the Siegman talk page, shows zero attempt to come to grips with the BLP vios, incivility, or edit warring. The content you edit warred over, despite being asked to stop, was reverted by three different editors on BLP grounds on that page alone, you are the sole proponent there, and it is a BLP violation. If you are not blocked or banned from editing Israel-Palestine related articles, will you promise not to impugn the intentions of other editors you disagree with, and not to restore content that has been removed or disputed until and unless you get general consensus / agreement from the editors on the page? The New York Times article says nothing of the sort you claim it to. So while we are at it, it would be nice but not mandatory for now that you make sure the content you add is actually supported by the sources you propose, and not to source disparagement of people you consider anti-Israel to partisan pro-Israeli blogs, think tanks, and editorialists. Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel general enforcement

I just came across the arbitration committee's decision here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. The repeated edit problems on the Ya'alon, Khalidi, and Siegman articles, and this aspect of the CAMERA article, are clearly over the Israel / Palestine conflict. Can we simply warn any offending editors that they will be expected to stick to 1RR, civility, etc., that they are expected per BRD not to make disputed changes before gaining consensus, and that there will be a zero tolerance policy with blocks or topic bans for further violations?

The Khalidi article is now indefinitely protected. None of this discussion seems to be getting through to Historicist, and I see little chance absent some administrative action that his edit warring, BLP vios, incivility, etc., will stop if article probation is lifted. If a version of the content gains consensus, fine, it can go in the article. If not -- the far more likely outcome -- he needs to accept that. In the meanwhile it is unacceptable that he or anyone else would edit war this material (4RR between two editors over a 7-hour period) into the article without gaining consensus, particularly when it is challenged by multiple editors on BLP grounds. If this discussion ends without a block or a topic ban, can we use arbitration enforcement or some other appropriate tool to ensure editors don't do this again?Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I think Historicist is actionable now. His personal attacks are continuing - in the past few minutes he has cut-and-pasted the above personal attack, that another editor and I are "simply interested in using Misplaced Pages to promote anti-Israel propaganda", on one of the article talk pages. Clearly, the warnings and the fact we're here on AN/I are not slowing him down - and if you look at his record he has already been blocked twice over doing the same thing on the same subject matter. Can we please put this one out of its misery? I believe editors who do this sort of thing repeatedly get blocked or banned from Israel-Palestine related articles.Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Decentralizing the Arbitration Committee

This probably is not the right place for this but for anyone interested, I have proposed we decentralize the Arbitration Committee. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have come to tell you that this is so epic.... Synergy 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's going to be controversial. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fun Fun Fun^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clever. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I've just read it, and still cannot work out whether you are arguing abolition, restructure, or whatever. If you are proposing substantial structural changes here, I think you need substantial structural reasons, and I don't see it. --Rodhullandemu 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I want it to be decentralized. My proposal explains how conflicts can be dealt with. For anything else the Arbitration Committee does (like CheckUser) we can discuss an alternative. I honestly don't know what alternatives people want. I am waiting for them to bring them up for discussion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But ArbCom is a group of community-appointed individuals situate in disparate locations, and so by one point of view, are decentralised. If you are suggesting replacing that with community consensus, you haven't made it clear; neither have you given reasons for doing so. And ArbCom doesn't do CheckUser per se, although there may be an overlap between arbiters and checkusers. If you don't know what alternatives people want, I'd say you need to make a case for change, and so far, you haven't. --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom gives CheckUser permission. Consensus will work, and I have given reasons. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue anything else on the proposal talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Shall I marked it as failed now, or should we let the drama and arguments run for a while first? Guy (Help!) 09:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Happened upon this. Seems I saw a link to some RfC on Arbitration policy at top of contributions page yesterday (not part of my watch list) but it disappeared. Anyone know what it was? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It just popped up again, in case I whetted anyone's interest! Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_enforcement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That RfC deals with the enforcement process. There has also been some occasional discussion about updating the Arbitration Policy itself, and I had prepared a draft revision to the policy which some people were going over, if that is of interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation of long-time wikipedia editor Keith Simon (wiki editor SimonATL)

I have been editing on wikipedia for several years as SimonATL. My name actual name is Keith Simon. A couple years ago, someone created an new wikipedia account, "Keith Simon" which has only recently been brought to my attention. The creator of this account has used it to vandalize articles even while pointing a falsely accusing finger at me.

Background.

This is a long story, but this comes down to a situation that started several years ago with an article that I created on wikipedia on the Theodore Roosevelt Association (TRA) using my wikipedia account, SimonATL. Around the same time, I started an article on Tweed Roosevelt. I am a member of the TRA and also have written extensively on Theodore Roosevelt and his large extended family. You can check my history on wikipedia as editor SimonATL to see for yourself.

There were some disagreements about factual statements in the article. At the same time, there were also some disagreements among the leadership of the TRA involving the organization's leadership and a past interim director, Edward Renehan.

Anyway, wikipedia editors such as TEDHEAD and another one TRAVENGER, people who sided with Mr. Renehan (whether or not it was Mr. Renehan is debatable, he claimed it was not him) made various changes in the article on the TRA and also on an article on a member of the TRA's executive board, Tweed Roosevelt. I have no way of knowing who has been involved in this impersonation of me and I don't care.

Bottom line, taking the opposite side of the debate, I made some changes in the article on the TRA and also on Mr. Tweed Roosevelt.

This past weekend, when I reviewed the "Tweed Roosevelt" account, I realized that someone a couple years ago - (around Oct 2007) created wikipedia account, "Keith Simon." I know it was not me and since it was not me, I obviously can't sign into Misplaced Pages using that account. If you look at the contributions of that account, you will see that it made a vandalization change to the article on Tweed Roosevelt on 17:04, 24 January 2009 (edit) (undo) which obviously vandalization. There is simply no logical way that the "real" Keith Simon, me - would have vandalized an article that I started years ago and which I have had to go into and pull out other people's vandalizations.

Questions. 1. How does the "real" Keith Simon, me - get control of that ID? 2. Can the account be deleted so that I could RE-create it, myself.

I spoke with Mr. Tweed Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt's great-grandson, this morning, whom I know thru that organization, the "Theodore Roosevelt Association" to explain that it was not I who had been vandalizing the article. That vandalization had been pointed out to him by several wikipedians who personally know him.

So what am I to do? To verify my identity, I can fax you my drivers license and my military (retired) ID.

Imagine how you would feel if someone created a Mark Ryan wikipedia ID and then began vandalizing articles under that assumed name!

Rather than just block this account, I'd rather just have the account deleted and that I be immediately notified so that I could create a "Keith Simon" account under my own control.

I appreciate anything that can be done to remedy this.

Thanks

SimonATL (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith Simon Major US Marine Corps Reserve (Ret) Senior JDE System Engineer - CNC Roseburg Forest Products, Dillard, OR

• Email this to WP:OTRS. They can probably handle the ID issues better than we can. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very odd. User:Keith Simon and User:SimonATL both edited the article on Theodore Roosevelt Association, in October of 2007, see

Special:Contributions/Keith Simon.

This seems to be a very unusual set of events. While User:Keith Simon hasn't done anything wrong simply in creating an account with that name, to use it to edit articles which are within the known area of interest of a real (or, just conceivably, another real) Keith Simon looks very like bad faith and deliberate deceipt. I should suggest that User:Keith Simon needs to be invited to explain himself (or herself), and that failing a satisfactory explanation the account should be blocked for a long period. Having said that, I don't believe it's all right (indeed, it may be defamatory) for SimonATL to hint above at possible deception by a named individual, and I would ask him to strike out that name. Xn4 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the peculiar edits of "User:Keith Simon" to both the Theodore Roosevelt Association and Tweed Roosevelt; it's enlightening to hear the story behind them. The Tweed Roosevelt article is the target of frequent vandalism by IPs and what appear to be socks; I would not be surprised to learn that some of them were the user in question. In any case, I think a block as an impersonator is justified, as the User:Keith Simon account has been used for fewer than a dozen edits, and most of those are controversial or vandalistic, which could damage the reputation of the real Keith Simon especially within the TRA. -Nunh-huh 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

05:39, 3 February 2009 EVula deleted "User:Keith Simon" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup). That's good enough for now, I'd think. I'd have some reservations about SimonATL registering that name again. It would make it look like he was the vandal. --Abd (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the OP doesn't want to do it, I'll create one as a doppelganger. — neuro 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If that account has been making edits, doesn't deletion of that account violate WP:GFDL? AnyPerson (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Edits made by the editor now appear as "Renamed vandal 83" see . I only saw one vandalism edit, the latest, I'd have thought that blocking the account would have been enough. The edits that were close to SimonATL's edit didn't seem to be vandalism. I'd have preferred to keep the Keith Simon account, block it, and place a note that explained why. There was no hazard to SimonATL, so I'm wondering why the drastic move of deletion was done. One edit doesn't justify calling an editor a "vandal." Were there others. If the real "Keith Simon" (not SimonATL whom we may assume has the same name) shows up and wants to, the block could then be templated for review. But at least contribs works now.

I still don't think we can leave hints of misbehaviour by another named individual on this page. Xn4 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Kafziel

Kafziel has had his usertalk semi-protected since October. As he is an administrator, and one who actively utilizes the admin tools, I don't see how this is acceptable. WP:PPol specifically states that usertalk pages are not normally sprotected.

Bringing this up with him, the only responses were that since I'm fairly inactive I'm not one to talk, that I should bring it up with arbcom if I still feel there's an issue, and that he's in the middle of a fairly large trolling right now and can't.

I still don't understand what the issue is with unprotecting it; it's not like a little trolling is going to hurt anyone, and any troll worth his salt is already autoconfirmed. And of course he's not going to get any requests to unprotect from new users, considering they may not have any means of actually contacting him.

Does anyone else care to weigh in, or point out that I'm just being a pain in the ass, or anything? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The middle option. Tan | 39 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

May I? .. I didn't find any problem in registering and getting in 10 edits. (or whatever the autoconfirmed requirements are). I have seen a lot of admins subjected to a lot vandalism, threats, trolls and such - and I can understand limiting it to registered and confirmed users. Just IMHO — Ched (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC) (I don't have to provide references here do I?) ... just kidding. (copyedit)— Ched (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If there hasn't been a specific issue raised about communicating with Kafziel, I say just leave the situation be. Kafziel's a good guy. I think he can manage protection settings on his user talk page just fine (looks from the history that he has been protecting and unprotecting at his discretion). My .02, but I suspect others may have stronger views on WP:PP and admin user talk pages. -- Samir 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think protection since October when you do a lot of blocking is excessive. Personally, I think if you are going to use the tools, you should be open to getting responses. Otherwise, it just isn't a fair exchange. I've had some nasty vandalism on my page and I'd never think to protect it (or would probably go through the bureaucratic hoops of asking someone else to do it for me). If you don't want to deal with that stuff, give up the mop or don't do stuff that leads to those characters. It just comes with the territory in my view. However, unless there is someone complaining who is specifically hurt by his protection (i.e. an IP he is disputing who cannot talk to him), I'd say let it go. I've seen admins use full protection, another delete and selectively undelete their page to remove conversations and warnings they didn't like, and another unilaterally delete articles and blocked people under WP:IAR, all reported here over the years. The community doesn't find this type of conduct enough of a concern, so move on and let it go. He's going to block people, prevent them from contacting him, and that's the way it is. Yes, it's all probably in large violation of policy but remember that policy reflect consensus, not the other way around. Someone will go and just change the policy soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I watchlist the talk pages of every user and IP address I deal with, and I keep them watchlisted for months. Hundreds and hundreds of them. I'm very responsive to discussion, often willing to spend several hours going back and forth if need be. I tend to deal pretty fairly with new and unregistered users, and all anyone ever needs to do is let me know so-and-so would like to talk but can't, and I will unlock my page. Or they can email me—believe me, they all know how—and I usually reply on their talk pages within minutes. Nobody has a problem contacting me after a block, one way or another.

