Misplaced Pages

• Interesting regarding what he used the 'sockpuppet' for. The link also shows the extent of community patience that is normally extended to errant editors. Unomi (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned: Drew up far too much drama. The pseudoscience articles are actually manageable, for the most part, because we aren't playing tit-for-tat games anymore. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - I think Skinwalker says all that I'd want to say about it. Maybe after rather longer, with a topic ban to start, but it's too soon. Frankly, I think the only reason he wasn't banned long ago is that he "retired" any time anything looked to be going against him, then unretired once things had blown over - for instance, he said he was retired all through the events that led up to his ban. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned for now - a ban commuted to two months? That's not enough time. Maybe, at some point in the future it could be considered, but from his statement on his talk page, he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong. I'd consider (and probably endorse) unbanning after a year provided that there is a willingness to admit that he was wrong and to change, but two months is not enough. --B (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks to Skinwalker for notifying me of this discussion, and a finger wag at the rest of you lot for not informing me. As the blocking admin, I'll note that I blocked Martinphi essentially because he was treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground - and will be disinclined to unblock him myself unless I am convinced he will actively create a productive, collegiate and safe editing environment. I would be inclined to unblock if he has a proven track record of such collaboration on another wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock. He was blocked for disruption stemming from the view that he was treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground in a personal dispute with ScienceApologist and showing a battlefield mindset with opposing editors. I am satisfied with Martin’s statements, his recognition of what the issues were that led to his block, and his positive affirmation that he will be seeking true consensus in a very civil and non-battlefield way. Dreadstar † 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I've read his statement on his talk page and it sounds like a defense, not an apology. So long as he is interested in defending his behavior, I don't know how he could be said to have demonstrated recognition of the issues that led to his block. --B (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think where you see defense, I see explanation. He said he's going to be doing things differently from here on out - which I think is clear indication that he sees his former pattern of behavior was wrong and he is going to change. He also explains how he's going to change; and I don't see any belligerence or statements along the lines of “I’m right and all of you are wrong”, I see a genuinely contrite statement and a willingness to change to become more of a consensus-building editor, and instead of engaging in “long winded” disputes, making more use of the appropriate processes. I say we extend him a little good faith and give him another chance. If he pursues a course that is the same that led to his banning, then we can just simply ban him again. Dreadstar † 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned too much drama in the past with the guy, so how could we convince a similar degree of dramas not happen in future.--Caspian blue 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Wait another month or two and bring it up again. Keep banned, didn't know about the outings. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned -- his edits were extraordinarily disruptive, and he has a long, long history of uch behavior he was also a party to an arbitration case that kind of punted on him once the community ban came down, so unbanning him would mean he dodged the potential consequences of the arbitration. He's never shown any remorse for this agenda-advancing edits and coordinated WP:Civil POV pushing. He's gamed the system for years, and this looks like another attempt to do so. If he does come back he will need to be under some severe editing restrictions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Unblock. This edit seems genuinely remorseful for the actions which lead to his/her block and has pledged not to do such actions again. I'd say that the indef block has worked to correct behavior. -- Levine2112 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Unban A truly collaborative community of editors is meant to guide and help other editors. A knowledgeable, experienced editor who acknowledges the concerns that led to his ban, and makes a strong comment and commitment to correct those concerns as MartinPhi has done should be given a chance to become part of the community again, to contribute. As per WP:AGF, we don't assume future behaviours. To unban and allow an editor to have another chance is in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. To not unban runs counter to that spirit.(olive (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
• Keep banned. People with such a clear agenda, and who have caused this amount of disruption, should not be editing, no matter whether they make promises to try and be nice or not. If you perceive of Misplaced Pages as a battlefield, it makes little difference whether you promise to be fair in battle or not, it's the battling that matters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nyet. Old Russian saying, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned and this disruptive, unrepentant POV pusher from causing more trouble.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - why are we wasting our time? He was permanently banned and people think he has magically changed in two months? Come back in a year. And as SBHB was saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool us several dozen times and use a sockpuppet while doing so? Shame on everyone. //roux   22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - whatever the outcome of this, it ought to be shared equally by MartinPhi and ScienceApologist. MP was not worse than SA in this war (in many ways he was more civilized about it, IMO), but as it stands he's getting a dramatically worse punishment. What I would personally like to see is both SA and MP come back under appropriate restrictions, with a very clear impression that neither of them won. if SA comes back to edit while MP gets banned (or if the tables were turned, and MP came back while SA got banned), it would send the message that this is a useful and effective way of ridding wikipedia of opposing points-of-view, and we'd set a precedent for editors taking kamikaze runs at each other. not good, that. --Ludwigs2 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reread the findings of the recent Fringe Science arbcom, which apply here, like it or not. It was MΦ, not SA, who was attempting to create a place for unencyclopedic content on WP, not SA. SA was subsequently blocked for violating the terms of the arbcom findings; that was not the case for MΦ, who, during the arbcom case, was blocked by Tznkai for long-term disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and SA has demonstrated a loooong history of sockpuppetry and markedly uncivil, aggressive tactics to push his own POV (tactics he used on MΦ in excess, which is a big part of the foundation of this debacle). we're not talking about an old-style western here, Mathsci, where there's a guy in a white hat who you know is noble, good, and kind. This is more like a 70's western, where everyone's hat is dusty gray, and both sides are obsessively, arrogantly bent on violence. MΦ's biggest problem here is not that he's pushing a POV (at least not more than SA is), but rather that he's pushing the wrong POV (where SA is pushing the right POV).

• Comment Coming from a completely disinterested spectator to this morass but I tend to agree with the above observation by User:Ludwigs2. Both protagonists seem to have used Misplaced Pages as a battlefield and have caused more distress than it's worth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
• Maintain Ban or, at minimum, ban from all fringe topics and all policy pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sustain ban per SheffieldSteel. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned as we should for most long-term nettlesome editors who have been community banned. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Unban and sysop - as Ludwig above alludes, MartinPhi has behaved much more in line with what an encyclopedia is all about (an encyclopedia being a place where people go to make friends and feel welcomed) than the unapologetic tyrant of the scientific method with whom he locked horns. To put it most bluntly, MartinPhi has been unjustly attacked by those who would bludgeon our delicate whimsy with oppressive fact and appeals to the scientific method - in a nutshell, "verifiable and objective truth" (in an encyclopedia, of all the fucking places!). He should be commended, not lambasted, for his noble actions in furthering the goals of this project, and his detractors should be strong admonished - make that speedy admonished and salted - for their aura-damaging mean-spiritedness. Badger Drink (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, and they call me sarcastic. Let's just appoint him King while we're at it. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 06:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Maintain Ban Too much wikilawyering, too much drama. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Curesearcher

• Curesearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user registered, somehow creates userpage and uses edit summary on first edit , then proceeds to spam user talk pages . Claims to be "a graduate student with the University of Colorado Boulder", and yet for a "graduate student" this comment contains multiple spelling errors and also grammatical errors. I would like to assume good faith - but would like to get others' thoughts on this. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks quite fishy. Misstates the name of the university, posts a gmail address instead of a university address. Goes directly to specific user pages to request information, rather than posting to Village Pump. Durova 03:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

funny...no one has contacted me through my colorado e-mail adress... just saying that may add credibility, especially if you link through your own google search rather than the link I provided.Curesearcher (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, another comment in all lowercase, if anything I'd think "Colorado" as a proper noun should be capitalized. Also note that the user misspells "adress" (again). Cirt (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Curesearcher's user talk) Respectfully declining the offer. It's a bit unsettling to see this approach, particularly where people who have recent or ongoing involvement in a sensitive arbitration case appear to be preferentially targeted for no explained reason. It does not impress that the editor posts to the admin boards while failing to note that he provided a university email only after concerns arose. Durova 03:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I smell an attempt at scamming going on... --Whip it! 03:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so maybe he's not scamming but it's definitely spamming, whether he realizes it or not. Asking users to fill out a "questionnaire", provide contact info, I don't think that's allowed on any basis around here. Maybe the user is a teenager who thinks he might be taken more seriously if he says he's from college. Or maybe he's from a rival encyclopedia. Or maybe he's a user who previously had an account that was blocked for persistent spamming, who knows, but this isn't something to be ignored, that's for sure. --Whip it! 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

durova, no offence is taken at your decline. I would like to clarify the order of events in order to show that it was good faith errors on my behalf. my plan was to e-mail the editors from wikipedia, but that link disappeared from the last time I saw the user pages. so plan B was to post the survey on my user page but then I realized that posting my Colorado account e-mail was probably not the brightest thing, so I set up a g-mail account (you are not the only guys who don't want to be spammed, I am sure that you understand why I wouldn't want my Colorado e-mail on wikipedia for all to see...) for the purposes of this survey. Then I hit the random page button, and started asking users who where participating in discussions.

Some users where not random, but I have no idea about an arbitration hearing (although looking at your talk page, you are frequently involved in higher level discussions, so I assure you that it is coincidence). In casing Misplaced Pages a few editors discussions showed a higher proficiency in Misplaced Pages rules and their comments tended to steer the discussion, so I made sure to ask those editors as well. The choice however rested entirely on talk pages.

Some of the not random came from:

Scientology

Alcoholics Anonymous

Since those tend to be heated topicsCuresearcher (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry curt, again this feels more like everyone taking out their grammar ruler and whipping me, than anyone wanting to actually contact me and find out the truth. I don't think I have broken any Misplaced Pages rules...I am sorry I don't spell well (you fret at peoples spelling, I fret at people using fallacies in logic and not understanding how to critically asses their mediated politics...everyone's educational bias comes out). I do understand that in an electronic medium that bad spelling and form provide the same visual clues that dressing up in a dirty suit does in real life, and I made some mistakes...I wish people could look past that, but evidently that is not the case. again I ask you that if you are conserned about a spammer, you could contact me...if you want to use this as a forum to make an example of a poor speller...well that is what is going on...Curesearcher (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

something has really been bothering me...and I figured out what it was. in good faith, I have placed my personal information on Misplaced Pages, including my employer, my friends names and faces, the town I live in, and enough information that anyone who logs on can find out who I am...and because I made a typo... well what??? under the guise of "he may be a spammer" I was personally slandered, had my integrity questioned not because anyone really cared, but because some editors thought it would be fun to make fun of a typo.

you could have e-mailed me but you didn't because that would have probably cleared things up and stopped what I can only call a grammar Nazi orgasm... the thing was I am not on wikipedia only as "Cu Researcher" but as my real identity...I am not hiding behind an anonymous screen name, I was personally slandered...and there was no "good faith" involved. I know I put myself out there, but I feel like you guy's fished personal information from me, then spent time making fun of me (you didn't check the e-mail, just poked at my spelling) and now what??? what are you going to do with my real identity now?Curesearcher (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

this last comment is a poor caricature of what actually happened, in writing it I was attempting to excuse myself of any wrongdoing. The truth is that I gave every editor many reasons to be suspicious, and while I may not like the result that happened, it was justified and I understand why. I am sorry for the trouble that I caused.Curesearcher (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:School and university projects (also known as WP:SUP), Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Post there and follow their advice and the recommendations it gives. It's intended to help students and to teachers to avoid exactly the problems that you are having now. Sorry if nobody pointed you before at those, they are not very well known. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CANVASS too. Aside from that, when someone opens a new account and straight off shows some understanding of how Misplaced Pages works, along with making blatant spelling mistakes whilst saying they're from an educational org, it'll stir up some worries and some editors will want to look into why this is happening. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Curesearcher, that some editors have actually been targeted by phishing attempts and other problems, because of their editing. Durova 17:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why Curesearcher needs to go to WP:SUP and WP:WPCC and get his research "oficialized". Unfortunately, any researcher trying to investigate wikipedia has to either go through these hoops or be subjected to harassment lots of questions and proddings and being nailed with strict interpretations of policies that don't take into account the needs of their research project, and risk blocking (too long to explain here why, I ought to, for example, search the ANI thread for the last incident where a teacher asked his students to write articles here and the poor kids almost got all indef blocked for sharing their accounts instead of having one account per person, or something like that, it was decided that it was a special circumstance and WP:IAR was applied for the good of the encyclopedia, I think). The members of the wikiproject will also advice him on to avoid giving the wrong appeareance and point him to past surveys to see what methods they used. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid hyperbole. Last year, due to Misplaced Pages volunteer work, I was the target of genuine harassment: the FBI actually opened an investigation. It cheapens that serious term to use it loosely. It hardly constitutes harassment to question the authenticity of a new account that claims to be soliciting information from particular individuals, on behalf of a university whose name the user misspells. Given the circumstances of the initial approach, our skepticism was very reasonable. Durova 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric speaks English as a second language and the French verb harasser, while cognate, means "wear down" rather than the English meaning of to harass, to torment or persecute. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Durova 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hans too, I struck that verb and made a more accurate description. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem then. Striking through post. You write so well that I never checked to see your native language. Good faith on all sides, and best regards. Durova 23:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

first off Durova, I am wondering when I misspelled Colorado...Cirt's complaint was I didn't capitalize it...but I have checked all the spellings and they appear to be correct...my complaint is that 1. you asked for valid credentials those credentials were given...including my personal identity, a verifiable e-mail address that is tied to a educational institution, My personal photograph, list of classes I teach, my office hrs. all of my friends in the department, the faculty who I learn under, my home town, and you can even find my address with a small amount of searching...and then I am placed through the ringer including a AIN (whatever this is) not because any of these things are in depute (they weren't, no one even questioned if they were valid), but because I made some typo's. why was that? you guy's came up with the following theories 1. I am a blocked spammer who has hacked into the CU e-mail system and am going to get e-mail addresses from you once you e-mail Marc Rich and I fish them off his account, 2. I am a teenager working with a school project who wants to give himself validity so he hacks into the CU system, somehow comes to the comm department homepage and places a picture and name on there and sets up a CU e-mail account to gain access to those survey results for his high school class, 3. I have some interest in a Misplaced Pages review and am fishing for information about your edit history and personal opinions in the form of a medium that I will not be able to tie to Misplaced Pages identities but I am still looking for that information for some unspoken but hostile purpose so I use my real name and e-mail account that is traceable and monitored through CU. (you guy's who spell so well didn't do well in critical thinking did you)

so...either 1. good faith, you really did question my identity and set this review up because you are trying to protect the Misplaced Pages community from spammers, and since you doupted that I was really who I claimed to be this investigation was justified...but if this was the case you would have questioned the credentials, or checked the e-mail address because it was a valid university e-mail (exactly what you asked for), and if you recieved a responce from me through that address it would tie a name and employer to the address which NO REAL SPAMMER WILL EVER LET HAPPEN!