That said, I'm sure I'll be able to remove protection again soon. Just not today. Many thanks to those who understand. Kafziel 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of the protection log, if every time he has protected his page it as due to a spree of vandalism - then I see no problem, except for the fact that the first time he did it himself. Since, in general, user talk pages aren't protected, I believe that COI plays a major role here. However, once it's been established that there's a problem - he is likely to be the first to know when it needs to be re-protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is easily solved, as has been mentioned by several different people several different times on several different threads on this noticeboard over the years. When I semi-protect my user talk page to prevent disruption by an annoyed vandal, I transclude User:Barneca/Protection notice at the top, and watchlist User talk:Barneca/Unprotected. Vandals usually won’t bother, as they won't be annoying me, and if they do they’re easily ignored. IP’s or new accounts with a real need to communicate have a way to contact me. --barneca (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Thanks! Kafziel 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Noclador

I'm too busy and do not have the inclination to get in these constant edit wars that this user seems to have become enthralled with this month. Some Admin please look at the multiple citations I included in the article. This user seems adamant to constantly remove cited references and erase terms from the article that do not fit his particular POV. This is but a few lines of text, I believe including more information is better than accidentally deleting cultural and lingual information. Please see Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Icsunonove (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It already appears that Three revert rule has been trespassed on with this edit war, lemme look further. In the meantime, I'm counseling BOTH of these editors to please cease the edit war that has been taking place, and take time to discuss the changes on the article's talk page when the opportunity arises. Please try to apply Bold, Revert, Discuss. Edit Centric (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen, I totally agree, and I'd appreciate an Admin to please step in. Noclador has become extreme this past month and it is becoming absurd. I posted one link with the same text twice, and then he lambasts me as being incompetent. No mention that he actually described my mistake wrong.  :) To me it is unacceptable to remove cited references; these are the foundation of Misplaced Pages content. Anyway, I'll probably be gone for another week or two now, but for goodness sake stop this ultra-POV erasure of information. Icsunonove (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating. Icsunonove - I'm seeing by the edit history that you have just violated Misplaced Pages policy on Three Revert Rule. Please wait a while before making any more changes. It's not at all proper to bring another user to AN/I for edit warring, and then go continue the edit war, and violate a standing policy in the process. Edit Centric (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I broke the 3RR rule myself. That said, this complaint is not about reverting edits, they have been doing this for a month now if you look at the article history. :) My complaint is this user going in and erasing cited references over and over again. This is vandalism. I have no intention to edit war, I'd just like an Admin to not allow such behavior that cleanses articles of relevant content. Also, I'm not sure I exactly did 3RR, because I was putting back the sentence and modifying it (taking out one reference with duplicate text). thanks, Icsunonove (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm actually at 2RR so far. :) I don't need to edit anymore if simply an Admin stops this user from wiping out sentences and references. I sincerely wish these arguments could simply be issues that are resolved, but it seems in particular this user has made this a rather large part of his life. He can not discuss things calmly, it is as it is some personal war now. Anyway, whatever... @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have one of the admins check me on this, but it does appear that 3RR has been breached. Also, Icsunonove, it's customary to let the other editor know that you've initiated an AN/I discussion about them, so that they have a chance to respond. I've taken the liberty of accomplishing that, so no worries this time. Edit Centric (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Noclador must certainly be at 3RR or more. ^_^ Seriously though, apologies again, I am not accustomed to making such reports. Thanks for leaving the notice. It is just getting very old to come here for an hour, add some language-usage references, and have them wiped out left and right -- with a bunch of insults along the way. I'd just hope for some community watch over these pages, because it is becoming just a constant war this past month. He is deleting my references and sentences simply because he screams he doesn't like or believe the language usage. How can we even contribute to articles or discuss things in such an environment? I mean, just coming back to edit on Misplaced Pages after a few days off is always the same story with this guy -- constantly and relentlessly raging. @_@ To me, one quick way to resolve this issue is simple -- this user should stop blanking valid edits and cited references. An even longer-term solution would be for this user to seriously chill out and start discussing with editors that disagree with him in a civilized manner. For the best of me, I can't understand how someone can be so driven by waging war on an internet encyclopedia! :) Icsunonove (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my motives on the talkpage: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Adesc_Aut long before Icsunonove arrived. Icsunonove has a long history of edit waring and insulting other users , , , . His modus operandi is insinuations, insults and snide remarks, coupled with lies to anger and hurt other editors, but on a level below actual slander: examples from the last hour: , , , , .
As usual he does contribute nothing to articles - he limits himself to disrupt the work of editors, who would like to work on articles about South Tyrol, by forcing them into endless discussion about the naming of locations. When then editors get angry through his condescending treatment of them, his insults and insinuations - he switches his style and plays the victim and is all concerned about the other users behavior - while smearing the editors in questions with lies to disparage their standing in the wikipedia community... just see above.
The disturbing part is that for the last year or so he successfully drove away over a dozen contributers (if an admin wants their name, I can email them under the condition that their names be kept confidential)
The term Adesc Aut Icsunonove wants to add to the article is a simple translation of the provinces Italian Name Alto Adige and as shown in my multiple posts on the talkpage is not used. Furthermore I spoke this morning with both, the head of the Istitut Ladin "Micurà de Rü"(the Ladin Institut, that is tasked by the government to protect the Ladin language) and the president of the Union Generela di Ladins dla Dolomites (the cultural association governing the protection of the Ladins culture) and they stated that Adesc Aut is "un nome storpiato italiano" (a deformed Italian name) and that it is a falsification to claim that Adesc Aut is used by the Ladins. They are both ready to write this in an email to ORTS.
Alas, this report is another of Icsunonove myriad attempts to drive me away from the articles about South Tyrol, which I have expanded a lot over the last weeks: i.e. , , . The annoying part is that every step I take in expanding the articles about South Tyrol I have to fight through with Icsunonove, who - despite being totally clueless about South Tyrols 1500 year German history - insists to preserve his view of the Italian history of the area, This view is factually and historically wrong. Therefore he can't and doesn't bring valid sources - and misinterprets valid sources. He claims otherwise above, but Icsunonove is in fact bad faith disruptive editor, who has driven away dozens of editors that worked on articles regarding South Tyrol, while contributing nothing to expand and enlarge articles. It is strenuous to continually have to defend valid corrections and improvements, because of one editor, who continues to insult and disrupt constructive work. --noclador (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, here he goes again. Why don't you address the here and now, without always trying to generate these grand conspiracies against everyone? I came on here for a few short minutes to add some citations, you then instantly wipe out my edits and valid references, as part of the greater edit war you were already participating in. But, yes, you are always the victim on here, and everyone else is evil, right? Why do I have to hear all these ridiculous accusations that you make after I simply try and add some citations? Who is indeed editing in bad faith? Who is disruptive and driving away editors? No one can even make an edit that is counter to your opinion without getting an ear full or having their edits reverted. This is fact. This topic had finally relaxed some for a period of two years, until you have decided to make it your personal mission in life to bring back the hell for us all, eh? Last time you accused me of being a fascist and getting rid of South Tyrol because I was fixing wikilinks. @_@ You are just giving the impression that you are extremely paranoid. So, I've tried to drive you away from the articles? Oh-kayyy. I've tried multiple times to engage you and Gun Powder Ma to stop this stupid war, yet you have pushed this to a point of an obsession. All you come off as being is extremely, and constantly angry. Listen, we'll try this yet again Noclador. I added references that show usage of the word Adesc Aut. One of the references was a government PDF from the town of Ortisei. They use that term, geez, deal with it. It is not reasonable to simply wipe out other's edits; these edits simply add to the article. You do know that you appear unable to take any POV other than a pure German one, don't you? No, but of course, everyone else is clueless and incompetent except you, right? No one can edit and expand these articles except you. We got it. Yes, all these edit wars here these past months is because of one editor, me, driving you to this extreme behavior. Gotcha. I sure have some power over you, given I rarely have time to edit on here. @_@ Well I'm the big bad editor now, except later when it is Supparluca, or then it is Piccolo, oh maybe later it will be Ian, or anyone else that dares edit the pages as you do not see fit. Whatever Noclador, you have to seriously, seriously chill out. You talk here about "1500 year German history"... that is fine, but it is unacceptable for you to try and erase and belittle other peoples' history. Man, you even post incident reports that you primarily created. At one point, in one day, you setup half-a-dozen incident reports about me, that you had the Admins laughing at you. Then you accuse others of driving away editors? Your mode of operation now appears simply to stalk these pages daily and drive everyone away from these articles, so you can be the sole owner of these pages. That is unacceptable. You are going to have to learn to share, both here on Misplaced Pages, and in real life with regard to this province. I personally drove away over a dozen contributers! LOL You do not know how desperate you sound making such amazing claims... Icsunonove (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that we've heard from both parties in this, I'll say a few things here, then let an admin chime in. (I'm surprised one hasn't already!) First, both of you need to stop the edit warring, and the finger pointing and recriminations here. If there is a grievance, please cite specific diffs so that they can be vetted. Also, these past few jabs back and forth just threw WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE right out the window. As I'm not in the habit of telling people what to do, I'll therefore ask both of you, with an implied tone of forcefullness, to please dial it down a few clicks. Edit Centric (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, actually. Edit Centric, the DIFF I included at the beginning of this post is why I made this incident report. The terms were removed from the article (I assume) because the original citations had dropped off, and this editor stated they were included through original research (he was wrong). In the middle of his ongoing edit war, I came on to the article to add back the terms, while making sure we included multiple active references this time around (per Misplaced Pages policy). These edits were then immediately wiped out because I'm "clueless" and "incompetent", per the talk page and above. Admins chiming in on this would be quite helpful. Every single time anyone edits these pages in a way that doesn't pass muster with this particular editor, this doesn't mean those editors should be subjected to his attempts to soil their reputations or insult their knowledge. Who indeed is trying to push who off of Misplaced Pages? I, and others, can't come here and make a single edit to these pages, without him coming after us... He needs to stop this, and in general, and permanently -- chill out. Icsunonove (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Icsunonove, and if you want ta make controversial changes to articles, try to prove the contents by references. As far as I know, the term "Adesc Aut" is not used by Ladin institutions and is explicitely rejected by the leaders of Museum de Gherdeina in Urtijei, of Micurà de Rü, and the Union Generela. If Icsunonove had asked them, he would know better. But obviously he doesn't want to know better. I could also write "Oberetsch" in my personal German webpage, and you could cite it, but it would be of no value for Misplaced Pages, as there are useful and useless sources.

Icunonove is a special case. Obviously he knows how far he can go without being blocked, but I know his way of communicating, and IMO it's awful. I mean Icsunonove (alias Taalo), NOT Noclador. -- PhJ (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Icsunonove has been recently warned by User:Neurolysis for insulting other admins IP (21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)). In the same discussion he has also been found of using addiotionally to his account an anonymous (192.45.72.26) with which he deleted and replaced the name "South Tyrol" in various articles. Generally, the history of the user's contributions shows him quite extraordinarily engaged in debates and discussions on talk pages (ca. 56%) as opposed to his his edits in the main (30%). These 30% are, as a closer look reveals confined almost to the subject of South Tyrol, and here quite often to the change of names of Ladin and German places.

In the specific case, I find little value in Icsunonove's 'sources': Two of them were acutually the same texts only at different URLs, , while a third actually refered to a camping site. This is quite clearly not the kind of material which has place in the introduction (keyword: notability), and therefore I find User:Noclador's reverts understandable, without going to the lengthy and sometimes unsuccessful process of notifying admins (it should be mentioned in this context that the one admin, who has been in the past concerned about the subject, User:Gryffindor had been blamed in the past by Icsunonove for having biased views (see link above for insult warning by User:Neurolysis). The quality of the references wasn't such that it was really necessary. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is high time admins do intervene to stop Icsunonove, who has done nothing but disrupt work on South Tyrol articles from the moment he came to wikipedia: first as IP 71.106.163.225, than user:Taalo and later as Icsunonove... If you look at his very first day on wikipedia (October 1st, 2006) you already see the typical behaviour: i.e. insulting other editors: , , , ; claims of German POV , , , edit warring with the aim to put Italian before German names , , , erasing German links , , removing the name South Tyrol , , , putting into the article factually wrong statements with inflammatory comments , removing things he didn't like , , with insulting comments , putting his POV into articles ... this being his first day: than he created the user:Taalo and proceeded in the same vain leading to two AN/I reports: one for edit warring another one for insulting other editors... in between being Taalo and Icsunonove he appeared under various IP's: , , , , , , , , , with the usual mix of deleting South Tyrol, attacking other users and again randomly insulting entire people and trying to devalue sources he doesn't like with factualy wrong assertions and my favorite edit censuring an editor for adding Adesc Aut (!). He also has used IP by TRW Space and Defense Sector from the 192.45. range (i.e. , ) with the usual name calling, calling for anyone that does not agree with him to be banned, insulting and so on: a little extract as there are to many to collect them all: , , , , ,
Furthermore there is socketpuppetry: user:Viewtool, user:Account101, user:Wikifun-usa, user:Nospu, user:Infinity88, user:Jamesbozen, user:Rossifumi-gp and user:Mud-miner were all incarnations of Icsunonove with which he tried to manipulate votes regarding the naming of locals in South Tyrol ceckuser results at bottom of this page
So we have: socketpuppetry, POV pushing, insulting (a extract from the last months: ) and all taken together - isn't it time to finally block him for his disruptive behavior? Anyone familiar with Icsunonove knows he fits perfectly into the pattern of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. --noclador (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Icsunonove's overall disruptive behaviour becomes also evident at Eisack where he moved the page three times in clear violation of the outcome of a discussion and vote in April 2007 (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco or Isarco River):

1. August 2007
2. September 2007
3. January 2009

Given the long intervals, there is little doubt that his is a long-time agenda. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I have been noticed this discussion (since I've been mentioned). I've not seen Icsunonove around a lot, but from what I've seen, he has demonstrated persistent bad faith. I've not seen the same from Noclador, but you both need to tone down your arguments a little. :) — neuro 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion left, I get the impression again that this is a typical example of a user having too much time in order to mob another user with actual knowledge out of the system. Icsunove has now been blocked twice and it would be best if he stops getting on everyone's nerves. My recommendation is to close this post without further ado. Gryffindor (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages

I have received an email from the person behind the User:Manhattan Samurai account. This person is also believed to be the same person behind the User:BillDeanCarter account - which, as far as I am aware, is an account in good standing, but which hasn't been used since Feb 2008. The Manhattan Samurai account, however, has been troublesome and was recently blocked. The only personal information in the email is the name of the person, and the email address which I am not repeating, the rest of the information is clearly intended for this board so I repeat that here:

You might want to save this email. Consider me the Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages now. A high-profile prank has begun. I have figured out how to change my IP address and now many biographies are swapping stories between themselves and fictional families are rising up across the Wiki landscape.

If you want to know, the last straw for me was fucking with my featured article "List of works by William Monahan". Slowly and methodically I will have my revenge. Find a way to terminate Bali Ultimate's account and reverse the damage he has done and I will hand over the names of the accounts that I'm now using

I don't doubt that this person will do as he says, but such vandalism occurs everyday and is dealt with by the systems we have in place. I don't see that there is much for us to do with this information, but felt it was appropriate that I pass it on immediately. SilkTork * 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give him what he wants. Sorry Bali. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages ey? Clearly we are dealing with a criminal mastermind deluded 12 year old here Spartaz 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to reblock with email disabled. Any objections? Stifle (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Never mind, already done. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  If you're looking for socks, you might as well start here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) sent out around 50 emails in the past two days, to a wide variety of users (looks at first glance like one email per recipient). Zdefector (talk · contribs) is looking a bit sockish, as mentioned above, and is a  Confirmed match for Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs), though I'm not seeing a direct connection between those three and the MS account. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I received an e-mail from this user on Sunday, one that seemed at face value to be a good faith request for me to pass on his desire to see the Manhattan Samurai account unblocked. His reasons amounted to his "sincere" desire to reform and quietly work on potential featured articles. I was mulling over whether to pass the request on, intending to look into the editor's history a little more closely first, when I saw this. Either the editor is simply trolling, attempting to disrupt the project as much as possible, or is so highly-strung that he genuinely changed his mind from wanting to reform to wanting to vandalise in the space of a few hours. One other thing: he explicitly asked me not to reveal his name on-Wiki. If he made a similar request to the OP, vandal or no, it may have been inappropriate to reveal it here. On the other hand, this might have been a ploy to stop my revealing the name of one of his accounts. Either way, despite my belief that many problem users are redeemable in some way, I suggest that should the account ever be unblocked (highly unlikely), it is done so only if the editor is placed under strict mentorship, with several thousand strings attached. Steve 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has revealed the name of the email account here. To see where people have previously made a connection between the Manhattan Samurai account and other Misplaced Pages accounts, do a Google search for "Manhattan Samurai". That such a claim has been made on WikipediaReview doesn't mean it is true - it is simply another piece of information in this tortured case. Given the "playful" deception that the user behind Manhattan Samurai has previously used, it is equally likely that the user is NOT behind the other account but - for fun - wishes to make us believe he is. Who knows? SilkTork * 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he sent me an email saying he was User:BillDeanCarter, which mostly made me wary of belief. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(To SilkTork) What I meant was in reference to revealing the previous account name, he said: "Please be sensitive about revealing that my real name is because I wanted to abandon that account so that my real life information was kept secret." Editing histories seem to indicate that this at least is the truth, but whether this is something we do for people who subsequently turn out to be vandals is something I'll leave for more experienced vandal-fighters to deal with. All the best, Steve 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be uncivil, i knew that MS was trouble the moment i met him (his "wiki-conspiracy"). It seems we've found another Bambifan101. Elbutler (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By calling himself the "lex luthor of wikipedia", does he mean that he's going to repeatedly come up with numerous elaborate and convoluted schemes which always have fatal flaws which the good guys/gals always exploit easily, resulting in the scheme failing and him going to jail?--Jac16888 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much, like Superman, Wikipedians can't be blackmailed easily. Lets just whack every sockpuppet account that pops like a whack-a-mole, after sooner or later he'll come to sense and realize he shoudn't waste his life on "getting revenge on Misplaced Pages", but if he does waste his life, he/she is a deluded child. Elbutler (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he realize that Lex Luthor is just a pain in the ass who never actually wins? He should think of himself as the Washington Generals of Misplaced Pages. Dayewalker (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, as if those drawn here aren't into pain? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor! Lex Luthor fired nuclear missiles into the San Andreas Fault in an attempt to plunge the entire West Coast of America into the sea! At the moment this guy is somewhere inbetween Mister Mxyzptlk and Toyman. Stilh, he made me laugh tho, so I say we comply with his request. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Bibbo Bibbowski of Misplaced Pages" or "The Kandy Man of Misplaced Pages" don't have the same ring to them, though. – iridescent 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread gives him the drama he craves. His apparent point at wikipedia all along has been to play games, insert fictional memes here and there involving inside jokes between him and his pals. I don't know which are his socks or even if he has many, but there is always lots of sock-type behavior around him (if you look at almost any article he's edited heavily, there's always a series of SPA's that make 50 or so edits, then dissapear when a brand new SPA comes along). However, i've been deeling with abuse from Zdefector (talk · contribs), Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs). This sockmaster is at least a confederate of MS, yet no blocks have been handed out over the confirmed socking?

All three now blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• So, articles are the new real estate? rootology (C)(T) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Domain_name#Official_assignment, think of en.Misplaced Pages topics as something alikened and all the kerfluffle becomes much easier to understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I got an email from MS too. I blocked him from sending email from his account. Just deny him and he'll go away. Chrislk02 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be a good situation in which is would be appropriate to revert/undo all edits made by confirmed socks. Especially based on the threats of providing false information. This would further support to deny the attention this 12 year old craves as well as ensure that content has not been compromise. Chrislk02 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I received an email from him, too, but the one I got seems to have good intentions behind it. What would you guys suggest I did? — neuro 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He has obviousley stated his bad intentions. I say delete the email and ignore him. His account has also been blocked from sending email (and all sock accounts should be similarly blocked as well IMO). Chrislk02 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't checked my wiki email in a few days. Got the same one, also claiming User:BillDeanCarter as a sock, as well as User:Smith Jones and User:Deathdestroyer. //roux   17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we need to take theses sock, "confesssions" carefuly and ensure that they are socks and not good faith editors that MS has a grudge against or wants to get blocked for the hell of it. Chrislk02 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It will come down to behavior. I'd bet the farm that Billdean, deathdestroyer and MS are the same. Smith jones while an odd character (he deliberately uses mispellings to create double meanings as well as spoonerisms and prose that is generally so impenetrable that it can't be by accident) i have no opinion on. But MS would absolutely love to cast suspicion on "innocent" accounts. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SJ was one of MS' more ardent supporters/friends, which casts some suspicion. Should we be opening a specific SPI thing on this or are Checkusers handling behind the scenes? //roux   19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Luna Santin did run a CU, looks like, from the post above; not sure if another one would be appropriate to try and connect with the other claimed editors. I suspect MS is just trying to take some innocent victims down with him at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• By 'Lex Luthor' I thought he was stating that he we made him go bald and he hates us for it. HalfShadow 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• this is a personal dreisappointment to me. manhatan samurai was a good friend and while he idd have some issues that he oftne caused him to tangle with adminsitrators and other wikipedians he contributed to some very effectual articles such as Alan Cabal, gareth penn, ralph bakshi, and is Google making us stupid. however, i concede that eventualy the conmmunity has to have put up with enough bullcrud from this user and while it pains me to see a good editor go down for something so childish and quizotic, i agree that tis probably for the best. hopefuly User:Manhatan Samurai will take this opportnunity to withdraw, rex-amine his proiroties, and if he really wants to continue his contributions reutrn secretivly under a new name and edit constructively without lapsing back into hsi old behaviors and amake a good faith effor tto follow community policies and bylaws. as someone who considers him a friend, i hope that he will abandon his curent strategorizing and behave with more dignity in the future when he returns. Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• i just noticed tha t some other users are comparing me to Manhattan Samurai as if i am sockpuppet of him. Let it be known thus far declared; i worked with Manhattan Samurai colaboritvely to save an article Alan Cabal which it hought was being deleted unfairly. we followed all the rules' when we lost the initial WP:AFD, we took it to deletion review, then got the assistance of an adminstrator to userficate the page, then improved it through extesnive resarch to the point where it was valid to reintroduce it to the mainpage. as a srueslt of this collaboration, the spirit of Misplaced Pages i might add, i decided to contineu working with Manhattan samurai and develop working relationships with him to improve aritlces for which he had a shared interest.
• That is the extent of our involvement; i am neither his meatpuppet nor his sockpupet and if any good faith suspicions remain in existence among my fellow wikipedian i Welcome a CheckUser or any other sockpuppet investigative tools since i believe in operating on a high standard and I invite any good faith users to scrutinize my behavior and correct any mistakes which i have made itn the past. Smith Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot messages