2. you just don't like surveys...so why didn't you just delete the comment and move on with your life besides harass me?

3. I unknowingly violated some rules of wikipedia...but you didn't mention that in your opening e-mails, in fact you appeared to want to help out until you got my personal information and then you proceeded to harass me (no it wasn't like the FBI, just because it isn't the extreme that proves the rule doesn't make it not harassment).

so based on this, my conclusion is that some Misplaced Pages administrators fished my personal information (note the pleasant tone and "well we would like to help you, but we need to trust you more...will you please give us the following information") and then proceeded to employ tactics designed to hurt me personally for no other reason than you don't like people with dyslexia (another reason people have trouble spelling...but still get into grad school...there are those critical thinking skills showing up again). Curesearcher (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

striking through unjust caricature of what actually happened. I gave the community many reasons to be suspicious and shouldn't paint them out to be villains when I started the ball rollingCuresearcher (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

←Please calm down. Nobody is trying to hurt you personally. If you could take a look at some of the comments made by idiots who are trying to hurt editors personally you would see the difference - try "Then im (sic) going to fill a sack with swallows and throw it at your car while you are driving to work ", aimed at an editor by an idiot some time ago.

The comments made about your unorthodox spelling and capitalisation meant no more than "here - this is odd". As you said yourself, "the equivalent of dressing up in a dirty suit". If you were approached in the street by someone who claimed to be a bona fide market researcher but was wearing torn jeans, a holed "I ♥ John Prescott" sweatshirt and a stained baseball hat you might feel justified in having a degree of suspicion, however much they claimed to be from Gallup, mightn't you?

As for placing your personal information, and that of other people, on here that's your choice (and a particularly bad one, if the other people aren't aware of it); if you later decide that doing so was inappropriate then following the instructions on WP:OVER might be appropriate. As you've already been told, there are channels for researchers - WP:SUP - which exist for the mutual protection of all parties. Using them would be a good idea. Regards Tonywalton  21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

...ok, I am not helping this at all by venting my frustration at this incident, and I am probably trying to slander some good editors who are in truth just doing what they can to help Misplaced Pages, and that is just unfair for them. While I still do think that there was probably a better way to go about this and get the same results (quicker I might add), that would be a personal opinion, and Curt, Dorvia, and the others know a lot more about wikipedia and its policies than I do and I should assume good faith rather than hostile intent. I am truly sorry for my comments, they were obviously designed to hurt people which is not what this is all about.

no one has done anything with my information so far (haven't checked the Craigslist M4M casual encounters section for my picture yet, but I trust it isn't there) so I shouldn't be too worried. It is funny how much more electronic debate becomes personal once it is actually you on the medium though...

in conclusion, I am sorry and will work with the wikipedia community decisions in my research.Curesearcher (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's odd about the comments Curesearcher directs at me is that either s/he hasn't read the links already provided here and at user talk, or else is deliberately ignoring them. On a previous occasion when the community in general reacted poorly to a request for information, I approached that individual in a friendly manner and offered to introduce them to site standards. Two years ago I founded WikiProject Classroom coordination. The fact is that Curesearcher's request was done in the least credible manner of any such request I observed in three and a half years of editing. If Curesearcher really is a serious graduate student, then there is a lesson in this worth taking to heart for the future: when one's approach is so weak that normally cooperative people become worried about possible phishing, then greater professionalism is advisable. Durova 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

you know, I am really really trying to not fight anymore Durova, so I am sorry I hurt your feelings with my comments. I did deserve that last comment based on the tone of my comments up till now (in fact it was a lot less harsh than I have treated you...so I will accept it as the cost of my temper).

I actually did follow the links (have taken a lot away from those e-mails actually)you can check it out if you likeMisplaced Pages:School and university projects# University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado (Spring 2009) and what I found out is that the Misplaced Pages school community isn't geared for research outside of teaching people how to edit the encyclopedia, and while I didn't really find this information prior to doing the survey, it wasn't offered either until this whole thing blew up. I think that this entire situation is why wikipedia suggests to assume good faith, to try and avoid these problems were we all get so caught up in our paranoia and conspiracy theories when we could have been helping each other out instead (that comment is directed at me as much as anyone else).Curesearcher (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking through in good faith. It isn't paranoia or conspiracy theorizing, though, for the most active volunteers on controversial areas to get skittish in this way. Last summer another editor and I went public after the FBI opened separate investigations into serious harassment we were both receiving (not just took reports, but opened investigation). P2PNet News ran a pretty good story about it. The two of us stepped forward publicly, but we weren't the only ones to encounter serious problems as a result of our volunteer work. Best wishes with your research; let's mark this thread resolved. Durova 05:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agenda/POV pushing re: User:Ejnogarb

I think it's time an admin or 20 look into Ejnogarb (talk · contribs)'s edit history and have a word with him/her about ownership and such. I think a topic ban is in order. The user appears to be agenda driven in removing valid, sourced content dealing with gay rights issues or adding POV content against the subjects. The latest edits to American Family Association where the editor is trying to strip the article of valid, sourced content that points out how the AFA is against all things "gay" is the last straw so to speak. His/her edits to that article alone have been reverted by several users but he/she continues to edit war. We don't whitewash articles on Misplaced Pages and this should be stopped across the full medium of topics this editor is doing this to. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question had a source from Southern Poverty Law Center, which first of all isn't appropriate for a controversy section given its bias. Second, the primary sentence in question asserted that the AFA was implicated in hate crimes against gays. Given that this is such a licentious assertion, and that the article doesn't mention any such action by the AFA, I repeatedly tried to delete. A content-ban is entirely out of order, considering that I've never even been temporarily blocked. I see this move as an attempt to prevent neutrality in Misplaced Pages. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you haven't yet been blocked doesn't mean your work is above reproach. In general people post here because a user is persistently disruptive in some way and therefore using up the community resources which are generally better saved for improving articles. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Every article I would have interacted with this user the edits have already been reverted by a number of editors but all their work is apparently for naught and very little of it hasn't been quickly reverted which does seem to add credibility of concerns about draining the resources of the project. ASE, for a valid ANI report you, or someone will need to do a bit of legwork to provide diffs on at least a few salient points. POV edit-warring examples, BLP violations, etc. and a pattern of disruption on a set of articles to show any bans or blocks are warranted. They have less than 500 edits so far but IMHO there is a pattern more aligned with social conservatism culture warring than just anti-LGBT rights per se. To me, a more appropriate route might be an editing watch as there have been at least some constructive edits in the past but also some extremely POV-pushy ones. I suggest a concise overview of diffs to move this forward. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @Benjiboi: I don't know if you realized you even did this, but how appropriate is it to acknowledge the user is a social conservative, possible anti-LGBT, and then you slap File:Drawing-Gay flag.png on his talk page in your "welcome" message? Seems subtly inflammatory, extremely rude or just plain insensitive to me. Not commenting on the topic at hand, but please remember to be considerate of other user's personal beliefs, especially if you are trying to quell a possible conflict. --64.85.214.246 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you forget to log in Ejnogarb? It's a template he uses on everyone's page when welcoming them to Misplaced Pages so it certainly wasn't done on purpose, at least not to antagonize anyone. Of course Ejnogarb continues his own provocation with posts like this on Benji's talk page. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Ejnogarb and Axmann8 were brothers, if not the same person. The tendentious editing of all things "anti-conservatism" by both make it hard to believe otherwise. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 15:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if Ejnogarb forgot to log in or not, but implying that my IP (64.85.xxx.xxx) is Ejnogarb is overly presumptuous. So if it is a template he uses on everyone's page, then it is just plain insensitive. Please remember that all sorts of editors use WP and one should not make assumptions of other's views when leaving welcome templates. That assumption can put a new user in an awkward situation. Not commenting on the issue at hand, only inquiring as to the nature of the template on the editor-in-question's talk page. --64.85.215.213 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I've never used a different account or IP address, and I'm always automatically logged on. This whole process is nothing but a personal attack, which is additionally evident in the snarky templates and insults on various talkpages. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Here you removed POV and Refs needed tags from Men who have sex with men with the edit summary No section contains more citations (and there are no "citations needed"), and there are no positive health side affects for homosexulaity (but if there are, please add them). This is unhelpful and antagonistic. The whole section needs clean-up and several editors are working to sort out what needs to be done. -- Banjeboi 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say about past versions, but the current version of Benji's "welcome" is the usual stuff, just decorated a bit (I'll leave out the obvious stereotype joke there) and the flag in question is very small, in the upper left corner. If a new user gets upset about something like that, then they must be coming here looking for a fight - hence the tendency to compare the new user with someone like Axmann8, who came in with guns blazing and went out hanging by his socks. Baseball Bugs carrots 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I should quickly add that any comparison between Axmann8 and Ejnogarb should not be intended to suggest they're actually the same user, as it's obvious they're NOT. Also, the IP in question is obviously not a new user, so it probably has a floating IP address. Baseball Bugs carrots 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the only version of my own welcome template I have ever used. And yes the flag is as small as imaginably could be so I see this rather as a red herring. Ejnogarb has brought the concern to my talkpage and I have now apologized twice for welcoming them. Can't say I've ever even heard of someone being upset for being welcomed but I hope we can back to the more substantiative issues of edit-warring and POV-pushing that brought this thread into existence. -- Banjeboi 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why someone would find it offensive to be greeted with an image of a rainbow, in which all the colours peacefully co-exist despite the fact that they're different. The appropriateness of that image to an online community such as Misplaced Pages ought to be self-evident. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think Bugs has already provided the answer - he came here looking for a fight. KillerChihuahua 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that what that tiny little thing is -- a flag? Sheesh, if I hadn't gone looking to see what all the drahmaz was about, had I otherwise seen Benjiboi's welcome template, I'm not sure I would have even noticed the thing. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was simply stunned myself but others can judge for themselves User:Benjiboi/welcome. -- Banjeboi 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole allegation is obviously frivolous if the only thing that is being discussed is a flag that I never complained about. Ejnogarb (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than calling it a "snark": Baseball Bugs carrots 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I called the whole template a snark when I deleted it from my talk page. I found it mildly insulting considering that a user with whom I had already spoken a few times was sending me a "welcome" template as if I was confused about what Misplaced Pages is. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Given thier editing interaction, the template was obviously subtle baiting. CENSEI (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You been on vacation? Axmann8 could have used your help the other day. He stood up for you before. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this thread? I have something called a "job" ... requires a bit of my time now and then. CENSEI (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This thread may have been a tad premature but all that would change is more pointy edits and disruption, IMHO. At least in this way it was brought to wider attention whether any sock activity is going on or not. If Ejnogarb simply avoids overtly POV edits and on culture war related articles works to find consensus then I think we can all move on. The alternative is digging through their 200+ mainspace edits to build a walk of shame which no one has stepped up to do. And likely would just waste more community energy. Shall we close this and move on? -- Banjeboi 03:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rice University residential colleges dispute becomes a Facebook cause

I have disputed the notability of individual articles for residential colleges at Rice University rather than there being a list of residences as is the practice at many universities: New York University residence halls, University of California, Berkeley student housing, List of MIT undergraduate dormitories, House System at the California Institute of Technology. I initially boldly merged these articles into the list, but a number of editors reverted on various grounds, so I began the bold, revert, discuss process in good faith. However, after the editors exhibited characteristics of ownership and conflict of interest in their discussions, I began the dispute resolution processes such as WP:3O and WP:RFC. However, it has been brought to my attention that these editors have now gone to Facebook to rally support to their side rather than engaging in consensus formation such as commenting on the RFC. The facebook group includes personal attacks such as "This guy who knows nothing about Rice has declared war on all of us through wikipedia; and unless we make the articles more professional, he will succeed." "Look at all the b.s. being shot around",

List of articles affected:

• Baker College (Rice University)
• Will Rice College
• Hanszen College
• Wiess College
• Jones College (Rice University)
• Brown College (Rice University)
• Lovett College
• Sid Richardson College
• Martel College
• McMurtry College
• Duncan College
• List of Rice University residential colleges

Other editors involved:

• User:Mphornet
• User:AniRaptor2001
• User:Postoak
• User:Georgewebb

Facebook rallying support:

I'm obviously not opposed to these articles being improved, but I frankly am at wit's end with how to deal with editors who have no interest in having meaningful consensus-formation and view this as a cause to the point of recruiting meatpuppets. I don't know if page protection is in order until the RFC closes or what, but I need other editors' advice and assistance in dealing with this escalating issue. This notice was also posted at WP:EAR and WP:COIN. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Immediate admin intervention is needed because...? —kurykh 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors are engaged in WP:COI editing, recruiting meatpuppets, engaging in personal attacks on an external website, all to undermine good faith consensus formation? Madcoverboy (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If new editors can improve these articles in line with our policies and expectations then they're welcome to do so, even if they were originally directed here by a silly, over dramatic Facebook group. It sucks that you've been singled out but I don't think it's worth worrying about unless something bad happens as it appears to be a ridiculous over reaction (and I suspect that many involved know that already). --ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadly - you are shit out of lucky, they will just edit-war to keep the articles as they like them and you'll get no support here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why was I listed on this incident report? I don't even have an account on Facebook. Madcoverboy, you have made an accusation with no proof or evidence - a direct violation of WP:NPA. I have participated in the discussion just as you and the other editors here. Please remove me from this incident report. Postoak (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the individual notability of the articles, many of them are stuffed with unencyclopedic crap which needs to be removed. Doing that (which I will start now) is not controversial, and should be a starting point. Black Kite 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to remove unsourced trivia from Sid Richardson College but I guess not. To say an editor is SOL who reports coordinated editing patterns of meat puppets doesn't seem the best approach. Anyways, we'll see what happens I guess. --Tom (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rice's "college" system is unique in American universities. They serve a dual role as residence and fraternity. Indeed, Rice students sign a contract promising not to start or join a fraternity while enrolled. Non-alumni would not necessarily be aware of this, so the confusion is easily understandable. On the other hand, the article's editors can not ignore our standards of verifiable, reliable sources for encyclopedic content. I strongly support the cleanup of these articles. I am a Rice alumni, so I'm familiar with the subject. However, as a graduate student, I was never a member of their college system, so I have no stake in any of their college-related articles. Rklawton (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

These should probably all have short articles (given wikipedia's current low bar for notability -- i'd personally prefer these to be short sub-sections of the Rice article). However, coordinated groups of WP:SPAs insisting on keeping in unsourced trivia about the "Sid Finch residential college 80s party is the wrawkingest on campus LOL" (i'm only slightly exageratting for effect) should not be tolerated. If they continue to reinsert, let's give short blocks to the SPAs, clean the articles down to what's citable, and semi-protect for a week until things settle down.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not unique - there are probably several colleges in the US and a number internationally that have residential colleges, e.g. Category:Colleges of Princeton University. If the university is at all prominent then all the colleges are likely to have at least some minor notability. Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than hashing out the notability debate here, there is an RFC on the issue of (1) how to establish the notability of individual residences at universities/colleges, (2) the notability of the residential system, (3) what to do with this content. I would encourage editors who have opinions on this matter to leave comments at the RFC rather than here. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems at DreamHost with an SPA

This is so minor, I am almost embarrassed to bring it up here; however, I would like to request administrator review at DreamHost, where I have been variously accused of WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. This relatively low-trafficked article has few editors, with only 19 edits in 2009 (this far). The accusations have come from a disgruntled SPA: Judas278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she keeps disruptively tagging the article with unwarranted COI and SELFPUB tags, and this "slow motion" dispute has continued for several months. I have tried to improve the article, but I find my efforts thwarted by this individual. The claims of a conflict of interest stem from the fact that I am a customer of DreamHost (I have some websites hosted there), but I fail to see how this would disqualify me as an editor. My suspicion is that the SPA is a former, disgruntled customer of DreamHost - other such people have vandalized/abused the article in the past. I would appreciate any advice on how to solve this "dispute". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an SPA, first created about 3 weeks ago and went straight to this subject; and near as I can tell, he has not made one iota of suggestion on how to actually improve the article, so it does indeed look like either trolling or agenda-pushing of some kind. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The editor made this reasonable edit, which Scjessey reverted. The editor tried to discuss, got nowhere, and offerred to go to mediation, which Scjessey ignored. I don't see why a possible disgruntled former customer has less right to edit than a current happy customer. In short, this is a one-vs-one content dispute, and this is the wrong place to bring it. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPA on his first edit took out language that does indeed look like editorializing, except that the cited source supports that viewpoint. My guess would be that the SPA had some sort of bad experience with them, and is thus also guilty of conflict of interest. If the SPA were a little more up front about his agenda, maybe things would be going better. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is the "wrong place to bring it," could you tell me where? Bear in mind that this is not a content dispute, but rather it concerns editor conduct. The SPA has not made any effort to improve the article, but has instead made accusations about conflicts of interest and engaged in what I call "drive-by tagging". You claim I "ignored" mediation, but this is incorrect - I do not know anything about the mediation process, and I assumed that if an editor "accepted" the role of a mediator the parties involved would be informed and mediation would proceed. Is this not correct? Also, does it not look like a bad faith call for mediation, given that no attempt at talk page discourse has occurred? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In Sept. '08 JaverMC concluded "Neutrality is in question on this article." and "...having read the discussion under this section of the talk, leads me to believe there is a possible WP:COI and an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency." The two cited reference problems remain, including the blog mentioned above; however, his tags were removed on Feb. 26. Please judge whether the COI and OWN tendency exist in the article edit history and talk. --Judas278 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in this subject? Baseball Bugs carrots 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Though the most recent complaint was brought by an SPA, there are issues lingering from last fall, where neutrality of the article was questioned in this discussion: Talk:DreamHost#Neutral third party view. If agreement to mediation cannot be found, I suggest a Talk discussion or an RFC on exactly how the quality of DreamHost's customer service should be described in the article. If that issue were settled, there might be no need for tags to remain on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has evolved since last fall, with better sourcing. With the exception of the SPA, the only other person to engage in talk page discussion agreed that the article "seems fine", which is why the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags were removed and replaced with a request for better referencing. My requests on the article talk page for thoughts on how to improve the article have, thus far, fallen on deaf ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags, but it could still use better referencing. And yes, I'm a Dreamhost customer too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. I didn't want to remain silent here when I saw appropriate tags being deleted from this article. It is not neutral. Editors have COI. Readers should be warned. The biggest changes since last fall are deleting 3 self-published references and one reference on being an (unsuccessful) .LA registrar. I acknowledge this is something, but 5 of 13 references are still self-published, by the company. --Judas278 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is that your personal bias has led you to engage in agenda-driven editing. You have made claims about conflicts of interest and self-publishing, although you have no evidence to support either. You claim a lack of neutrality because of an over reliance on primary sources, and yet that is exactly what I said on the talk page (and tagged the article for). You are here to right some great wrong - to exact revenge. Your actions, therefore, are clearly not in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Shamanlim

Is it appropriate for a User who is editing in the English Misplaced Pages to have their Talk page redirect to a page on another language Misplaced Pages? 216.93.215.181 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Misplaced Pages:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. I'll remove the redirects and leave a message explaining the policy. -- Donald Albury 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I thought that was OK. Perhaps this user isn't very active on the English Misplaced Pages and is more active on another language Misplaced Pages (bit like, say, me and the French Misplaced Pages), although a cross-wiki redirect acts more like a soft one. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The policy reads, to me, to disallow redirecting to other pages on Misplaced Pages, so that people aren't confused when they try to leave a message and get redirected to some random place. Redirecting to a user talk page on another wiki so that the comments will be seen seems harmless enough to me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-language redirects between a user's talk pages are common on several other language wikipedia. What is the harm? --Una Smith (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, soft redirects says it's discouraged! Oddly enough. I don't think it really does any harm and the redirect rule, to me, reads to prevent users from redirecting their user (and/or user talk) pages to articles in mainspace (like I think there was a case where a user whose username was similar to a celebrity redirected their userpage to said celebrity, causing lots of unnecessary drama). x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of on-going RfC

Please, there is a now-active, ongoing RfC here on date linking. An editor, User:Pmanderson has disrupted the voting via struck text and this {disputed} tag on month-day and here too on years. Please also note that this issue had been thoroughly addressed by Ryan, the clerk, here on his talk page as well as (in depth) here on the RfC talk page. The structure of the RfC was made the way it was by Ryan’s hand in the last 12 hours. Ryan is asleep right now. I ask that PMAnderson’s disruptive edits be reverted, my counter response deleted, and that PMAnderson be blocked until Ryan can get back. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This RfC has a format widely opposed in the discussion, now archived. That format is chiefly the result of this edit-warring of GregL himself. Links follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For what's it's worth, I have protested, and struck; I may respond to Greg's comments, but that's about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't strike other user comments and leave that for an administrator to handle. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 01:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

They weren't his comments. GregL unilaterally inserted instructions into the poll; and they were objected to on talk by three other editors, almost immediately. They have now resurfaced, and I think editors should have their choice whether or not to follow Greg's whims. Having said so, and !voted as best I could, I am now done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge all contributors who have been involved in this dispute to not make any further modification to the RFC page. None! You have had your chance to have a say in how the RFC is conducted. If you have concerns, please voice them on the talk page and let someone who is uninvolved make any changes deemed necessary. John Vandenberg 01:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the page, but it's untrue we have had a chance to say how the RFC is conducted. The "vote for one" section was added less than 6 hours before the lockdown, after Ryan had had second thoughts about it being appropriate; his (Ryan's) last comment on the archived talk page was that it wasn't appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does this apply to anyone, or are these edits by Ohconfucius exempt?
  • Four edits blanking the existing discussion of the question.
    • 01:40 30 March, as all of these
    • 01:43
      • 02:47
    • 02:48
  • Breaking up a !vote
    • 02:24
  • Blanking comments
    • 01:42
    • 01:43

Recommendations for how to deal with this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Location for ban and unban discussions

Some time ago (before the ArbCom elections), I changed the header for AN and ANI to indicate that ban discussions (and presumably unban discussions as well) were better suited to take place at WP:AN, rather than ANI, on the basis that ANI is for immediate incidents that require speedy attention, and that AN is for discussion that can take longer, or may need to take longer, to reach a conclusion. However, the change had little effect. I suspect most of the ban discussions (some present on this noticeboard right now, including an unban discussion) have still taken place here. Given that some of the bans appeals that come to ArbCom (see here and here) are of community bans, and that one response by ArbCom might be to examine whether the community ban discussions took place for long enough and had adequate input, and that another response (if sufficient time had elapsed and certain conditions had been met) might be to ask the community to reconsider the ban, where would be the best place to start a discussion on the mechanisms of community bans and unbans? One question I would raise would be whether an unban discussion is an incident or not, and whether AN or ANI is best as a location. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that most ban discussions arise from incidents, and become subheads of the parent thread, so anyone with an interest is going to be watching specific sections on a specific page, and won't necessarily think to look elsewhere. Conversely, unban discussions are rarely the product of a specific incident, and so probably AN is the best place. The only thing I can think of is to create WP:AN/B-UB (or similar) to centralise all ban/unban discussions. Unfortunately that doesn't much address the fact that ban discussions arise organically out of other concerns, but it does create a single place where these things can be discussed. And may also lower the drama content of such threads, due to being (hopefully) slightly less well-travelled. //roux   02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone can take a new look at WP:RFBAN and see if it can be adapted to those concerns, I agree the current method is quite unsatisfactory. MBisanz 02:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that change in the header, because I think it's exactly the wrong way to go. AN/I is for specific incidents, AN for general concerns. Dealing with particular problem editors goes in the incidents category. The one thing we do not need is to divide up noticeboards further. There are already too many to keep track of, Large as this is, its easier following just one or two. DGG (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But consider the timescale. A ban discussion can take days, and even a whole week (it certainly shouldn't be over in less time than we take to discuss, say, deletion of an article). If a ban is so obvious that it doesn't need discussion, then a block and de facto ban is a better way to deal with it than a ban discussion that takes up people's time. An incident can be dealt with in less than a day sometimes. ANI is archived rapidly. AN, not so rapidly. So where is it more logical to have the longer discussions? Here, or there? A notice can be left here, certainly, but ANI should have a rapid turnover and things should be dealt with efficiently and quickly, rather than with longer discussion (as there should be in a ban discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish that WP:CN was still around, as that made infinitely more sense than moving ban discussions here (since community bans are supposed to come from the entire community of editors, not just administrators), but it seems to me that anyone who watches WP:AN would watch WP:AN/I, so the distinction is largely without a difference. Is my impression incorrect? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Most ban discussions may arise from incidents, but not all do. There may well be a triggering incident (the straw that broke the camel's back for the person who decided to take the step of proposing a community ban - though there should, incidentally, be consequences for frivolous or excessive failed proposals of community banning - it is not a step that should be taken lightly), but it is rare for the reason for the community ban proposal to be one single incident. A single incident shouldn't be what leads to a community ban (a single incident can lead to a block, maybe even an indefinite block and de facto ban), but rather, a range of unrepentant and unacceptable behaviour over time should be what leads to a community ban. And those that participate in a community ban discussion should be a wide representation of the community, those aware of the background, but not just those directly involved on either side of a disputed area, and there should be an agreed timescale (rather than an open-ended discussion that is closed when someone thinks consensus has been reached), and the person closing the discussion must be completely uninvolved. Oh, and the paperwork should be completed and the list kept up-to-date at Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. The subject of the current unban discussion doesn't seem to be listed there for some reason. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (big big friendly wink) Is this a suggestion that WP:CSN might not have been such a terrible suggestion? Carcharoth, you're a new arbitrator. Please search the archives for a proposal I sent in late November last year. You arbs get a substantial amount of traffic that consists of ban appeals, more by accident than by design. Appeals of community bans would be one of the simplest things for you(plural) to delegate in order to address other priorities. Intuitively, it makes sense for the people who were involved in the implementation of a ban to have a hands-on role in reviewing the ban: people who know the history don't have to be brought up to speed. If you see the proposal you'll know there's a special example I don't want to turn into a poster child, which is the only reason that solution hasn't been presented to the community at large. Warmest regards, Durova 03:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Following up: there's a draft outline here. Durova 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch editing his article