There must be an opt-out list for users "who do not wish to hear from bots". Actually, extend that to "not to receive automated messages of any kind". Every month I get a batch/flood of tens of "WARNING!"s I could care less about. This only serves to interrupt me. It is very annoying.

Do I really need a copyright warning for File:25px-Silvercircle.png or File:Silverhalfpip.png? How about File:SL Navy Insigna Type 1.JPG? I uploaded a lot of images (in the past) with a PD license. Simple images I created like File:SL Navy Insigna Type 1.JPG which are not copyrightable at all. These warnings and monitoring is seemingly created automatically without any user input "warn all uploads tagged with {{Pd}} that do not contain a URL without applying common sense of any kind".

Now I am getting a shower of warnings over such ancient uploads of mine. It doesn't seem like it will stop.

-- Cat 12:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some bots will respect {{bots}}/{{nobots}} tags - see the documentation on these pages for details. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The PD template is deprecated. Perhaps making use of it is what is triggering the bot spam? Tarc (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The images linked above were not tagged by a bot, but by Skier Dude (talk · contribs). It would seem there was human input, however lacking in common sense it may have been. - auburnpilot talk 14:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Skier Dude edits remarkably quickly. Look at his edits of January 31. There can't be time for much human input to what he's doing, if any. Is he running an unauthorized bot? rspεεr (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

His userpage clearly states he operates a bot. Tiptoety 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Rspeer means on his main account. — neuro 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with bot edits to my userspace that do not involve automated messages. Bots fix templates, images and etc... BUt when you get 20 or 30 messages per month - that is annoying. This isn't a matter over one users conduct but a complaint over the general practice. -- Cat 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a bona fide bot would be able to add each user's "bad images" to a list and limit itself to one edit per talk page per day instead of crap-flooding like this Dude does. "Human" image-deletion notifiers might not have the facility to keep track of such things unless it is built into AutoTwinkProofHug or whatever they are using, but they should at least use a shorter, less condescending template for recipients who already know how the system works. — CharlotteWebb 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be fixed... :( -- Cat 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder threats on article

These three edits include a murder threat at Lingle, Wyoming. I've notified the local Goshen County Sheriff's office by email, but I don't have phone access: could someone in the USA please notify them by telephone by 18:30 UTC (11:30 Mountain Time), 307-532-4026? Here is their website. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have called them and made the report. The sheriff said they had two deputies in the area (which I took to mean they were familiar with the names listed, and it is a very small town) and they are trying to track them down. When I hung up with the sheriff, they had 28 minutes before 11:30 Mountain, so hopefully that's enough time, in the unlikely event that this threat has substance. But better safe than sorry. Useight (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP that made the edit is registered to Wyoming Community College Commission but is also apparently used by many K-12 schools.

Comment:    This large address space is shared by many Wyoming 
Comment:    K12 schools and 7 Wyoming community colleges. When I receive complaints 
Comment:    about any hosts in this range  I have to forward them to the local 
Comment:    network administrators  because I have no means to directly administer 
Comment:    these school networks.

The domain admin name and phone number is available in the whois report. —Travis 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MacedonianLights

MacedonianLights (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of Historian19 (talk · contribs), in that their contributions mirror those of Historian19's most recent sock, IslandShader (talk · contribs), such as this and this , both of which feature a lengthly paragraph on Maltese-Americans and Britney Spears as well as Historian19's trademark swapping and resizing of images. Could someone please take a look? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Endorse WP:DUCK block. — neuro 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing

Lear 21 (talk · contribs) has been pushing for the inclusion of the European Union in the various "List of Countries by ____" articles for some time now. A wide discussion over a year ago (a discussion he participated in) resulted in a consensus that has held steady to the present. Recently, he has edit-warred on List of countries by population and List of countries and outlying territories by total area in contravention of seemingly apparent consensus against his position. He has also canvassed inappropriately (example) to gain support for his position on the latter article. Most recently, he has announced his intention to edit-war on a daily basis to ensure his position is upheld. He has also claimed that I and other editors are a cabal of chauvinist ideologues that is a threat to an encyclopedia...dedicated to inform{ing} humanity. This all smacks of someone on a crusade to "educate" the rest of us, and demonstrates a clear intention to disregard any consensus that disagrees with his own view. This type of disruption is damaging to the encyclopedia and a waste of all of our time. Is it perhaps time for a topic ban? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, I am not seeking to get Lear blocked for any of this; I'm sure he is a very helpful contributor in other areas. I think an editing restriction would be a much more effective means to rectify the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered an RfC on the subject? After one year, established consensus can change. Either way the RfC should either reaffirm the consensus or establish a new one.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we did have an RfC on the issue a couple of weeks ago, but there wasn't much of a concrete result (mainly due to lack of participation from uninvolved editors). Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban (as a participant in the dispute), and I don't think a block is necessary. Consensus can change, certainly, but the point is more that Lear clearly doesn't intend to accept any consensus that doesn't go his way - he tells us to "be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years" in one of Parsecboy's diffs - so RFC would be a bit useless.

I've found it difficult to AAGF in Lear since he told me I was here to spread hate and ignorance early last month, and the recent discussions (if they can be called that) rather reinforce that view. I, too, was reminded of WP:TRUTH when reading these posts - he uses the word "reality" instead, but the concept is the same. Pfainuk talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 has tried to uphold an article´s version which has been thoroughly discussed over several years including many editors and ended in a stable compromise version which lasted for more than year. User:Parsecboy and others have been involved in these previous discussions and now deny to stick to the compromise version. In this light user Lear 21 has come forward with a new proposal citing several external expert sources. As these credible sources (among them the CIA World Factbook) are constantly denied user Lear 21 took the freedom to insist on the acceptance of these sources. User Lear 21 has given credit to one of the basic principles of Misplaced Pages while conducting an argumentation based on multiple facts and high-profiled references. Lear 21 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Lear has mischaracterized my position in regards to the article; my only comments have been in support of maintaining the long-standing consensus version and towards attempts to keep the discussion on track and within policies (i.e., no edit-warring, canvassing issues, etc.). As far as I know, Polaron is the only other editor (with Lear and me) who participated in the old discussions, and he too (I believe) favors retaining the old-consensus version.

None of that really has any bearing on this discussion though. We are talking about the disruptive actions Lear has been doing over the past weeks. He has posted biased notices on the talk pages of those he believes will support him in an attempt to votestack (example diff provided above), he has edit-warred with other editors, and has more or less announced his intention to continue to edit-war. He has also attacked other editors who disagree with him. In my opinion, Lear 21 clearly needs to stop editing in an area that he has obviously made a personal issue; if he will not agree to do that of his own volition, then we need to make that decision for him. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious block by William M. Connolley

William has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs) after a complaint on AN3 by a content opponent (Collectonian (talk · contribs)). Collectonian offers four edits in evidence, but there's no question of DreamGuy violating 3RR; if anything, Collectonian himself is closer to doing that. DreamGuy's edits are less than recent, and are spread out over three days. So I presume William's block reason, not explained on DreamGuy's page except in the form of "We don't all have Ed's admirable patience", is edit warring and not 3RR. However. DreamGuy is the one who is following policy in his editing of the article. What he does is remove, repeatedly, an absurdly over-long plot summary, leaving a concise summary in place. Please see Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, subsection "Plot summaries", which he has repeatedly referred to. I will not review Dreamguy's unblock request, since I know him and have supported him on other occasions.. But could other people take a look at this block, please? WP:NOT is serious business. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Without commenting on the specifics of this case, the idea that "being right" justifies edit warring is simply wrong. There are very few exceptions to 3RR and editor warring in general (BLP, copyright infringement) and "too much plot summary" is not one of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, William seems to think being right (or rather, being wrong) justifies edit warring by Collectonian. Both users, if any, should have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Please back up your false claim that I was edit warring with two reverts after someone posted about the situation at WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no violation of 3RR - there were four edits over the course of six days. The highest he got in a single day was two. There was no discussion on the talk page from DreamGuy, but he does seem to have tried talking with one of the editors. DreamGuy has a point about the plot summary and WP:NOT. It seems his original edits were to trim down the plot section; perhaps a bit too much, but in accordance with policy. The most recent total removal was probably a bit over the top, but I still don't think it was enough to block without any chance to explain the edits. I'm prepared to unblock, however I'll wait for a few more comments first. Hersfold 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor is he "right" in this issue. The plot summary is not "absurdly long" it was only 100 words over the guidelines, and there IS a talk page discussion which resulted in it being cut down below the guideline recommendations (discussions which he ignored). He is not shortening overly long plot summaries, he is ripping them out. Please explain how I am closer to doing 3RR before making such accusations. I reverted him twice, after he was reverted 3 times by another editor. As noted in my report, which clearly stated this is beyond 24 hours, DreamGuy has an extremely lengthy history of edit warring as is evidenced by his block log and his ArbCom injunction from last year. He is not following policy in editing the article nor in his warring over it. He is violating policy, and making some pointed disruptions in various places. As I also noted in the edit warring report follow up, others have attempted to discuss his inappropriate plot removals with him, and he is either ignoring them completely or giving replies that are uncivil and falsely claiming that he is just following WP:NOT. He told one editor, who tried to correct his claim, "it's pretty ridiculous for you to show up acting like you know everything and assuming that I must be a newbie ("welcome to Misplaced Pages") when I've edited this site several years before you ever got here and am the one actually following policies. The only 'assistance' you can give me is to do what you are supposed to be doing." He's also doing a lot some rather NPOV editing to various biography articles, claiming that he is correcting their neutrality because, in his opinion, multiple personalities are not real so he is removing them from articles where people are said to have them. I do hope more admins will look at his actions of late because they are very concerning, as are his false statements on his unblock request claiming that I "took no effort to solve any dispute" - he warned to stop reverted and instead said "don't template the regulars" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow... so simple disagreement means you're going to ignore clear policy, label it edit warring, bring up a history of people making similar accusations from the past, and expect to get me blocked over it? That's not even close to a reasonable attempt at solving conflict. On top of that, multiple editors with more experience here are clear in selling out that your interpretation of WP:NOT is completely in error, so continuing to insist otherwise isn't helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no simple disagreement. You are pointedly attempting to claim that WP:NOT is a justification for your ripping out plot summaries from a range of articles on no other view but YOUR interpretation, which is not backed up by other guidelines. WP:NOT does not say that plots can only be X number of sentences, its says "concise" which is defined by various MoS for the articles you are ripping apart. Your removal of the Near Dark plot summary was ridiculous. It was not excessive to the point of needing complete removal, if was only barely over the guidelines, and there is clear editor consensus on the talk page against its removal. Why not read further down in WP:NOT about not being disruptive to make a point, which is all you are doing. Your interpretation is the one in complete error as shown by the overwhelming consensus among multiple projects, FAs, FLs, and GAs. You are the one not being helpful by attacking anyone who dares to correct you under some claim that you are just enforcing policy and that you've been here longer and somehow know better. And yeah, considering your block log, your history IS relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that you aren't willing to listen to the people here and elsewhere who pointed out that you were wrong. Good luck on getting WP:NOT changed to support your rather unique interpretation. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No real justification to block. Wouldn't be the first time either for Connolley. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, that was out of line - please keep comments here relevant to this situation. Not that there are likely to be too many more comments, since it seems he's been unblocked. Hersfold 20:57, 3 February 2009