Daeg admitted on a (now deleted) post on his MySpace that he was editing Misplaced Pages under User:75.33.204.197, which he is still doing. Should anything be done about this?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that WP:COI says it's not really a problem. Is he inserting problematic edits? If not, then this isn't a real issue. We don't disallow editors writing about themselves, we just strongly discourage it. Having an underage actor's static IP address publicly available might be an issue, though... Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the information he's adding is unsourced. Also, there's this issue with his role in the Halloween sequel. He was originally cast to reprise his role from the first film as young Michael, but was recast after some shooting because he was too big. Because of this, he keeps on adding that they might use his footage anyway because the studio still retains the rights or something.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw bites Buttermilk1950

On Talk:Rodeo I have twice asked Montanabw (talk · contribs) to stop making ad hominem remarks. However, she has continued, making ad hominem remarks to me and to Buttermilk1950 (talk · contribs) that I feel are disruptive. Would an admin please look at this? --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge issue in the rodeo articles over a POV fork created by the user Buttermilk1950, which has already resulted in her being blocked once, in part because she is being mentored and encouraged by User:Una Smith. See Rodeo in the United States and Animal treatment in rodeo. To the extent my frustration boiled over, I apologize. (And have apologized on the relevant article talk page where I made the "go play" comment.) However, before anyone takes further action, please also note that this editor who has filed this AN/I and I have a long and contentious history. She has previously filed an AN/I on me here, resolved in my favor, a WQA here, resolved in my favor, and, completely unrelated to me, herself has been the subject of at least three previous AN/I reports herself that basically died because of the total exhaustion of all involved: here and here and a related incident here, plus earlier a set of related incidents here and here

In short, this is a long game of "gotcha," and I for one am sick of it. To close, my real life is extraordinarily busy at the moment, which has prevented me from accessing wiki on a daily basis. If there is a need for me to respond within 24 hours, please send me email. Thanks. Montanabw 04:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Una has got this rather the wrong way around, I'm afraid. Montanabw is not the issue here, and her description of the background is accurate. Apparently new editor starts POV forking, and is being egged on by Una. Characterizing Montanabw's comments in this matter as ad hominem attacks is very wide of the mark. ++Lar: t/c 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with both parties I would like to note that Montanabw does display a maked tendancy towards "ownership" of articles and often unilaterally reverts to the revision which she approves while telling the other editor/s that edits need to be approved by the lead editors of the article , usually Montanabw. It was noted already by a different user here that Montanabw is showing ownership. Heres areseveral other instances of users noting the propencity toward ownership. , and -- Kevmin (talk 01:37, 30 March 2009

Without disagreeing, Una is still wide of the mark, which I think is the more important issue. ++Lar: t/c 07:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the larger issue is that Montanabw does exhibit ownership but Una is the only one who actually brings this ti AN/I. But once here the underlying problems may people have with Una serve to sidetrack the issue and there ends up being no actual discussion regarding Montanabws actions rather the problem is dismissed each time. Thus the cycle starts again. I commented here in hope the Una/Montanabw issue would be skipped and the ownership issue be addressed --Kevmin (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Another instance of ownership. Please see the talk page especially here and edit history starting on 00:13, January 22, 2009 for Template:Equine--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this, and I don't want to be, but I'll post a little because Una left a message on my talk page asking me to.

Because of the message on my talk page, I looked into this a little earlier, and I felt that this AfD is of concern to me because it apparently shows a new user in an emotional state as a result of interactions with this user. I would tend to suggest that the ownership issues Una alleges are real, as shown by this diff.

This AN/I entry appears to show that there's more substance to the ownership issues than can be explained by a dispute between Montanabw and Una/Buttermilk.

On the more positive side, this request for mediation appears to show an ability to compromise on both sides when under scrutiny.

All in all, I think both sides genuinely believe that the other is acting unreasonably, and because both sides are active in horse-related articles, there will be regular, repeated drama between these users. It's a long-standing pattern and needs outside intervention.—S Marshall /_Cont 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved with Montana and I've tried to bring up what I feel are ownership tendencies on Montana's in various articles. The problem as I see it is that Montana places far too strict demands on information that she disagrees with. Usually this leads to a rather unnerving revert-first-ask-later-policty. I've even seen her remove thoroughly referenced information only to motivate her actions with personal suspicion, or simply plain ignorance (most obviously in horses in warfare).

In my experience Montana's often restrictive and defensive behavior towards users new or unknown to her generally results in active or passive support from her colleagues. Most or all attempts to raise complaints about this tend to be branded as personal attacks, or just plain mean to the otherwise hard-working Montana. I'd this is more an issue with WP:EQUINE than just Montana personally.

Peter 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Rodeo article, but from my contacts with Montanabw at Cowboy, I would not use 'ownership' in describing his approach. He is passionate about the subjects he works with, shows a great deal of knowledge on them, and prefers history over legend. I have had no problem from him when I have added well sourced material to Cowboy. -- Donald Albury 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The wider issue happens to those who do not seek her permission to edit an article she owns. The common response is many times wholesale revert to her last edit and generally rather snippy comments either in the edit summery or on the persons talk pages.--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my recent (and brief) involvement in this article, Montanabw doesn't try to 'own' articles she edits, but rather, takes active interest in the edits other make to the article. I would also say that just because you warn someone for something, Una, does not mean they actually did anything wrong. One of those 'warnings' you gave happens to contain a comment by Montanabw explaining why she didn't believe she was making attacks. To that response you simply repeated the original warning! Una needs to deal with other active editors on pages he/she edits. I encourage everyone to discuss before editing. Prodego 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply I have had a long history of Una accusing me of article ownership and any number of other thngs when I challenge her for advocacy of fringe theories. Any issues here must be examined in light of the general disruption Una causes all across wikipedia, not just in the articles where I edit. I am one of the few people to consistently challenge her, and at this point I am convinced that she is trying to run me off of wikipedia. Una has repeatedly engaged in the same pattern with many users and articles: She makes significant edits to an article, often advocating fringe theories, often disturbing a long-stable article, then reacts with hostility and aggression when these changes are challenged. The AN/I above on Tumbleweeds (The WP POINT link), which I was not involved in at all, is particularly illustrative of this. The result is that even when she occasionally makes a useful edit, and she does, her contributions are viewed with distrust. I must point out only a few days ago, I encouraged her to continue editing an article here. I have made repeated efforts to negotiate, to work out a truce, to have a meeting of the minds, all of which have been rebuffed, often rudely. I can provide diffs if requested.

As for myself, my position is that quality control and respect for past consensus is not ownership. Yes, I am quick to question new edits, but I have ALWAYS been willing to engage in good faith negotiations with anyone who can explain the reasons for their views with good, solid info, and is willing to engage in mutual listening and cooperation. I have changed my own viewpoints on many occasions and all I ask is that people explain what they are doing and why, backing it up sources that are not fringe theories or otherwise poor. On the other hand, trying to bully me or dismiss my concerns is generally counterproductive. Montanabw 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this and I urge them to seek WP:DR, either RFC or mediation, in the hopes it helps avoid a deeper look by arbtration. Something deeper is going on here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Could somebody have a look at this? I used to edit under my real name until bogus accusations regarding my editing started appearing in my own google hits. I changed my user name and purged my old pages so that this would not happen again.

Note that my previous user-name has nothing to do with the dispute being discussed on that page and is mentioned gratuitously. This is, in my opinion, a clear-cut case of bad-faith outing. Could an admin please purge this from the page and history as soon as possible?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 30.03.2009 06:24

It can't really be described as outing; the information (your name) was already made available by you. Ironholds (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind; WP:OUTING should cover this sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And subsequently purged when I realised what a bad idea that was... The editor in question knew that this used to be my user name and knew that I had changed it. Since my real name (or previous user name) had nothing to do with the debate, I can see no other reason for him mentioning it other than to out.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.03.2009 07:43

P.S. To quote WP:OUTING, "It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Misplaced Pages. attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.03.2009 10:35

I have informed the powers that be (those who can delete revisions). Pedrito, there actually is a good-faith reason as to why Jaakobu made the mistake he did. There is another, well known editor, User:Pedro. The edit summary in question is "Undid revision 201429048 by Jaakobou (talk) Stop it, you're becoming a pain. Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}." It is very feasible to believe that Jaakobou was trying to show the connection between your account, now named User:Pedrito and the party engaged in edit-summary repartee with User:Nickhh. I agree that it was not wise, and this information should have been sent to ArbCom via e-mail as opposed to onwiki, but I do not think it was a deliberate attempt to "out" you as much as it was trying to show the source for his claim. I will drop him a note about this, and, as I have said, I have contacted the revisions deletion unit. -- Avi (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have been a tad bold and performed a "poor admins oversight" on the page. The details are no longer available in the generally accessible history. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avi, While I disagree with your analysis of Jaakobou's motives (after the JIDF issues, Jaakobou knew very well why I had changed my username and any cursory glance at the year-old edit history in question would have made it obvious who "Pedro" referred to -- I also call him "Nick" and not "Nickhh"), I thank you for clearing that up. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 31.03.2009 06:15

Borderline disruption by User:WilyD

For about a year (hopefully) ending in February, hundreds upon hundreds of articles on bilateral relations (eg Bulgaria–Thailand relations) were created, either way too short or simply not notable, by User:Groubani and his sockpuppet User:Plumoyr. Consensus has generally been moving in favour of deleting ones where the mere existence of such relations is all that can be said about them (eg, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations). However, User:WilyD has found it fit to stand in the way of this consensus, though he has received no traction at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations despite his insistence of notability there.

Some days ago, after prodding a few of these random articles, I was upset to notice WilyD had removed the prod tags, with a rather dismissive edit summary, no less: "rm silliness" - , , , , , . Well, I was not being silly, I was being perfectly serious and I resent being accused of silliness. However, he's now ratcheted up the rhetoric: "Don't be crazy" (, ) he says while de-prodding two more ridiculous "articles". Even if he isn't actually accusing User:Yilloslime of being mentally ill, these edit summaries are inflammatory and should be policy-based, as he at least had the decency to do during this earlier spree of prod removals. We are not silly or crazy; we are simply applying common sense and doing our best to avoid flooding AfD with long and tedious deletion discussions that routinely end up in deletion.

I thought seriously of taking this to WP:WQA. However, the incivility combined with rigid defiance of increasingly clear consensus is starting to border on disruption, and so I have taken my complaint here. - Biruitorul 06:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:WilyD before bringing it here? henrik•talk 08:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We've met in repeated discussions, but he seems fairly impervious to my arguments. You're right, though. - Biruitorul 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles contribute more to the encyclopaedia than I could ever hope to. If people decide to lynch me over it, I know perfectly well the loss will be insignificant compared to the damage Biruitorul is raining upon the project in this area, so it can be thought of as no loss at all. WilyD 10:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WilyD, no one is trying to "lynch" you; let's relax a bit. And let's pretend neither that "these articles" as a body contribute much at all (consensus says otherwise), nor that I am "raining damage" - I'm working well within the bounds of consensus. The issues here are your edit summaries and the repeated, counterproductive prod removals. Granted, you are within your rights to do the latter, but just how long are you intending to stand in the way of consensus? - Biruitorul 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the articlles in question are appropriate for this encyclopedia is a question for a different forum. But that doesn't change the fact that removing PROD tags with no other explanation than "Don't be crazy" is inappropriate, poor wiki-etiquette, and a borderline personal attack. Yilloslime _C 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While it could perhaps be expressed better, calling it a "personal attack" seems to be stretching it quite a bit. It's not really helpful to look for insults wherever one can possibly find one; it's usually more productive to discuss the issue itself and ignore any real or perceived slights unless and until they become obvious.