Well, the admin in question does have a questionable editing history, so it would have certainly been highly relevant to the question of whether his block was proper or not. I think personally that he ought to be told in no uncertain terms that he can't use his admin status to try to further his history of personal conflict. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Past history of making bad blocks without justification is a strong enough justification to desysop someone, let alone undoing the bad block. It isn't out of line but 100% completely relevant. You may like Connolley, but you can't alter what his history with the tools says. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done work like this--some of our articles have ridiculously long plot summaries that make the article difficult to read,and put off anyone wanting to obtain a concise summary of the plot. Having said that there's no excuse for edit warring. In what way is this a bad block? --TS 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A user was blocked for a 3RR violation on an article he appears to have only edited once in 48 hours. The block was reversed, so it doesn't particularly matter anyway. - auburnpilot talk 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a user was blocked for the reasons I specified, it would be good if you took the trouble to read what I wrote. You might also find V's recent contribution history interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're talking about this block:

19:36, 3 February 2009 William M. Connolley blocked DreamGuy (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring on Near Dark)

this shows the relevant editing history. In particular I note that DreamGuy did not go to the talk page at any point. --TS 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, he was indeed edit warring on Near Dark, although not past 3RR. He had 4RR over a 48 hour period around the 31st, then another one yesterday and at no time did he take his concerns to the talk page. I wouldn't call his edits vandalism, but he's interpreting WP:NOT as a license to delete, rather than improve. Dayewalker (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvements can be achieved through deletion. In this case, deletions were definitely needed. Seeing as how Jimbo has come out strongly against excessive plot summaries, fancruft type entries, and the rests, I think it is obvious that we should lean towards those who try to correct this and chastise those who tend to want to put it back in, especially seeing as how those who want plot summaries and the rest tend to use forums, have friends who reinforce them, etc, to game the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I disagree with every single thing you've said. Dayewalker (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is so beyond insulting to dozens of editors who do none of the kind, but are following the actual guidelines and consensus regarding plot summaries. I find it slightly amusing as well, considering most editors consider me a deletionist and anti-plot and regularly attack me for going against excessive plot. Excessive does not mean NONE at all, nor does it mean you rip out an existing summary for a completely useless one without discussion, tagging, etc. Please actually point to a single change at WP:NOT that negates all of the existing plot summary length guidelines, rescinds the featured article status of all articles with plot summaries, and with Jimbo saying specifically "I want everyone to go out and remove every plot summary from every article right now." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, your view of "actual guidelines" is contrary to what they are, as has been pointed out to you multiple times here and elsewhere. If you find that insulting, you're choosing to find insult in what's a pretty clear cut noncontroversial topic.DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has said that here or anywhere else. You are attempting to twist this into justification for your inappropriate ripping of content from articles, then adding insulting edit summaries as you went back and reverted the undoing of those ripping. Multiple people have said that you need to discuss instead of just ripping, but you attack and dismiss those people. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"No one has said that here or anywhere else." Are you kidding? Multiple people in this very section say that. And, honestly, if you continuously choose to interpret someone revering you as an "insult," you need to grow thicker skin. I think you need to calm down and get some perspective... and read for the content of what people are actually saying and what policies actually say instead of just what you want to believe. DreamGuy (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had to double check that I was reading the diffs right! There are many really excessive plot summaries which can be trimmed without the least objection from anyone, and there are many too short or cryptic that need expansion. Both of these give enough work to do for everyone interested, without fighting about those that are tolerable or better, or defended by good editors. As we slowly move towards compromise in this we need to watch for edits that would disrupt whatever agreement there is. DGG (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I seem to recall making many edits to trim and even remove whole plot summaries (though it's thankless, plodding work and I eventually became disheartened at the size of the job). Good editing practice, though, is to use the talk page in case of disputes. I see that he did make one discussion edit two days earlier on his own user talk page in response to an expression of concern by User:Rydra Wong. He then removed an edit warring warning, which indicates that he was aware of an ongoing issue. This was an editor committed to edit warring. --TS 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing a warning and taking it to the other user's talk page is proof of intent to edit war? You've gone beyond a mere lack of assuming good faith to assuming bad faith. Oh wait, you always do that when you see that it's me editing. Bottom line is people agree that the way it was was wrong, and I was nowhere near 3RR. The admin who made the block did so without any attempt for input and after a well-vocalized history of trying to find any excuse of lashing out. Admins have to stop thinking they can block for no reason, and if it really was edit warring then both sides should have been blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arboropia, a recommendation

I just looked at this, but it seems to me that a vast amount of tree discussion was going on, at the expense of the forest. A person was blocked. The block was for an ambiguous or incorrect reason. An administrator brought up an improper block. What then resulted, above, was a vast and wasty discussion of the general principles of editing, of the content, of similar content, of whether the editor's position was good or bad. When you see someone coming to AN/I to talk about a block, would you please discuss the block, not the general, you know, philosophical, like, stuff, or how much you agree or disagree with the edits. It's about a block. If the block is going to be reversed, then you can say, "What is the way forward?" Then you can ask if the blocking administrator needs interdiction of one sort or another, if the blocked user needs mediation of some sort, if the people complaining about the blocked user need policies explained, etc. Here is the cart, and there is the horse: let's make sure they're put in proper order. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect this is just not true. It was brought as a block to review and marked resolved when someone unblocked it. The unblock was at least as arguable as the block especially as the unblock reason (not 3RR) did not even match the block reason (edit warring). This was a process abuse. The block should have gone through the appeal process for blocks. IF (a big if) the reviewing admin had unblocked it then perhaps it should have come here.--BozMo talk 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So the assumption is that any admin who doses something should always be considered right even if multiple admins disagree? You've got consensus backwards. Especially in a case with an admin who was not at all nuetral jumping in to block when he already saw another admin trying to solve it -- admins should get agreement BEFORE doing something, the presumption should not be that an admin has to agree before anything they did was undone. You're asking for a system of red tape where any single admin can make any action with consequence and bad admins can gain the system to strike out at editors they don't like. Beyond just overruling admins like this, ones that take such questionable action should be disciplined so they don't do it again. The idea that the admin has to be contacted and discus it is often gamed by admins who do bocks and then sign off specifically so nobody can discuss it -- further most admins who take these actions never admit they were wrong, even when an overwhelming majority of other admins agree. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I thought that, when you blocked established users it was standard practice to bring it to AN/I. I guess I haven't been keeping up with "process." Apparently you block established users, and then an unblocking administrator has to justify that on AN/I? Something's surely backward. I thought default was "not block" and "block" took something unequivocal. What a fool's paradise I've been in. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...particularly now that DreamGuy is using it as a justification to continue making personal attacks against myself and any other editor who disagrees with his plot ripping from articles, and turned around and "restored" all of his removals claiming that this AN/I thread has proven that he is correct and dozens (if not hundreds) of other Wikipedians are wrong. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Funny... User:Collectonian above claims that there was a problem with multiple article edit warring, when there was no such thing happening, but then he/he seemingly looked at my edit history and went around reverting edits I made to many other articles beyond the one he had a conflict with me on. Apparently he wanted to start edit wars on multiple locations. On top of that he falsely labeled my edits as "vandalism" -- which I think is actively deceptive.

I also note that User:Arcayne, who has basically essentially unilaterally decided I cannot edit the Jack the Ripper article by blind reverting every edit I make there (typically with claims that it wa not discussed on that talk page, despite the fact that it was but that he had deleted that discussion before reverting me by "archiving" it for no reason despite the discussion being active and current) showed up at Near Dark (the article at which my editing down the overly long plot section initially drew User:Collectonian's wrath) to insert himself into the controversy. It's no wonder we have people freaking out and calling for blocks at any sign of dispute when I have an editor with a long history of filing bogus charges against me to try to get me blocked showing up to egg things on.