As for the issue itself, it does really seem to be a fairly firm consensus that not every country relation is notable from the AfDs. Deprodding when the conclusion at the AfD seems fairly given beforehand could perhaps be avoided? henrik•talk 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I said it was a "borderline" personal attack, acknowledging that to call it on full on PA would be stretch.  ;-). Yilloslime _C 15:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion at AFD is far from given. The AFDs I've seen have been decided something like 50-50. Most bilateral relations are probably notable. Depending on the countries, sourcing is sometimes harder (if neither are english-speaking countries, how much their news makes it onto the internet, et cetera), but the pairings are generally notable (per WP:N, at least - there're a handful of editors who really want to see them deleted for reasons I can't puzzle out, which's skewed the AFDs) WilyD 15:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched for a bit, and only found delete afds. Would you mind sharing a few links to keeps, just for my curiosity? In any case, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that they are automatically notable, so maybe handling them on a case by case approach is the right answer (unless someone is willing to write down some kind of notability guideline). henrik•talk 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Holy See relations closed as keep, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations closed as no consensus, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia relations closed as keep - I can't recall others specifically, but I think there are some. WilyD 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

When such a consensus exists, one might be able to ask that seriously. Many bilateral relation articles have been kept at AFD, since most bilateral relationship pairs are notable, and if someone has the time to defend them, it becomes very difficult to fool enough people into thinking they should deleted. Beyond this, I'm volunteering to help write an encyclopaedia, and aim to improve the project, this necessarily involves opposing attempts to damage/degrade it - I'm not sure why I'd just go with the flow when someone out to wreck up a bunch of the project. WilyD 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem right there. You're assuming people are "out to wreck up a bunch of the project," as opposed to what they see as improvement. //roux   15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, it's pretty clear Biruitorul and whose-have-you are not hitting the wrong keys or clicking the wrong buttons. Biruitorul is very clearly taking deliberate actions to achieve a specific end, and that specific end is an enormous negative for the project. WilyD 16:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It may result in what you perceive as a negative to the project, but your wording indicates that you think they are actively and deliberately trying to harm the project. That is precisely why this issue was brought here, your assumption that they are deliberately working against the project's aims. //roux   16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't assumed anything. It's transparently obvious the actions are being deliberately taken, and it's transparently obvious they're a large negative to the encyclopaedia. Whether they're motivated to do it because it's harmful is not something I've speculated on. WilyD 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuousness doesn't become anyone. Oh well, I should have known that anything which attempted to get you to actually look at your own actions through the eyes of others was an exercise in futility. //roux   16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And you're ascribing far greater powers to me than I have: I'm not "fooling" anyone into supporting deletion; my fellow editors are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. - Biruitorul 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who spends a few minutes thinking about it and a little time investigating it will find that the articles are very notable. WilyD 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that presumptuous. You find these "articles" to be "very notable"; but many others, having done their own thinking and investigating, have come to a radically different conclusion. - Biruitorul 16:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys, isn't the solution to this obvious? (1) Everybody stop bickering. (2) Wily, please don't remove PRODs with inflammatory summaries. (3) Biruitorul, please don't PROD further articles of that sort, since you now know there's likely to be opposition; instead bring them to AfD directly (where many will probably end up deleted). No admin action needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is probably all true. I can't think of any essay to cite that says "When everyone is irritated with everyone else, ratchet up the bickering", so unless anyone else can find it, we may have to do as Fut.Perf. suggests. WilyD 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• I find WilyD's obstructionism on the most obvious of cases to be rather tendentious, but be that as it may. This thread has probably run its course. - Biruitorul 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai IP socking

Our old indef-blocked buddy Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) is back as 82.195.149.119 (talk · contribs). His very first edit (and most of his content) has been to the William Monahan article (which MS has promised to continue editing even while blocked), which admin Gwen Gale quickly locked as "ongoing, unending edits by banned user." His comments on the Monahan talk page have also been reverted by Gwen and Bali Ultimate , both of whom easily recognized him as a sock.

From there, the IP has also edited MS's old talk page and his own (MS's) article about Google . For some reason, he's been reverted and recognized, but not blocked. Can someone please slap a block on the IP, he's starting to troll user talk pages now. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been having troubles with Dayewalker for a few hours now. He's been erasing questions I'm asking on William Monahan's entry. This is the first time I've seen him actually talk to me and its some gibberish. I verified the article about Bruen's film by William Monahan and it was truthful. Now I've been trying to find out why the quote was erased from that article. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

You can see the facts on the www.kenbruen.com site and on the Daily Mail newspaper. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

And for those of you who don't recall MS, this fits his MO exactly. He adds to the Monahan article (and related ones, such as Bruen). Some of what he adds is true, some is fabricated. From there, he tries to lure WP editors into reverting his "proper" edits so he'll be able to trumpet how wrong we were to remove his "truths." He once described himself as the "Lex Luthor" of wikipedia, and has sent conflicting emails to editors on many occasions just to confuse us. Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had any troubles with other articles like this one. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Dayewalker did it again. I asked him a question and he erased soon after. It's just been going on like this. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

WP:RBI. Dayewalker (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing an essay about how the Celtic Tiger shows up in Bruen's novel. Bruen's early novel is actually being made into a film right now. I found this out on Bruen's site. There was a really smart comment about his novel and how the movie is going to be different in William Monahan's entry... there was yesterday. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

If he's a sock (and I don't know enough of the pattern to confirm it), someone should set a short block to stop his continued disruption here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What just happened on the Celtic Tiger's entry? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Looks like another editor who's spotted you as an obvious sock reverted you. Really, MS, this one was beneath you. Dayewalker (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you donig? How do I get back the references? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Enough quacking, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Alastair Haines

User:Alastair Haines was indefinitely blocked by me last week for violating WP:NLT (this was mentioned on WP:ANI as well). Now, Alastair Haines thinks it is time to lift the block: User talk:Alastair Haines#Time to lift the block. I'll not unblock him myself, I've not seen an unequivocal withdrawal of the legal threats, but I have no objections to another, uninvolved admin going over his talk page and doing whatever he or she thinks is the right course of action. Fram (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I told him to ask formally for it. Frankly, his attitude is not the type I'd like to see and would suggest converting it to an indefinite block and moving on. Arguments that "A legal threat may exist, but it is no longer being made" are just asking for trouble and against the spirit of NLT, in my opinion. As User:LisaLiel noted, this doesn't look like a withdrawal of threats, but a declaration that they exist but he won't announce them. We don't need inferences like that here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

His language is difficult to decipher at times. LisaLiel is not helping. I interpret it as maybe a bit of obfuscation perhaps, an unwillingness to make any promises as to future possibilities, and a withdrawal of any immediate intent to take legal action. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastair is not helping himself very much at the moment. If he can make a clear and short statement (one unequivocal sentence?) of his positive intentions towards wikipedia, then I hope the block can be lifted. I agree with Doug that there is no current threat of legal action, just rhetoric that is sometimes not so easy to decipher. The only thing that I take seriously on his talk page is his intention of attending one of the next Ozzie WP meetups. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Alastair

To keep things from getting messy, as discussions usually do, I'm putting this here. In my opinion, due to this editor's recent behavior on the talk page(demanding apologies, idea that he did nothing wrong), I

• Support - That his block remain.— Dædαlus 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "I observe that one week has now elapsed. The original block should now be lifted. There are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect. On the matter of whether I would take action to secure such a public retraction and apology, as requested, I withhold comment.

• In regard to alleged legal threats I also, as requested, withhold comment. It is quite true that I am under no obligation to signal legal intentions in advance in the forum of a talk page. But it is also true that I cannot deny the fact that, among the uncertain possibilities of the future, such professional courts of appeal are deliberately made available, to allow suitably qualified persons to balance the vital necessities of both permitting responsible and fair criticism and preventing irresponsible unfounded criticism." taken from his talkpage. He hasn't retracted any threats, he's basically gone "Alright, so I won't sue you now. I'm not saying I'll sue you in the future, just that there are ways in which I could." He doesn't say what would happen in 51 weeks, but it is fairly obvious. This goes right against the grain of the spirit of WP:NLT, if not against the letter. He obviously hasn't learnt anything, and still doesn't see what he has done wrong. Let him maybe or maybe-not sue WMF in the future; I'd like to see him use Australian law against a company registered in Florida and with no Australian presence. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Suppport block - Legal threats of any kind must not be tolerated. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. If he hasn't withdrawn the legal threat (and, as far as I can see, he hasn't), then the block should stay in place. Obfuscation is not helpful here, and the fact that time has passed, as it inevitably does, is not relevant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block per FisherQueen. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block what semantic rabbit-hole is this? He says he won't promise not to make legal threats in future. He says he won't comment on the "alleged" legal threat made in the past. And then he blabbers about an uncertain future that might include "courts of appeal" and then "there are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect." This all sounds like an implied threat to sue if he doesn't get an apology in writing. And he's being weasely and evasive. ("Are you threatening to sue, yes or no?" A: "I can not say. I am keeping my options open as to how i will handle these false and likely libelous claims made against me. YOU still have 51 weeks to do as I demand, which will make my decision easier...") Throw away the key after this display is my advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. We don't care whether a person actually pursues legal action, as long as they don't threaten it onsite. It's simple enough to withdraw the threat and promise not to repeat it. Alistair, if you are reading this and wish to be unblocked, please copy and paste the following: "I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future." Clear direct prose is best in this situation. If Alistair does copy/paste the suggested text, then count this statement as a support for his unblock. Durova 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Durova. I just suggested a similar sentence on Alastair's talk page. Now it's up to him. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• support block per Durova. I'd prefer a slightly stronger statement of the form ""I withdraw any threat of legal action. I have no intended or ongoing legal actions against the Wikimedia Foundation or any Misplaced Pages editors." JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Legal threats need not be tolerated, and the nonsense on his talk is really just disruptive. — neuro 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I see a lot of tap dancing around that he never made any legal threat, when clearly he did. I also see no recanting of any previous statements, misinterpreted or not. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite with a dash of attitude and contempt on his part. Jauerback/_dude. 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• support block  rdunnPLIB  09:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Guys the problem here is not whether we can or should unblock Alastiar, the question is does he or does he not understand what the ArbCom ruling was. This is not just a WP:NLT issue, this is also directly related to the ArbCom ruling and problematically to Alastiar's repudiation of that ruling (see relevant diffs, logs and sectionshere, here, here and here. I have the feeling from his comments and his series of blocks since then that he does not accept the restrictions placed on his account by the ruling - I believe that he maintains his actions prior to, during and currently are 'above reproach' even though there is a clear issue regarding his use of the revert function. Basically the current issue is merely a symptom of the underlying problem. We need to address that one way or the other--Cailil 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just reproduce what I said at the AE discussion.

Alastair Haines...continued to violate his own sanctions. I previously left an "additional comment" (see here) for John (and Casliber) noting that if (1) Alastair did not understand what the problems are, and (2) did not have the willingness/ability to deal with those problems, he would find himself prevented from editing. It seems that it has come to the point where my words have come into effect (again); Alastair failed to give enough regard to the remedy that was imposed wrt Abtract (for Alastair's own benefit), but Alastair also apparently still has issues he needs to deal with when it comes to legal threats - one of the original reasons Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines was opened. The block, and block extension, were needed.

In other words, there are 2 ways to address the underlying problem - by someone getting through to him, or by blocks that escalate in duration (or by keeping him blocked until he does). I doubt that there is any other choice or option in the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken Ncmvocalist. I don't know if Alastair realizes why RfAr found against his actions. If he did - if he is willing to see why we do not accept this behaviour then we should unblock. But I've see no movement towards this situation since the RfAr closed. Alastair's current block is bound-up with the RfAr. We can only resolve one side of the issue - he has to resolve the other but unfortunately attempting to reach resolution here feels like a test of the paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?--Cailil 13:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a legal threat on the table, and his comments (as reproduced above by Ironholds) indicate that the threat is unlikely to be withdrawn, then his failure to understand the ArbCom ruling is irrelevant. Those comments point up several misunderstandings, both of his actions, Misplaced Pages policies, the nature of Misplaced Pages and its parent organization and his rights under any law. Unblocking him, or endeavouring to further exlpain, seems pretty pointless. Avruch 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If he is to be unblocked, I shamelessly plug this proposed remedy as a possible restriction that could be imposed by the community. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually my point is this: if we unblock again without examining this - the real problem will continue to fester. But I understand your point Avruch and agree with you about the misunderstandings--Cailil 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon has too much free time

Needs admin assistance to seek other outlet: 86.143.158.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See the last 20 or so revisions - going through my contributions history and reverting, apparently at random. Possibly as a result of my removal of material added contra to WP:BLP (see for example, or for general theme of edits). Orpheus (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reporting him to WP:AIV? Its comments always say "unexplained..." yet the latest one, for example, was in fact explained by in the edit summary, so it's just vandalism or trolling of some kind. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not current, so a block wouldn't be helpful - it's more of a "heads up", awareness raising type thing. Not current enough for AIV, not long-term enough (yet) for LTA, so I thought I'd get a few more eyes on it as a bit of a check. It's definitely trolling - his edits (see also these IPs, same person) are along a theme. The "unexplained reversion" is a result of the last little contributions trawl he did, which I reverted with that summary. Basically it's your run of the mill little teenager loose on the web, who throws a complete tanty when somebody says something about it. Orpheus (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I warned him with uw-vandalism4im for several vandalism edits, including to American Family Association. However, it's now moot, as the IP was blocked a few minutes ago for 31 hours for edit warring. — Becksguy (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed - important

This is a serious issue, needs quick response.--For you whose eyes were open wide (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• As I noted at the BLP noticeboard entry (linked above), all of these BLP violations (now reverted) were inserted in the last 24 hours by users with no other edits. That's odd, and it's even odder that User:For you whose eyes were open wide's first action on registering a new account was to report all of these. Seems like a checkuser might be in order. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Never mind the CU, admitted socks of User:ByAppointmentTo, all blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

This article was deleted by a rather overwhelming consensus at AFD two weeks ago . It has just been quietely recreated. I've put a speedy tag on it etc... but this article has always been attended to by great drama, since it's creator and main guardian in the past was found to have a large sock farm (which he has vowed to use to fill the encyclopedia up with disinformation). The recreator is not this puppetmaster, but i suspect he'll be along shortly. This is a preemptive requrest for eyes.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the sock user who managed to cause so much trouble was User:Manhattan Samurai who is still very active (there's a current thread on this page about him a little higher up).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agreed that this was a completely different article and removed the speedy tag, but it was then deleted G4 anyway. Having said that, DRV would probably be better anyway. Black Kite 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Was exactly the same sourcing with some cosmetic changes. At any rate, gone now.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the only thing that truly was the same was the dislike for the subject of the article. Black Kite did recgnize that it was sunstantially different... however that was not the opinion of the person who speedied it, and who then did not note nor care that it did indeed have new sources... Newsday, Billboard (magazine), The Jewish Press, and the book "Our Gods Wear Spandex". Repeating over and over that it "Was exactly the same sourcing with some cosmetic changes" is quite pointedly incorrect. I agree that a DRV of the unusually fast speedy, even after a correct removal of the tag, is perhaps a correct course. Schmidt, 12:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Before the removal of the tag from my point of view - yes, technically the tag was removed just slightly before I deleted, but I was in the process of deletion when the tag was removed, the version I saw before I clicked delete had the tag. I looked at the old and new articles, I looked at the talk page, and made a judgement call. DRV is the way to go now and in my opinion would have been a better option than recreating it two weeks after the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Those have all been brought up and chewed over at the previous three AFD's. But this really isn't the place. DRV is.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate error of statement. The only ones brought up previously in AfDs were Our Gods Wear Spandex and The Jewish Press... and for some mysterious reason, The Jewish Press was ignored and Our Gods Wear Spandex was curiously dismissed even though it was a book published by a reputable published with its own Wikiepdia article: Weiser Books. Newsday and Billboard (magazine) were never discussed nor presented. Finding new sources and fresh ways to interpret old ones was kind of the reason to try to fix all the stuff claimed as wrong. But yes... this is not the place to decry events. Schmidt, 12:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And isn't WP:CLEANUP all about the "cosmetic changes" that make articles properly encyclopedic? Just a thought. Schmidt, 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The mcallaster newsday (nassau county and suffoulk edition) with the passant mentions about his role in the band were examined and present in the past versions of the article, as was the passant billboard mention of the band. "Our God wear's spandex" and his support for holocaust denier Zundel covered in the Jewish Press were, as you noted, already examined. So what do you mean when you write "indeed have new sources" and then list these four items? Did you mean "indeed don't have new sources, but i really feel this article should be recreated without going to DRV?" See when you write "for some mysterious reason, The Jewish Press was ignored and Our Gods Wear Spandex was curiously dismissed" that's insulting to other editors assessed these things and found them wanting, and built a consensus on that basis. What you find "curious" and "mysterious" is that a consensus of editors disagreed with you.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me yet again, but you are incorrect. Neither the Newsday nor the 2 Billboard articles were in the earlier versions, nor were these three presented at or discussed at AfDs. They are most definitely new. Heck, it was my finding them that made me decide to try making a silk purse out of an onerous sow's ear. I listed these 3 as new sources above, because they were new. And that reliable sources can be dismissed and ignored is always a curious mystery. I am sorry if you feel my surprise at this is insulting. ANd yes... this is not DRV. Sorry to have bothered the wrong venue. Schmidt, 12:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The best place for this discussion is DRV, so I have moved it there. Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30#Alan_Cabal. Black Kite 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppeting at William F. Schultz

A series of single purpose accounts have been making one or two edits each to William F. Schultz, mostly of removing content that is not sourced or which they say the sources don't support (I have not yet checked that). This pattern began in December, but seems to have escaladed. User:Amnesty2009, User:JammyBear, User:Paulist, User:Bennieandthejets01, User:JAKO09, User:2008Bhutto, and User:Welch52 have all made one or two edits only to the Schultz article. Could we get some more eyes on this, please? Thoughts? Aleta 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article appears to be still living, so WP:BLP applies. I see no problem in removing unsourced material from the article. If properly sourced material that does not violate WP:BLP is being removed, then that issue should be dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Sockpuppeting allegations should go to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. -- Donald Albury 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. KillerChihuahua semi-protected the article. I have opened a sockpuppet case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Amnesty2009. Aleta 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add a lock to Master Exploder!

To prevent others from adding lyrics to this article. Can you please add a lock, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorheadfan7707 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Wrong place. Please report to RFPP and please remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. -- Alexf 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats it I have something to admit

Ok, i am sorry to all the admins that I broke hearts to but I'll admit this right now so I don't keep it in, I am motorhead69, you know that guy blocked indef for vandalism, you can give me a ban if you want but I think i have changed. David S. (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Motorheadfan7707

Editing patterns show this is probably true. I've blocked for block evasion, but I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining the correct way to ask for unblocking (creating a sock is not it.) Anyone who wants to unblock go right ahead; just drop me a note after the fact to let me know.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The second declined unblock on User talk:Motorhead69 gives good advice, David: Follow the directions at {{2nd chance}} carefully, remembering that we are looking for very substantial improvements to an article, not just spelling checks or minor changes. Remmber that you may still edit your own talkpage despite the block (unless you really screw up and we have to protect it). Tonywalton  18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Buaidh in a blanking rampage of redirection pages.

User:Buaidh has been doing hundreds of page blankings on a suppossed redirection endeavor. All are List-of... redirection pages. When asked to stop and explain, he answered "We have many articles being moved around" (whatever that means). User has been advised to stop and take it here for discussion. Comments? -- Alexf 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexf may be a wee bit deluded. The only article I've moved in the past month was within my own user area. I have no idea where these hundreds of articles I've supposedly rampaged through may be. The only work I've done today is to clean up some double redirects that have been created by other users moving articles twice. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you've got the right username there, Alexf? (I just looked up "cromach" on Wiktionary by the way, Buiadh. That's a relief ☺) Tonywalton  18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow moving about, but I get there eventually. --Buaidh (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure about the username. Please look at today's contributions for user User:Buaidh. I used AGF and did not block outright, but asked the user about the blanking behavior (actually mass replacing redirects in article space with a comment and a signature). The behavior continued and then there was some explanation which was not satisfactory. A case was opened here for him to comment. The blanking has not stopped. -- Alexf 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Buaid, Alexf did not state that you were moving articles. You were going through a number of List of ''some-county''-related Topics articles and replacing redirects with signed comments. For future reference, that is not the way to prepare for a change, and you should never leave your signature on an article page. -- Donald Albury 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Mikeedisson and his sockpuppets

Indefinitely blocked user Mikeedisson continues to recreate a deleted (through AfD procedure) article Tarek Khalil Atallah. His latest reincarnation is user Jjexport, who created an article Tarek Khlil Atallah. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New article deleted, current sock blocked. You may wish to wander over to get a checkuser done to see if there are any other accounts involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement over YouTube links

TPTanque (talk · contribs) has added/replaced a number of links to music videos on YouTube, all posted by the account LosCangriInc, which claims to be the account of El Cartel Records. El Cartel's main artist is Daddy Yankee, and the label's website is DaddyYankee.com (and here's the label's MySpace page). The label's website links to (scroll to the bottom of the page and wait a few moments for the flash to load up) a different YouTube account, DYNATION, and the videos on the label's MySpace page are also all linked from that account, too. While the LosCangriInc account might be legitimate, there is no indication that it is. Since that's in doubt I feel that including links to those videos would be potential copyright violations. I replaced the links with ones from the DYNATION account where possible (most of them) and removed the links where no legitimate substitute could be found. I have explained this to TPTanque on my talk page but the editor has reverted my edits, accusing me of bad faith. I really don't want to get into an edit war over this. TPTanque is also guilty of spamming links to this one YouTube account. Please advise; thanks, TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you try going to the conflict of interest noticeboard? MuZemike 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really think this was a case of conflict of interest. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that is the labels website? It is the website of it's owner and main artist Daddy Yankee (daddyyankee.com), but how do you know it is the record labels website? The website for Daddy Yankee links to his youtube account DYNation. But I am adding the record label's account which is the first time I have come across it and it seems to only now be active. The videos on the myspace are infact linked to DYNation but this may change in the following days as it looks to be a newly active channel. Jazz says there is no proof it is legitimate, but there is also no proof it is not. And there is no proof the website or myspace are lehitimate either, but aswell there is no proof there are not legitimate. And why is this a conflict of interest? Is it because I like Daddy Yankee? TPTanque (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:COPYVIO: "media which is not available under a suitable free license, and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable"

From WP:EL: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Misplaced Pages and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright."

It is safe to assume that a YouTube account linked from an artist's official website has permission to upload those videos. A random account that you just happened to "come across" cannot be given that same benefit of the doubt when it comes to copyright. And considering that you started adding links to these videos immediately upon creating your Misplaced Pages account, and only a few of your edits are not related to adding links to these videos is also suspect behavior per WP:SPAM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are reasons other than just copyright questions for not providing links to YouTube, per WP:EL. Focusing solely on this one issue misses the point that we generally don't link to them at all. We do some videos, but normally only on official sites and for encyclopedic information purposes, not merely for entertainment/promotion. At any rate, if we already link to the artist's professional site and that site links to their own YouTube then we certainly don't need to provide another link to it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Per DreamGuy. Don't link to YouTube. Jayjg 05:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Even after being warned to stop by an admin, the user continues to violate policy. I'm rollbacking all his edits as blantant spam and vandalism.— Dædαlus 05:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not vandalism and spam so you don't have a right to rollback my edits as such. And once they officially link it on the myspace and other such pages you should all apologise to me. TPTanque (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been told by several users who have been here much longer than you that they violate our policies here. Either stop or get blocked, it's your choice.— Dædαlus 05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because they said it violates policy doesn't mean it does. I assume it doesn't because Jazz is basing his edits assuming this is not the official youtube channel. But I am basing my edits assuming it is the official youtube channel. When they officially link it on the myspace and other such pages you can apologise to me. TPTanque (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not going off of them, I have read policy myself, I have been here longer than you, just because you, a new user here, say they do not violate policy, that does not mean the don't. We know policy much better than you, and per our policy, these links to youtube are a violation.— Dædαlus 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you misread. I am not saying I know policy better than you as I know nothing about policy honestly. I am saying that I don't think it violates policy as Jazz is assuming it is a copyvio. This is my argument. Please direct me to the policy then so I can inform myself. TPTanque (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read DreamGuy's post above, it clearly outlines the problem.— Dædαlus 05:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't that is why I asked you to direct me to it. He only said generally youtube videos aren't linked, which doesn't make sense to me as I have seen them linked on featured articles. Which are meant to be the best of the best to my understanding. And he mentioned that links to youtube channels shouldn't be included if they are already linked via the official website. But El Cartel Records doesn't have an official website I think. It the myspace and youtube aren't linked because there is no website to link them. TPTanque (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

TPT, the problem is that you are making the assumption that these are legitimately uploaded by the label. Misplaced Pages can't work like that. Linking to potential copyright violations exposes the site to liability. Until it is explicit that these are uploaded and approved by the label, we don't link. That's why we generally frown on linking to YouTube: we require evidence of legitimacy, not guesses. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I gave TPTanque a final warning about adding links to YouTube. Jauerback/_dude. 12:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspension bridge

Would someone please close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Suspended deck bridge? Deleting that article would delete over a thousand edits over the last almost seven years. While you are at it, you can move it back to Suspension bridge, where it has been for all but 5 hours of its 7 years, but that is not as urgent. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy closed. Further discussion should be on move, not delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING by User:Husond at Talk:Greece