I think both of these editors should be strongly warned against such behavior. User:Collectonian seems to b e actively involved in trying to escalate a controversy through methods (edit warring across multipe articles) he was accusing me of. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud.... this guy who was supposedly objecting to my shortening/removing plots that were too long allegedly without discussion has gone and removed the tag I added saying that th plot was too long even after the person who first objected to my shortening the section there agreed it was too long and multiple editors here have said it was too long. Apparently he doesn't care about discussion or resolving anything, just in undoing my edits. DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely seems like Collectonian is the edit warrior here and may be in breach of the WP:HARASS statements in regards to Wikistalking. This should have been obvious to the original blocking admin, which only verifies an extremely bad block. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is harrassing anyone here nor is anyone stalking DreamGuy. When one does a disruptive behavior, it is common to check recent contribs to see if it was done elsewhere. However, DreamGuy has now accused no less than four people of stalking him, with the latest here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Collectonian, but following an editor to multiple pages, declaring their action as vandalism, and constantly reverting is the very definition of wikistalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but wrong, again. I looked at his first page of contribs to see if he had abused other film articles (and yes, ripping entire chunks of valid, if bloated, content from articles without discussion, tagging, etc), and reverted 3 or 4. He had many other contribs I didn't look at at all, only those specific to a film/play/book and his summary noting that he'd removed the entire plot section without consensus nor discussion. Nor am I "constantly" reverting. I reverted inappropriate actions that is NOT in keeping with any policy nor guideline, despite his erroneous claim that WP:NOT support his actions and his later dismissal of the MANY other guidelines that do not (calling them guidelines without consensus because, you know, WP:MOSFILMS was created by two people with no consensus despite it being held to standard for FA discussions). I am frankly appalled that you seem to be giving him carte blanch do to what he likes without even remarking on his rampant personal attacks, his edit warring with MULTIPLE editors (note that I was NOT the first to revert his edits to the Near Dark article at all), and are basically excusing it away. I sincerely hope I'm wrong in this, but I suspect, unfortunately, that I'm not, showing an extreme prejudice in how this was handled. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC

Saying that I am wrong does not make it so, nor do you provide an adequate defense for your actions which are easily visible for all. If I was in your position, I would apologize immediately and stop following people between pages to start revert wars. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You aren't even an administrator, and considering your block log is as length as his for disruptiveness, why are you attempting to tell anyone what's right or wrong? ~ignoring~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)*sigh* See the article talk page (as I said in my summary). On the talk page, the plot length was discussed and has since been edited down and is still being worked on. Sticking a tag on there when there is already an active discussion and efforts being made to fix it just seems spiteful and pointless. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you choose to interpret adding a tag, one expressing concern that the plot summary is too long -- an opinion expressed by multiple people on that talk page and on this page (see above) -- as "spiteful"? Good lord. There's that bad faith again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll *sigh* along with Collectonian. Look at DreamGuy's edit history before you jump to conclusions. RoyLeban (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do... The admins who do instead of just taking the word of the people who complain tend to find that the people complaining are the real problems. Roy, for example, might be headed for a block for WP:COI problems, edit warring, and so forth. No, Roy, I think, is acting in good faith, unlike some others, but he doesn't yet seem to understand how Misplaced Pages works in general, and he seems unlikely to learn if he's joining up with people attempting to game the system and thinks that their behavior is acceptable. (He followed the lead of Collectonian in choosing to falsely label my edits vandalism, for example, and is going to various talk pages to complain). But of course I leave that to any interested admins to look into if they want. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Admn attention needed

I am accused repetly by Jalapenos do exist (talk on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict of disruptive editing and editing out of concensus. Also he/she waring with other users just now. Please help us put an end to this nonsence by asking Jalapenos do exist (talk to calm down. Brunte (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To make your case stronger you might want to avoid providing diffs that contradict your contentions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Brewcrewer and I usually can't agree on the color of the sky, but this here by Brunte is uncalled for. In fact, Brunte should be given a logged WP:ARBPIA warning ASAP by an uninvolved admin, and then watched. Jalapenos has been reasonable and has defended reasonable inclusions of sourced material, presented in NPOV ways - and he has recognized publicaly in multiple ocassions when he has overstepped. Apologizing for things should count. This is editwarring like I haven't seen in days, and mostly a result of Brunte's dramatics. Sorry but thats it. --Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

see these for more background: jalapenos violated 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#jalapenos_3rr many editors agreeing to trim down the section http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#.22anti-semitic_incidents.22 my comment that the section in the main article should summarize the spinoff article (international reactions) http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#antisemitic_incidents_edit_revert

i personally wouldn't have brought it here, just as i didn't try to ge jalapenos blocked for his blatant edit warring, but i tend not to take personal attacks (such as "ninja editors" - made by both jalp and cerejota) to admin boards. btw, i haven't seen any apologies from him (not saying there weren't any - just i haven't seen them) and cerejota, while i usually find you to be a fair editor, you are ignoring jalapenos edit warring while placing all the blame on brunte. Untwirl (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC) here's another one, just for fun. example of jalapenos refusing to see consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#reactions_section this refusal to recognize a consensus is disruptive itself. Untwirl (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been tremendously happy with Jalapeno's opinions, but I haven't seen anything rise to the level of edit warring. I'd say if anything, there has been a lot of presumption of bad faith (even with 3rr... this article almost invites legitimate 3rr!) Dovid (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:FadulJoseArabe

This was brought up earlier but no action was taken. This FadulJoseArabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock up of Fadulj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Compare contributions with those in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Fadulj. I filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj four days ago, but that too has no response. Thanks, Grsz_Review 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the username does sound obvious enough. ~ Troy (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't jugde anything by username, a checkuser should be needed in this case --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a checkuser whatsoever. This is reasonably blatant. — neuro 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right then. I was going to say that there is a reason why checkuser is not for fishing. If at all possible, it should not be used as it looks into private information, which is avoidable at best and necessary at the least. In this case, it's too obvious. Therefore, there should be no need to infringe on private information. ~ Troy (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So then block? He says who he is on the userpage, the same as the other accounts. Grsz_Review 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would say so, provided that a reasonable summary is given in the block log. However, I find that the best option is likely to wait for a response on SPI first; the clerks can take it from there. ~ Troy (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI is incredibly slow at the moment, if it is as blatant as this I'd just suggest an admin should block. — neuro 08:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? if he is not using the SockPuppet accounts to disrupt, then let him do what he wants. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is, he's been blocked for using multiple accounts. Making another one and not (yet) disrupting doesn't make it okay. If he feels he can contribute constructively than he needs to request an unblock of the primary account. Grsz_Review 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of personal judgement and bias in Misplaced Pages Article Dorje Shugden Controversy is acively blocked by an editor

Hi there I had a repeated incident with user:Atisha's cook where he judged the person of a linked website as an "anti-Shugden activist". There is no 3rd party record which approves such a claim nor does this person states that he belongs to such a category. I think the claim is aimed to denounce the website owner. For the sake of keeping neutrality I removed that personal claim of the editor, however he always inserted it again. See History in Dorje_Shugden_controversy. I warned also the editor to report this to the admin-board but he ignored, and inserted his pov again. --Kt66 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a BLP issue without a source, I'm warning the user now. — neuro 08:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked 1 week ACB. — neuro 08:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This helps me to restore my faith in Misplaced Pages. --Kt66 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Honeymane

This User is acting like an Admin by reverting my edits on the Breast article witchout discussion it. I did write only true facts. can explain further later if anybody would look deeper. --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you mean this edit, it seems pedantic and silly. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well some spell correcting could be needed but reverting the whole work is overdoing it. It’s a clear fact btw--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And you have reliable sources to back up your claim? Regardless, reverting another editor's edits is not "acting like an admin". AnyPerson (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This don’t even need sources. The headline I did create is witnessed by everyone, It’s like a cat have a noise, you don’t doubt that do you?  --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that you don't need to provide reliable sources for The breasts are grown to many sizes and shapes, some ethnicites which have large breasts are Africans and Middle eastern aswell Europeans in some degree, small breasts are more common on Asian and south asian woman is laughable. Provide the source and this will all go away. AnyPerson (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it laughable?, I thinks it’s laughable when someone need “reliable” sources for African , Middle eastern and European woman have large breasts? And South Asian and Asian woman have small breasts? Now you have read the line, tell me what’s not truth in this?. On the Chest Hair article is provided which kind men have the most or less hair on their chest why can’t a line about ethnicity and breasts be there?btw I don't think there are sources for something that known and that common --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:V? And Chest hair has a reference to a medical study. AnyPerson (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread has already been closed. Please, let's continue the discussion at Wiikiiwriter's talk page, or the Breast talk page. And remember not to feed the trolls. Politizer /_contribs 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This could be the poster child for "original research". For some reason this Barney Fife line is echoing in my head now: "You're a boob, Gomer!" Baseball Bugs 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You gotta cite for that line? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that was from the Andy Griffith episode about "Citizen's Arrest". Baseball Bugs 18:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Boobies. That is all. HalfShadow 18:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Users - User:Snowded & User:Ironholds

Please some assistance. I've tried to be civil and useful but it seems that I can't get a break. I tried to develop neutral census gathering but these two keep following me around every edit I make and has been trying to slander me. It is very discouraging. These two seem to try to make my life very difficult. I've stopped trying to explain within the Naturalism (philosophy) page in order to get down to the truth as they gave me threats of being a troll. I then decided to try to build on the process of "neutral census building" because these two seem to have done the same but they've been warned before from following me around. I believe that the attacks on the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/To-do_list) have gone too far. What I listed was suppose to be a To-do item and has turned into an article to attack me. I know that the other Catholics on in the list would not want such a long discussion on the "to-do" list. I'm stopping all of my editing for now in the next couple days to try to get things resolved and to stop receiving the threats. Theology10101 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already suggested WP:DR for this issue when it showed up on my talk page a week and a half ago. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I (think) that was before I became involved. Everything there has been eliminated apart from informal/formal mediation, which wouldn't work since the issue is Theology refusing to understand what we are trying to say. I did not accuse Theology of being a troll; indeed, at one point I defended him against accusations of trolling; in exchange he all but accused me of being a troll when I followed him to a related page after he violated WP:CANVASS and posted a message asking for people to step in and defend 'the truth' at the Naturalism (philosophy) talkpage. If he considers requesting the assistance of a limited group of editors to defend a particular point of view something for a 'to-do' list then the problem is him, not us. You have not tried neutral consensus gathering, and the problem is not us failing to understand your explanations of, quote, 'the truth'; we understand them, and we've explained repeatedly why they are not appropriate for the article. I've almost exhausted my supplies of good faith, and to be honest it is suprising that they have held out at all dealing with a user who put me on a 'blacklist' on his user talk page for warning him politely about the inappropriateness of a blacklist, attempted to canvass at a potentially biased location and then went basically 'well I'm not saying you are a troll, I'm just saying that if you look at the definition of troll at Metawiki then some of your edits might come close to you being a troll'. All I want is for some way for Theology to accept that the opinions he is touting are inappropriate to be included in the Naturalism (philosophy) article, something I have tried to explain to him politely and in various forms about seven times without success. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request a quick maintenence speedy deletion

Yaki-gaijin (talk · contribs) is creating an article on a brewer, Philip Harper (sake brewer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who shares a name with the jazz trumpeter Philip Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaki-gaijin decided to make Philip Harper into a disambig page, but instead of moving the original contents, history, etc., of that page en masse, he or she copy-pasted the article onto a new page he or she created, Philip Harper (jazz trumpeter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and then blanked the original article to turn it into a disambiguation page. Can someone do an IAR speedy of Philip Harper (jazz trumpeter) so I can help this guy out by properly moving Philip Harper to that new pagename and then creating a disambiguation page out of the resulting redirect? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

done -- Samir 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to raccoon by User:DavidOaks

The user DavidOaks is constantly inserting questionable content to the raccoon article which has got overwhelming support as Featured Article candidate (2 strong supports, 5 supports, 1 oppose based on image placement) just one and a half months ago:

: invalid statistic from a probably unreliable source, re-inserted many times

: meaningless information on preparation methods; and more:

: use of an obviously unreliable source (wisegeek.com) for one of his edits

: non-notable information (trivia), less than 1,000 Google hits for a “popular” saying

: addition of totally redundant information, parts of it contained in the same chapter

: removal of important information from the lead without explanation

: removal of a headline without explanation

(sentence about acorns): change of the meaning of a fact

(paragraph about camping): 1st sentence: redundant information violating NPOV; 2nd sentence: unencyclopedic, too wordy phrasing; 3rd sentence: how-to style without adding significant new information; all sentences: no reliable source given; more of the same:

He has also added some other pieces of information to the article without providing reliable sources.