Husond (talk · contribs) recently set-up a poll in Talk:Greece. In order to prove his point he decided to out all voters' nationalities (whether they're real or false is irrelevant). I consider this is as WP:OUTING since Husond did not ask permission for this nor this information was readily available in user pages. He did it only to promote his point, which was to virtually disqualify the votes opposing his POV due to ethnic background (which might be another punishable offense in the grounds of WP:NPA since he is attacking implicitly a whole ethnic group).--Avg (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Avg's loss of sense of reality really approaches danger levels here. Somebody seriously needs to topic-ban Avg for his endless disruptive filibustering on that talk page. Seriously, the level of nonsense from this person is unberable. (But whatever, I've removed that list for now. It's not needed; anybody can see the facts even without that simple visualisation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect that the information was not readily available in user pages: in many cases, the identification is specifically tagged as being from the user page. In other cases, it's inferred, but I don't see anyplace where OUTING would apply. FP, please skip the personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry but I won't. We are dealing with blockable levels of disruption here; we need to be able to talk about the fact of this disruption, and there's simply no polite way of naming this particular kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"endless disruptive filibustering" is not a personal attack. "loss of sense of reality" is. Don't defend it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. I'm sorry to say that the primary person who causes disruption to the article is you. The sheer amount of revert wars you're involved in the last days and of personal atttacks to a plethora of users and to Greeks in general ("obsessed", "trolling") is sufficient proof. --Avg (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Come off it, Avg. When you have a phalanx of editors from a particular community all taking the same line in a nationalist dispute, it's plainly obvious that the agenda being pushed is a nationalist one, in defiance of NPOV. Let's not forget that NPOV is non-negotiable; Fut. Perf. is quite right to point out what's going on here and to object to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is one thing to object, and another thing to insult.--Avg (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my comments at Talk:Greece. These accusations are ludicrous, clear retaliation for exposing some pretty obvious facts on that talk page. There's no outing whatsoever, just the exposition of facts everybody knows at the talk page; facts that the users themselves disclosed. I just compiled and added some visual effects. Húsönd 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather straightforward case of racial profiling. Truly emetic. I must also note FP's own attacks on Greeks in recent days. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Visual effects or not, I object to my personal information being used to dissect my contributions here and therefore cast aspersions on my motives and character. The talk page of an article is for improving the article and not to investigate the motives of users based on their personal information. As an eponymous user I find this to be covered under WP:HARASS. Dr.K. logos 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal information? Was it, like, confidential information that you accidentally posted on your userpage for everyone to see and edit?! Húsönd 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the way you used it. I object to you analysing my motives based on my personal information, draw your own arbitary conclusions and then publish them on Misplaced Pages. This is simply not done. I am an eponymous editor and I object to this treatment of my personal information. Dr.K. logos 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I object to you objecting me, so we're even. Húsönd 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not funny. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would put it more simply: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It's silly to object to someone pointing out the duckness of the duck. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you are saying applies equally well to English, American, Portuguese, French etc. ducks. Let's ban all ducks from editing Misplaced Pages. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is the interminable Macedonia naming dispute yet again. I can well understand the frustration that this is producing; unfortunately Talk:Greece has been swamped by a wave of bad-faith, disruptive nationalist point-scoring and POV-pushing over the past few days, in which every single Greek editor who has commented has lined up in favour of an approach which turns that article into a little island of Greek nationalist POV, divorced from Misplaced Pages's policies or, indeed, common sense. It's not "racial profiling" to point out that every single editor from a particular group - be it religious, political or ethnic - is lining up in the same way; it's just a statement of fact. It's sad to see that the previous arbitration case on this issue has been completely ignored. I suspect a fresh arbitration, and probably some topic bans, will be required. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, if anything, probably someone should ensure users are not subjected to continuous insults, racial or other.--Avg (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you and others apparently consider that it's a grave insult to even use the word "Macedonia" for anything other than a part of Greece, I don't think I can take that complaint very seriously. Honestly, from all the fuss that's made about it you would think that saying "Macedonia" chops an inch off every Greek's manhood each time. It's like the Monty Python "Jehovah" sketch or something. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all one big joke to you. Why would you take a nation of "crackpots" seriously? We know how you feel. We don't care. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I never know you were a fan of Millwall F.C... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if "every single editor from a particular group is lining up in the same way"? A voter's ethnic background bears no relation to the value of their vote or the outcome of the straw poll any more than, say, what his or her favorite food is. I find it objectionable that some users are using the ethnicity of those who participated in the straw poll in an attempt to invalidate the outcome. Let me remind everyone that the poll was comissioned by Husond, who, when it became apparent that his side would lose the poll, proceeded to publish the list with every voter's ethnicity. Now what could be the purpose of such a move other than to imply "the oucome is invalid because all Greek users voted "oppose"? --Athenean (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's created a subpage for this (). I can't help but wonder how he/she got to be an admin. This is very immature. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be immediately deleted. It's unencyclopedic WP:OR and serves no other purpose than to malign a group of editors based on their ethnicity. Dr.K. logos 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it should be deleted, this might be over-reacting, but maybe block would be appropriate, although i'm not sure that would work with an admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, userspace doesn't have to be encyclopedic, and WP:OR is very much welcome in that space. Block? No wonder you wonder how I got to be an admin. Húsönd 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But he did not fail three times on something.--Caspian blue 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User space can't be used for ethnic profiling. WP:OR or not. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's just plain nastiness. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we've established that Greeks overwhelmingly want to refer to the republic as the former yugoslavian republic, in order to distinguish it from the region. Why the drama? I thought we already knew that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. But right now it's the added question of how to deal with the effects of this polarisation in a Misplaced Pages decision process. How do you evaluate a straw poll where it's a 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community? This is really an issue of project-wide governance. How much power can we afford to grant to closely-knit determined POV teams of this kind, which have all the wiki-resources to outlast any opposition by force of sheer numbers and sheer obstinacy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is interesting to mention that the straw poll started against WP policy which states we should not change a controversial name with another controversial name (WP:NAME: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."). Out of nowhere a group of editors (FP included) started to edit war in order to change the status quo that existed for years in the Greece page. Every invocation of WP policy, guideline or MoS to them (which sometimes they have written themselves!) was met with ridicule and insults. When it became apparent that the poll was turning against their favour, they filed Arbitration Enforcement cases, posting anonymous reminders about banning and blocking and started threating users with topic bans. This is a very unhealthy environment indeed. For anyone interested of the story of this (and with a lot of time in their hands) please read from Talk:Greece#FYROM onwards.--Avg (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No need for straw polls and ethnic-based lists. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Husond Touche, but maybe it's not such a smart idea to make a personal attack on a page full of viewing admins? The Cool Kat (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you put information on your userpage, don't be surprised if people use it. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, it is well within what Husond is permitted to do to have this page, and a far better use of userspace (analyzing something in the mainspace) than, for example, a userbox. Prodego 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you approve of ethnic profiling. Dr.K. logos 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I approve of any analysis anyone would care to make, with publicly available information. I may not find it helpful, but I still see no reason to discourage it. Prodego 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're evading the main point.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And what would that be? Prodego 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it helpful, but have no reason to to discourage the unhelpful analysis. Your answer circumvents "I approve of ethnic profiling".--Caspian blue 03:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond did wrong in this case. Administrators are elected to help resolve disputes, not to inflate them with inflammatory behaviors, especially on highly sensitive matters. I'm quite disappointed at anyone who supports this racial profiling. The subpage should be deleted as soon as possible or WP:MfDed.--Caspian blue 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins are users before being admins. There is no rule stipulating that admins cannot be involved in disputes, just rules preventing them from using their admin powers in those disputes they're involved in. Besides, this dispute has never been anything less than inflammatory, I just made it a bit more visual. WP:MfD? You can't be serious. For someone who's just accused me of inflating disputes, you seem to be looking forward to have yet another discussion with plenty of drama amid another Greek mass voting. Húsönd 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec2) Admins are users with the admin tools and are required to have and behave "high standards" on any aspect. If you do not find any differentiation, then why do you hold the title? Besides, the visualization makes you land here with the various accusation, so I'm not kidding with the MfD thing. There is no wonder for anyone here to request MfD on your page that has caused nothing but troubles. Since the racial profiling has caused anger, I don't see why it is not due.--Caspian blue 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Being an administrator means you have access to technical tools to maintain Misplaced Pages, because you are trusted not to misuse them. You are expected to behave in accordance with good practice, as is everyone else, nothing more, nothing less. Prodego 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, this thread is a clear evidence of "distrust" against the admin in question. Good to know.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Has Husond misused the admin tools in any way? No. So then I see no reason to believe he will do so. Prodego 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get my point at once. My comment is very clearly stating that his behaviors regarding the poll is not a way that trusted admins generally do. Why do you think we're talking on this thread now? To praise his conduct?--Caspian blue 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that the first step in resolving a dispute is to identify its scope. Husond's subpage may be controversial but it does demonstrate graphically what Fut. Perf. has pointed out - "it's 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community." The substantive question before us is how we can deal with that, since it's completely obvious that we're faced with politically-motivated POV-pushing. The fact that it involves Greeks is extraneous; it could just as easily be Iranians, Scientologists, Republicans or any number of other groups. The outcome is the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So I gather that: a) Greeks mass vote everywhere, even at MfDs. b) Greeks are politically motivated POV-pushers. Conclusion: It's open season on Greek Wikipedians. Dr.K. logos 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. Some Greeks oppose this FYROMization, and they will not be affected; some don't care, and will not be affected. It's the other way around; those who mass-vote for this POV are (overwhelmingly, if not entirely) Greeks. Open season on nationalists of all flags is long overdue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But I don't appreciate the incivil remarks at the beginning. Please be more civil. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dislike nationalists as well. Perhaps I may ask why do you label certain Greeks nationalists just because they have a certain opinion on a certain matter?--Avg (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Husond observed the obvious: that one strand of opinion on this matter is confined to Greeks and those of Greek descent, and to international organizations where the (present) insistence of the Greek Government has swayed the organization (chiefly the EU).
• Observation suggests, in fact, that some Greeks and persons of Greek descent do in fact hold the other PoV - it is, for example, a political issue within Greece - but they are less strident about it.
• Husond was relatively moderate in observing nationality; there are several users whom he counts as indeterminate who, for example, use we and our of Greece. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Egad, this might be the first discussion where you and I won't have to butt heads, apparently. The Greeks must be VERY wrong, for the BOTH of us to disapprove what they are doing. Húsönd 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that Husond published his "list" after it started to become apparent that his side was going to lose the straw poll which he initiated. --Athenean (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was actually after it started to look too much like fraud. Húsönd 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of fraud, or else this is another one of a series of false accusations of yours against an ethnic group.--Avg (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I said started to look like fraud. Obviously if I had evidence that it was fraud then the poll wouldn't be open now, would it? But lack of evidence doesn't mean that someone here was born yesterday. Húsönd 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you do not have evidence but you do suspect fraud. What kind of fraud? By whom? Care to be any more specific?--Avg (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I have created Special:AbuseFilter/119 (log page) which is intended to provide a log of when non-admins change "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or vice versa. It will have some false positives and it is only a log. What people choose to do with that information is up to them, but constantly going back and forth is no good and this should help identify the conflict points and edit warring. Dragons flight (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husond/Straw Poll‎. I MfDed.--Caspian blue 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Caspian, let the voting begin. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD is not a vote. Prodego 03:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove my name from User:Husond's ethnic blacklist, but he has reverted me and accused me of vandalism. Per WP:Wikihounding and WP:OUTING, I consider this a form of harassment and request the immediate intervention of other admins. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And two admins, myself and Future Perfect at Sunrise, have intervened, but not in the way you requested. You have now made the same edit three times, and have been reverted by three different editors, so I hope that you'll stop now. The page will probably be deleted after a normal discussion anyway, but until then, the inclusion of you there is not harassment or outing, but a logical inclusion in a list where you belong, and with only the info that it blatantly obvious for everyone. Fram (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across this conversation. I'm curious, what exactly does Husond intend to do with this information? Is he trying to prove that many Greeks have a certain POV (shocker) and then attempt to dismiss their opinions? If so, then we should let all of wikipedia know that any opinions or straw poll votes concerning their own country will be dismissed as irrelevant. That would be me finished with the Scotland article. As for the British Isles article, there would be a distinct lack of editors. PS, if anyone is wondering what my opinion is on the subject? I don't have one, but to have a list of nationalities voting on this subject is just plain wrong and should in my opinion be deleted as soon as possible. Jack forbes (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It can lead to anti(insert-nationality-here) vandlisim on thier talk pages.  rdunnPLIB  10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the greatest fan of how this was handled; everyone and their cat can generally intuit this kind of information in any case. Husond after all launched the poll to get numbers on his side, so shouldn't be surprised or indignant that this didn't happen. Nevertheless, with that said, I find it difficult to understand how this information is not relevant to anyone evaluating WP:Consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and if one set of views are in general marginal they should not be allowed to dominate one individual articles just because editors with that marginal view are concentrated there. We have WP:NPOV for good reasons concerning the health of this encyclopedia, and in this case one can forgive certain users if they are forced to come up with novel ways to maintain the encyclopedic standards we aspire to. It may be though that the editors in question will eventually have to seek arbitration if force of numbers rather than broadly-based consensus continues to dominate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All of this is really a bit silly when it should be expected that Greek peeps will edit articles about them or this all could be a very strange coincidence.  rdunnPLIB  10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we are too sensitive with all this stuff in Greece, because of our past, but I also feel outraged and disappointed, because this list looks like "filing" ("φακέλωμα" is the Greek word, which I cannot accurately translate). And I really cannot understand why an adm, namely a revered member of our Community, should include comments like "but speaks Greek", "username hints at Greek". This is unbelievable! Assuptions?! About something a user did not want to reveal for himself. I am a self-declared Greek; this is my right. The X user does not want to reveal his nationality, his religion etc. This is also his / her right. Why are we tresspassing so brutally a field of his / her personality the X user wants to keep private?! Just in order to prove our point, because that is all about. Husond did exactly what he had accused other users of doing (asking, at the same time, for their topic ban). This is outarageous, and insulting for me as a member of this Community. I do not accept to see users to be characterized "x" or "z" based on assumptions, just because the "a" user wants to make his point. Then he should find another way! Most of these "parenthetical statements" are a disgrace for Misplaced Pages.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Greek, hooved and horned. Yet, I bite not human, but food. Just wanted to share that with you. Bye, I'll rid you of my sordid presence now; and I suggest that others of Greek descent depart as well, for a cleaner Misplaced Pages. Yannisk (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator...

Do something about User:Dico_Calingal, this particular user keeps readding fair use images to his userpage, despite both getting warned more than once (see his talk page). NanohaA'sYuri 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the images from the user page and left the user a personal message asking them to refrain from doing it again and also to refrain from uploading any more images until they have read and understood the relevant policies on copyright, licensing and fair use. Will watch also. Mfield (Oi!) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Chandler ‎

The template Template:Defunct_national_football_teams is up for deletion, and this user is trying to supress discusion by limiting it to only a few participants, and has been repeatidly hiding the Template:TFD notice on the template, that was placed their to encourage others to participate, I feel that these actions are contrary to the community nature of wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Your reputation as uncommunicative and tenditious hardly puts you in a position to be tagging Chandler for this. I note that beyond calling his edits vandalism and posting a threatening warning template you haven't made any meaningful attempt to communicate with him on this issue. Merits of this particular template aside, your inability to talk to other editors and do little more than engage in a serial edits without comments attached is helping foment this problem. Trying talking to him in a meaningful manner instead of engaging in a silent duel. You're causing your own problem. Wiggy! (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiggy, please don't make accusations like that without diffs to back them up please, otherwise you are just sitting on a ball of personal attacks, really. — neuro 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's his style, always has been his style. Just have a graze through his talk page. You can't just perpetually stonewall other editors and refuse to answer legitimate pleas for help or clarification. Have a peek at my talk page here. That was my introduction to this guy and I'm not some sort of clueless newbie. That's pretty much his approach to every other editor in the place. Just a bully cloaking himself in what he perceives to be the rules. My concern is not baseless. Standing up to that kind of stuff is necessary. Wiggy! (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged from a separate section - it's the same issue. Black Kite 23:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) is currently vandalizing {{Defunct national football teams}} through edits like and just because the TfD he filed don't seem to go the way he'd like. And after that go on to harassing . So I would appreciate some help. chandler · 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me feeling some deja vu here, or have we not had precisely this problem before with FN? - Arcayne () 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Search the Incidents archive for "Fasach" and you'll see where that deja vu feeling might be coming from. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ban review for Guido den Broeder

Being bold and closing this per WP:SNOW. It would take a groundswell of 20 or 30 supports to change the outcome of consensus, and with this type of discussion that is very unlikely to happen. It would be a very good thing on all sides if a more orderly process existed for reviewing community bans: banned editors want to know how to return to good standing, arbitrators have other duties, and the community doesn't like to get ambushed with these things. What we call drama is often another name for disorganization. Two months ago Misplaced Pages:Standard offer became a first step away from our current norm of simmering chaos. Since the Committee has had proposals to reform community ban reviews for at least four months and has not acted upon any of them, the community can take initiative. Editors, administrators, and arbitrators who wish to move forward productively and collaboratively are welcome at my user talk page. Durova 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Guido den Broeder was community banned in December 2008 and his user talk page was protected. Generally in this situation editors direct their appeals to the Arbitration Committee. He has done so, and apparently has been having difficulty getting a response. A similar situation happened late last year with another editor (banned, not getting replies from the Committee), and the fellow made a quiet and successful return after community discussion. Not certain whether we can duplicate that success, but opening discussion.

Guido asked me to post the following statement on his behalf:

"In December, I was community-banned after a discussion on AN/I. The procedure did not satisfy the criteria recently suggested by ArbCom member Carcharoth at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Location_for_ban_and_unban_discussions. It was cut short, and users that were working with me did not got the chance to participate, so certainly the community was not widely represented; there were mostly passers-by. As a consequence, both an essay that I wrote and my block log got misinterpreted, and calls for evidence remained unanswered.

The ArbCom has subsequently promised me a ban review after 3 months if I would show good editing on another project. When I met their criteria on nl:Wikibooks (as well as on various non-foundation projects) I asked for this review. Unfortunately, it seems that the ArbCom is currently tied up, and they did not respond to my request.

Since December, many users that have worked with me expressed their disagreement with my ban when they found out. Administrator Seicer has apologized to me for repeatedly blanking my user page. My essay has sat at meta without complaints for all this time.

I repeat here what I said to the ArbCom: I will not try to break or circumvent any restriction that is imposed as a condition to my unbanning. My goal is to collaborate constructively with other good-faith users. I do not expect to have many dealings with the users that banned me, since they contribute to entirely different sections of Misplaced Pages, but if I do meet them, I will do my best to get along.

I believe that I have always acted with the good of the project in mind, even while I criticize the way it is set up. I fully intend to continue thus, as I do on various other projects to everyone's satisfaction. If there are any remaining concerns, I suggest to put me on probation, monitored by former administrator Durova if she is willing, and restrict me to 0RR during that time."

These are the other WMF projects where he is active:

• Dutch Wikibooks
• Meta
• German Misplaced Pages
• Dutch Misplaced Pages

He is in good standing with a clean block log on three of those projects; at Dutch Misplaced Pages his record would charitably be described as spotty. Due to unrelated considerations I would request that another Wikipedian step forward as official mentor, although I would gladly asssist that mentor if the need arises. Guido den Broeder and I have had no contact before this week, and I was uninvolved in the disputes that led to his siteban. Submitting for discussion and consideration. Durova 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for an Arbitration Committee member to comment here, because I know for a fact that his unban requests (he sent quite a few) were received and discussed by the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He sent me copies of those emails. This came to my attention a few days ago because he was petitioning the unblock IRC channel for a hearing. Reminded me of a specific instance that I was involved in last October-November; while the community's unblock discussion was ongoing an administrator in good standing stepped forward to announce that he had been advising that other editor through seven months of attempted ArbCom appeals: four different arbitrators and a clerk had each responded with initially positive signs, then failed to follow up. The community unbanned the other fellow in three days and I gave him a resilient barnstar recently for a drama-free return. Was a bit concerned a similar problem might be brewing here. So since he appears to have satisfied the conditions set by the Committee (and my own standard request), it seems reasonable to take it back here. The community doesn't need the Committee's permisson to review the community's own bans. Durova 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A few more thoughts on the prior instance: it was quite an unpleasant surprise to discover the Committee had let a valid request slip through the cracks for over half a year, and although I promptly submitted a proposal to prevent such things from happening again, the Committee has apparently taken no action to remedy that problem. A problem obviously does exist: at least two arbitrators had drafted similar proposals, neither of which have been implemented. The only reason I didn't take my proposal directly to the community was because I didn't want to make a poster child of that individual, who had been through the mill already. Now I don't know whether Guido's request is equally meritorious, but he does deserve a hearing. Durova 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Durova, but you are being quite inaccurate in your assessment of the situation. His request did not "fall through the cracks", it was responded — several times — in the affirmative, with a topic ban. That Guido chose to dispute and refuse that condition does not mean that he was not replied to promptly. He did not get "no answer", he got a "no" answer. — Coren  22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The above description refers to this person and is quite accurate. He did indeed fall through the cracks for one month that I observed directly, and others independently confirmed the rest. He approached me on October 20, 2008--very politely. I promptly wrote to the Committee in support of his request, got a request for details from one arbitrator, and followed up immediately with the requested information. Exactly one month later that editor followed up with me: nothing had happened. Since I was the original blocking administrator in that case, if any one of the five people who were supposedly reviewing his case had looked into it seriously at all, it is reasonable to suppose they would have contacted me. None did; shall I also post their usernames? Check your facts, sir, before you accuse me of misrepresentation.Thank you, Coren. :) Durova 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed the shift in subject; "this user", when discussing a specific user, is inherently ambiguous when you mean some other user than the one under discussion. At any rate, I did not "accuse" you of misrepresentation but simply stated that your assessment of the situation (if it was Guido's) would have been inaccurate— which it would have been. — Coren  23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I do not believe Coren is disputing what you are saying about Bus stop, but he is disputing what Guido has said about his case, and I can confirm what Coren is saying regarding that is accurate. --Deskana (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If Guido has misrepresented the sequence of events then I withdraw support for his appeal. Durova 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support unban - Per Guido's voluntary probation and mentorship. I firmly trust Durova's judgment (and STRONGLY think that she should be resysopped, if not made an arbitrator or bureaucrat); if she's standing for Guido, then so am I. (Although, I will admit that if I had participated in the ban discussion, I would have endorsed a ban.) Just please, Guido, drop the social experiment. →Dyl@n620 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be noted that Durova doesn't appear to take a firm position on the question of unbanning Guido, more that the process of appealing to ArbCom is flawed and she would like a community re-review of the prior ban. It does seem like this ArbCom is as swamped as the last one, but they've been making some good strides in improving workload management and perhaps this will inspire them to take steps on Guido's request to them.

What I would like to see from Guido is some allocution to what led to his December ban. His request makes no mention of his actions that lead to it, and without some admission that his conduct played a role I'm not sure a probation agreement will really cut it. Avruch 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment - I would hardly call his record at nl.wiki "spotty" - . Black Kite 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• He's currently banned at the Dutch Wiki for making legal threats, that ban was reviewed the the Stewards at Meta (m:Requests for comment/Dutch Misplaced Pages - unblock request) and found proper, he has 27 edits on dewiki and 134 on Dutch Wikibooks. Much of his edits to Meta have been ont he topic of his enwiki and nlwiki bans. Enwiki held a community ban discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F where the result was overwhelming in support of a ban. We really need to move on from this issue, there are better things to do. MBisanz 22:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Would someone unprotect Guido's user talk please so that he can respond to the questions that are being posed here? Durova 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That much I'm prepared to do (and have). I also have serious reservations about the "spotty" record on nl, though. Tonywalton  22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Could be charitably described as... is normally prelude to understatement. I share your concerns, of course. But if what he's told me is honest and he hasn't socked or anything else, then this does fall within the realm of reasonable discussion. It's been three months since the ban, not three weeks, and he's done what he's been asked to do. Durova 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, you accidentally unprotected the user page, and not the talk page (presumably because you didn't notice the redirect). Fix't. — Coren  22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • D'oh. Tonywalton  22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on "not getting replies from the Committee" this is not true. He got a response, a "No" response, which is different from "no response" and kept submitting repeated and frequent emails as that is not what he wanted to hear. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how recently that was? He led me to understand that he was instructed to make positive contributions to another wiki, so he joined Dutch Wikibooks. Durova 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Less than a month ago, although there is a more recent email from him (4 days or so) which may not have been answered yet. — Coren  22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it not true that he was asked to contribute constructively to a WMF site where his editing privileges had not been restricted, and asked to wait three months from the time of his ban? When I approached him I told him the one thing that was absolutely necessary was for him to be totally honest with me, and if he hasn't then we can mark this thread resolved. Durova 23:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I really would not consider 134 edits to prove he has reformed from his problems on enwiki, maybe 1,034 edits would be more convincing, but I have about 120 edits on Wikisource from fixing broken redirects alone. MBisanz 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That, indeed, is one of the conditions (there was also the alternative of waiting six months overall instead). I don't think there were misrepresentations more than partial disclosure. — Coren  23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I advised him was to be totally forthcoming and anticipate any possible objections to his return. Also that the longer he waits without taking an appeal live, the better his chances that it would meet acceptance. An unsuccessful ban review would likely push the timetable back for an eventual return. So it looks like we can let this run until the community has spoken. Durova 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I participated off and on in some of the discussions surrounding this user, so I'm not really a fresh set of eyes. In my opinion this was a classic case of exhausting community patience. He was on an apparent crusade to get the Truth out about a few issues and when stymied by unpleasant restrictions like UNDUE and RS, proceeded to wikilawyer endlessly, causing avocational editors to abandon his preferred stomping grounds over time. I don't think that he should be unbanned. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Protonk. I ran into him once and had pretty much the same experience: a lot of WP:IDHT. From what Rlevse is saying, that personality hasn't changed. I didn't have much experience with him, though, and I can be unpleasant at times as well, so my opinion may not carry much weight. SDY (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. This user has been contentious on more than one wiki. Why should we believe he will change here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. GdB's entire career at en.wiki was an obnoxious breaching experiment (c.f. User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment), if he himself is to be believed. Not to mention his repeated legal threats. Skinwalker (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guido's entire MO was far too contentious for Misplaced Pages. Additionally, his insistence that anything provocative, pointy, or just plain wrong was due to the experiment he was conducting failed to be convincing, especially after it was repeated several times. Hermione1980 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let him go conduct his experiments somewhere else. Like maybe conservapedia. That could prove interesting. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  Not really. They would just summarily block him and move on with no further discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is a quote from Guido's previous ban appeal: I am however not aware of having caused any kind of disruption and have seen no evidence to substantiate such a claim. On the contrary, I believe that I have been extremely patient with users that have incessantly harassed and stalked me and purposely keep adding false information to medical articles to promote their opinion that a whole range of neurological diseases don't really exist or are psychosomatic in nature. If he still believes these claims, as I think he does, he needs to remain banned or the disruption will resume. Looie496 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support unban: In all honesty, we've given unbans for conditionally releases that were less than what Guido is offering. If unban is not supported at this time, then I would like the community to review within a few months time. seicer | talk | contribs 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  What about his breaching experiment? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I know nothing about this fellow, have never crossed paths with him, but have now looked at the history, the lies, the evasions, the failures to own up, the game playing, the disruption, the apparent deceptive claims in regards to Arbcom's responsiveness to him, and can't see any possible good that could come by unblocking him and a great deal of harm.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - No evidence of a change of heart. Shot info (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Guido den Broeder claimed to be using Misplaced Pages to conduct some type of social experiment, this is seriously disruptive behavior and he has yet to acknowledge this issue in any way. --Leivick (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. Ironholds (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Jjcenterprises

• After well over a year of inactivity this User:Jjcenterprises has done nothing but wage wars on the Mercedes and Rear End articles. JJ and his anon address have done nothing but vandalize both articles and he still continues to put a grossly oversized image of the album cover on the article when a much smaller one already exists. I'm