According to the file history, DavidOaks is probably the only editor with a particular interest in the chapter “Food and foodways” and is thus trying to write as much information about the topic as possible, giving this minor topic, according to all monographies about the species, undue weight.

Outrageous claim. The article has a section on "distribution outside of North America" AND one on "Distribution in Germany" where there are probably fewer than are killed in a single US state in a given year. The foodways section is among the shortest. Moreover, I understand the case here to be essentially that a number of my contributions were reverted or modified (almost always by N.A.) If it's wikipolicy that such a thing gets one placed in a special, restricted category, it's news to me. I'm being insulted here, and wish very much to avoid responding in kind, but I cannot help feeling that there's some unusual impulse to control here, and I'm feeling pretty persecuted. Never had any such experience before. DavidOaks (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since DavidOaks’ edits are beginning to be disruptive and my last try to speak with him about the issue was not fruitful, I propose that he should no longer be allowed to make changes to the article (based on this revision), not including copyedits, without establishing a consensus about the proposed changes beforehand on the discussion page and the mental approval of the fact that the article got overwhelming support as Featured Article candidate recently and is therefore not in need of an extensive revision. I myself will adhere to the same procedure.

N.A. most certainly did not adhere to any such procedure, as is clearly documented buy the timestamps of his edits. I did in fact comply, though I saw myself as being under no real obligation to do so. I am acting with goodwill, and am being targeted by an editor whose long and good work on the article has given him the idea that he's the chief arbiter. This is some kind of personal vendetta being carried out under the guise of a content dispute. I have really never encountered anything like this on the wiki, and I have a long history of construcvtive editing. DavidOaks (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the given revision contains a copyedit and some useful additions to the “Food and foodways”, and “Mythology, arts and culture” sections by DavidOaks. This means that he is able to work on the article in a constructive manner but choses way too often not to do so.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the process is for this, since it's my first experience with such accusations (I believe my record speaks for itself). I'll just respond to the silliness above. The article lacked much cultural information. I supplied some, well-ref'd and with consensus. N.A. did a lot of undiscussed reverting, and in the process was consistently uncollegial in tone, and continues so. Not good for the article or community, and too bad in light of his ability and dedication. But no, his accusations are bogus, and he needs to look to his own disruptiveness. Except to the extent that he makes things public and personal, it has been my preference to communicate with him directly as little as possible. There is a peculiar territoriality to his attitude, and he needs to get past that. The presumptuopusness, arrogance, haughtiness of his repeated "I'm getting annoyed..." gives a sense of his attitude towards the collegial process, his own role, and that of other editors. I'm frankly pretty shocked. The issues that are upsetting him are his own, and admin action against another editor isn't going to fix them. DavidOaks (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DavidOaks does obviously not want to come to a consensus which information belongs in the (alreday quite long) article and which does not before editing. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

After a little research I'm forced to ask - Why is the NEBRASKA GAME AND PARKS COMMISSION a "probably unreliable source"?

And why is WiseGeek "Obviously unreliable"? Your unwillingness to accept various sources because they conflict with your two books is what sticks out to me on the talk page. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of these sources was also questioned by other editors:

The source is not reliable for the statistic. The Roadkill project is sponsored by the NSF as an educational project for school kids, and not as a scientific research project. - Abecedare here

I'm going to remove the wisegeek.com ref. That does not meet RS standards, and as I'm not the only who thinks so, I think that is firm enough to do without establishing consensus first. I'll replace it with a cn tag. - carl.bunderson here

I have added Wisegeek.com at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wisegeek.com for more opinions.

Uh, please check the discussion and revision history. I was very cooperative about reverting where consensus called for it. I participated in discussion. I myself was part of the assessment discussion of roadkill discussion, among other points of article and source improvement. Nor did I make difficulty about removing wisegeek, though I believe it is reliable enough in relation to the pretty noncontroversial claim made. There's something personal and targeted here, and N.A. is engaged in what I can only call harassment. DavidOaks (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It are six and not two books, by the way, and there is a large number of other sources in the reference list. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the edit that you are contending is regarding the number of raccoons eaten, not the roadkill project. Just because there's questionable material in one section does not mean the entire site is unreliable. As for most of the other stuff, I am seeing a bit of WP:UNDUE in Davids edits. That Raccoons are eaten is notable David, past that unless you can provide irrefutable proof that it is way out of line with current beliefs (which means you'd have to establish what the current belief is and then find a way to refute it) the entry is good enough. Please don't make this WP:POINTy. Full disclosure: I'm not an admin, this probably should have gone to 3O or some other level of DR. Padillah (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly wasn't my intent to make it pointy, and that's much to be avoided. Good suggestion, to demonstrate that food-use is non-mainstream; I would have thought that was common knowledge, but in order to make the point of the discussion clear, it's probably rhetorically necessary. In fact, that's already present in the sources already used, but needs a contextualizing sentence to bring it out. The now-deleted-but-recoverable KC Star cite, which won approval from most commentators as RS, notes that it's a non-mainstream food not available through usual channels.

• This is a content dispute. It doesn't belong here. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Free username

Hello,

My question may be inappropriate. If it is, I appologize.

I was trying to register the same nick I always use ('OhReally'), but found I couldn't because it was too similar to 2 other usernames ('Ohreally' and 'OhReally?'). Would it be possible to have this name freed, so I can use it? Normally I wouldn't ask this, but in this case both users have registered in 2006 and have never made any contributions, so I thought it might be worth a shot.

Thanks for considering, Rob la Lau (wikipedia@ohreally.nl) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.21.80.126 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Usurpation. This is only possible if the registered accounts made no significant edits. Please ask questions like this at Misplaced Pages:Help desk since this is not an incident involving administrator attention. - Mgm| 11:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation is not necessary. You should go to WP:ACC. Algebraist 12:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term "usurpID". Baseball Bugs 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no User:OhReally. Create a new username, such as TempReally. Then, while logged in as TempReally (or whatever), go to WP:CHU and follow the instructions to change TempReally (or whatever) to OhReally. Kingturtle (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Go to WP:ACC; those of us with the accountcreator permission can override 'too similar' usernames. //roux   18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, this would be a lot easier than tying up 'crat time. –xeno (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was called a sucker

Will some editor please warn the user? Thank you. 212.200.240.241 (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Take care, a quick look at the discussion suggests you are not altogether blameless. Deb (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, he's received his warning. Deb (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That "personal attack" is on the same level as "you silly pudding" or "you gunky". Baseball Bugs 12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a slush-ball, do you Bugs? Padillah (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For "Junior Barnes"? Nope. It's below zero outside. Not a slush in sight. Baseball Bugs 13:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs, I now have my sig for this month. :) caknuck _° is a silly pudding 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for those who don't speak proper American English, "sucker" is a very old and quaint slang word with many related meanings, most mildly derogatory but usually humorously so. It usually means someone who has been taken advantage of or is vulnerable, or fails, or is emotionally attached to a particular thing, due to their own naivete or gullibility, as in There's a sucker born every minute or "you're a sucker for Prada". The word had a bit of a resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s when it seemed to become part of black / urban slang, as in "so long, sucker", something that might be uttered by a criminal in a bad movie as he escaped the police. It also means a lollipop but I doubt they were calling you that. It also seems to be a non-specific noun for a thing that has attention, as in "I picked that sucker up and now I'm going to put it down". I don't think there is any sexual connotation, even though the word sounds dirty in that way. Here's a dictionary definition. Hope that helps, sucker.Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put rampant trifles on WP:ANI, 212.200.240.241. Your post was removed by an administrator at least once; you should have taken the hint and not put it back. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Nonadmins on both occasions, actually. Algebraist 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another editor put it back. It appeared to be a good faith complaint by someone who does not know English well (or so he says), and it deserved an explanation that it's a very low-key "insult". P.S. He posted something about it on Wales' page. That should give Big Jim a laugh. Baseball Bugs 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way, looking up sucker in a dictionary or encyclopaedia would have avoided all this drama. If only there was some kind of online encyclopaedia... Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite. But let's suppose, assuming good faith, that he was enraged and not thinking clearly. Baseball Bugs 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have stricken the offensive word and added more about this policy violator. When will such experienced users who have usernames but deliberately use IPs to avoid scrutiny get punished? This editor is gaming the system and playing sensitive, which should not be rewarded, but punished. I suspect this is a banned user and something needs to be done. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is closed but maybe it shouldn't be. Please take a look at the user page here. The IP has admitted to having another account. On the talk page s/he attacks multiple editors. I think someone needs to take care of this IP because socking to avoid scrutiny isn't allowed, which this appears to be to me. Thank you for your time. --CrohnieGal 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a long time problematic editor who is attempting to avoid scrutiny. WP:BRI should be applied whenever he shows up. Verbal chat 18:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has told me to "fuck off" and "get a life" several times. Using many different IPs allows him to stir up shit like this without scrutiny. NJGW (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See, this is why i removed this is the first place. The user left some of the story just to get someone in trouble. This user actually has numerous sockpuppets and is starting an edit-war on WP:NOMORE, on wether or not the page should be a redirect. Elbutler (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a known editor, but this may not be enough abuse to justify WP:SPI. If you intend to file a sockpuppet case, and want some data, leave a note on my Talk. Some other editors in this thread seem to know who he is already. Given the feedback, he may back off and we won't have to do anything. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This user is no sockpupet as he does not use multiple accounts. He is not logging in, because it is his right ]. Users who dislike this are free to leave the project. If you want to know why I told NJGW to fuck off, it is because he had an obnoxious history of persisting that I login where he joined another editor in that request, a case which was mediated by an arbitrator. For ignorant people (ignorant is not insult), dynamic IP due to DHCP is not a sockpupet account. If you back of, I'll back of. Don't stalk my edits, and I won't need to go into discussions with you. I don't want to discuss with you. It is not interesting to me, but you simply make me do it. Luckily, Misplaced Pages is a huge place, and hopefully we won't be crossing each others roads in the future. Let other admins deal with it. As for accusation that my edits are disruptive, that's just amusing, taking into account that accusation comes from an editor who ignores Misplaced Pages policies to redirect a page s(he) does not like. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks from IP editor

I have now received 3 personal attacks (1 abusive edit of my page and 2 slightly abusive comments on my talk page) from the same editor who is obviously on a non-fixed IP address. The guy seems to have a bee in his bonnet about me for some reason. The guy is currently editing on 79.75.236.49, with previous edits on 79.75.171.39 and 79.75.154.89. I realise a ban on IP range is not going to happen, but would it be possible to get the current IP blocked for a few hours? Hopefully he might create an account then. --LiamE (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to have your pages semiprotected for a while? That might make him create an account all right. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Yup, good idea. If it doesnt work it might be an idea to semi protect List of University of East Anglia alumni for a little while as it seems to be my edits to that page they have taken exception to. Hopefully wanting to revert me there would make him create an account and then the edits can actually be discussed. --LiamE (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi'd for three days. Please let me know if the problems recur when that time is up. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the help, will do. --LiamE (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you are now a Real Wiki Editor and can now proceed to Requests for Adminship - where named accounts can call you all sorts of names. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled accross this page by accident, while checking out liame's recent edits. I am the supposed "IP vandal" who merely wants to see 2 dubious inclusions wiped from an alumni list. That said, i probably went about the wrong way and may have made personal attacks against liame in the process. sorry. However i have since moved the debate to the List of University of East Anglia alumni discussion page, where perhaps liame, and any other experienced wikipedians might be willing to share their opinions. Regards 79.75.236.49 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I call a spade a spade. You vandalised my user page with a personal attack and you are on an IP address ergo you are an IP vandal. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..... in any case I have replied about the "dubious" edits you want removed on the talk page of the article. --LiamE (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violator

Red devils4life (talk · contribs) has plagiarized content (from here) after having already received a stern warning from me. Could someone have him temporarily blocked, so that he gets the picture about how important it is not to do that?

(I'm not saying he should be "punitively" blocked, but that a block would be preventative because hopefully it will show him what happens when you engage in persistent copyvio.) Politizer /_contribs 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Luck by Chance

User:Legolas2186 has for several days been posting uncivil edit summaries threatening fellow editors with "reporting" them, and blanket reverting good-faith edits by calling them vandalism. Some of his edits are genuinely useful, but many others involve movie fancruft.

Regardless, he posts hostile and threatening posts such as this at Talk:Luck_by_Chance:

Don't try to act high and mighty by wiki-linking as if you know everything. You are continuously removing information under the assumption of gossip when they are reported by authenticable sources. As i said before, if i do see you again removing info, I'll make sure your editing priviledges are blocked. "Legolas" (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out this WP:OWN behavior and incivility on the same talk page, and have left a note with this editor, who has also been uncivil on my own talk page. Can anything be done about these threats and the unnecessary hostility? I believe my editing record shows someone who tries to work with other editors and discuss things (such as here). I ask for any help you might give in fostering non-hostile dialog. Thank you very much, very seriously, for your taking time on what is a voluntary effort on your part. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think Legolas has done anything wrong here. First of all, your edits have been removing references and prose without giving a rationale; this is the wort of thing you usually get a {{uw-delete}} template message for. Secondly, Legolas has not always been calling your edits "vandalism," and at least one time he specifically said that your edit was good faith but had to be undone because it removed references and added unsourced material. I think in your first paragraph you have mischaracterized Legolas's actions. No admin action against him is needed, and I don't even see any point keeping this thread open; if no admin action is required, the discussion needs to be continued elsewhere. Politizer /_contribs 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SPA drama on Jewish-related AfD

OK, Ignatz Lichtenstein was a rabbi who was controversial in various ways. The AfD was started by and is being peppered with SPAs;

• Joseph3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jacob Cohen 1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JewishTeen111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ParisYid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what the best course here is but maybe a rummage through the sock drawer? Also, user name ParisYid seems likely in violation. -- Banjeboi 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why ParisYid would be in violation of the username policies. However, these do look like socks. Note for example that all three of the first few are of the form NameNumber. Also the second account in question responded on a talk page to a comment I made to the first account. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should probably add Texas Muslimah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list... it's another SPA who just joined in on the discussion. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 17:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Catch-22

• Kalupinka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When we met to discuss completly different thing, my old good friend, Kalupinka, complained to me about totally unbased blocking and asked me to fill a petition for unblocking, since Kalupinka is blocked totally, even at own talk page.

I did it. At first my petition was denied, because I am not Kalupinka, which is absurd. Kalupinka cannot edit any page and did not wish to spam every admin asking for unblocking.

Then my petition was denied because: "No valid reason for unblock given". This makes from the Misplaced Pages the real Catch-22. Kalupinka was blocked because being "giant sockfarm". No evidence provided for this absurd claim. Then my petition was denied because I did not prove that Kalupinka is not "giant sockfarm"? How?

Could anybody solve this absurd approach towards my friend? —Guy Peters 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

His talk page doesn't seem to be protected, and the block log makes no mention of the "cannot edit own talk page" option being turned on, so he should be able to. That said, the right move would be to bring this up with the blocking admin, User:YellowMonkey. I've dropped a line on his talk page notifying him of this thread. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True. And since Yellowmonkey is a CheckUser, it is entirely likely that the giant sockfarm is indeed present. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reactions.

1. His talk page doesn't seem to be protected No, it is not.
2. and the block log makes no mention of the "cannot edit own talk page" option being turned on Yes, perhaps wiki bug. Kalupinka really cannot, I believe what I was said.
3. And since Yellowmonkey is a CheckUser Was Kalupinka tested? There's no record.

I know Kalupinka for 5 years personally. I guarantee that Kalupinka is no giant sockfarm. —Guy Peters 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for page block

//roux   18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy is attacking the Ambigram page, deleting significant content worked on by multiple editors over a long period of itme. This is not the first time he has done this with this article and it has still not quite recovered from the first time because I initially assumed the edits were in good faith (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ambigram#Recently_Deleted_Content). I reverted his edits but he reverted my revert. I don't want to get into an edit war which he will win under 3RR. If you review the edit history (and his edit history), you can see that he has cut a wide swath through this article and many others.

If he has problems with significant content, he should take it to the Talk page, not just start deleting things.

RoyLeban (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please visit Requests For Page Protection to have a page protected. ANI is not for content disputes. //roux   18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Roy has a WP:OWNership problem and a major WP:COI on the article and is overly dramatic, declaring anything he doesn't like an "attack". DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:91.108.194.116

This user has made two legal threats on their talk page, and is blatantly abusing the {{helpme}} template just to get attention. They also want to know Jimbo's home address. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by J Milburn. — neuro 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com / User:Robert Sieger

• Re-adding this here as it was archived too soon, and without conclusion - Alison 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• And again!! - Alison 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed_conditional_unban_of_User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, Durova 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Misplaced Pages and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support on general principles, if not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.

Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm| 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. Durova 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Misplaced Pages risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more appropriate to bring up at WP:VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect for Chergles's input I've created a new essay about lifting community bans. Misplaced Pages:Standard offer contains the standards I've practiced for over two years. Shortcut WP:SO. Durova 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Robert emailed me to say that he's dealing with a family issue right now and won't really be able to participate (on or off-wiki) in discussions here for the moment - Alison 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I've gone back over this guy's record - old blocks, old RFCs, etc - and it's quite clear he's a lunatic bigot. We have enough of these on Misplaced Pages without letting another one from the past back into the fold. Troubles article have plenty of nutters editing them without another one being throw in. I don't care if he's been a good little boy and avoided socking for six pathetic months - ooh, well done, would you like some chocolate cake now? Leopards spots change do not. What do you think he wants to come back for? To carry on wikignoming on movie bio articles? I really don't think so. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this in my plague archives: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Do we really think that any...person...capable of writing this revolting bile should be allowed near Misplaced Pages? Do we really? Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Keeping him from Misplaced Pages isn't actually feasible, but genuine reform may be. He has refrained from socking for half a year. Okay, let's give him a try. He'll be on the short leash and there isn't likely to be any opposition to a renewed ban if problems return. There's little to lose by giving banned users an incentive to turn over a new leaf, as long as the parameters are fair and reasonable to both sides. Not too lenient, but not impossible either. Durova 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban per Eliz81's substantive conditions although I would go along with the suggestions that a new name is used. At a guess, I think I must have unwittingly welcomed almost a dozen of RMS's sock accounts during routine work at Recent Changes. You can add quite a few welcomes later, after I became aware of the history involved and where I had a gut feeling from editing patterns that it was RMS, but there was no legitimate reason not to assume good faith. I've knocked off a couple of socks along the way :). The events that led to his banning happened before I was active on Misplaced Pages, so I wasn't involved, but they clearly and unambigiously fall into the category of "things-up-with-which-Misplaced Pages-cannot-put" if the system is to work; perhaps if I had been involved then, I probably would be reluctant to support an unban now. But the question seems to me to be: has the situation, or more accurately, has RMS moved on from 2006 and would unbanning him compromise the encyclopaedia? He has kept to his agreement not to sock. From the few interactions I have had with RMS - although granted those were with sock accounts - and from reading his edits over the course of late 2007 and early 2008, my opinion is that he has moved a long way from the RMS of 2006. And, perhaps this isn't really relevant, but the fact that he is agreeing to go through this process earns a few points from me, if only on grounds of "intestinal fortitude". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without going into too much detail, Robert had some personal issues back in 2006 that would certainly have caused problems, especially those outbursts that Moreschi noted above. That's all been resolved now and is in the past, and he's unlikely to go back to that behaviour. That's all I can say, really - Alison 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And you believe him when he says this? "Oh, sorry, I couldn't help all the xenophobia and racism, I was a bit stressed at the time"? Do we have any proof of this? These conditions are incredibly generous. I could maybe support if the topic ban from Troubles articles was lifetime, but 6 months? You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that belief is an issue here; it's actions subsequent to any unbanning that are going to be the issue, and any edits on Troubles-related articles are inevitably going to scrutinized. Of course, anything along the lines of the events that got him banned are going to result in a reban, simple as that. If he makes edits that, if made by any other editor without any baggage, would be considered legitimate and constructive, then they should be treated on their merits as such; however, if there is a pattern of edits where he "plays the player, not the ball", where there is good reason to believe he is editing against another editor or editors rather than on the point, they aren't going to escape notice. There are enough neutral editors involved in the Troubles articles nowadays that someone is going to call him on them; even in six months, a year or two years from now, because of the history of the Trouble-related articles, it's highly unlikely that there won't be more than enough neutral editors who could easily - and quickly - come to a reasonable conclusion. Hey, even bleeding-heart liberals like me sometimes take comfort in knowing there's a Big Stick around the place somewhere :). People might be willing to let his past stay in the past and if things go to plan, the past can be forgotten, but he will still be subject to the rules on neutrality and personal attacks that all the rest of us have to work with. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While I have some of the same reservations and Moreschi, if durova, alison, and eliz all think rms has gotten past the rediculous behavior; I would support a short leased unbann (following eliz's conditions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. If the people above are willing to supervise, and the user will follow the restrictions, then good luck to him. (And them.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. support unban Willing to see how this goes. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Weak Support, with concerns - I note in that RfC above that his interests in bigotry range far and wide from Irish topics; I think that point 10 needs at least 6 and 6, not 3 and 3, and needs to be expanded to cover any political conflict in which two or more common populations are involved - Ireland, Serbia, Slovaks/Slovenes, Ukrainians, and so on. To be blunt, I'd like to see it mroe stepped = 3 months of theater and film, and 3 months of general culture and sciences and so on, with the step 10 material to kick in AFTERwards - so that it goes from generally exclusive to generally inclusive over time. I realize this complicates it, but this isn't an easy situation. If hes' truly interested in editing the project, it shouldn't be too hard to abide by, and if he's interested in combat, then it'll be over fast either way. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. Can a neutral, uninvolved admin possibly review the above and close with a decision. please? The thread keeps getting archived :) and it's been well over a week now. Thanks! - Alison 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards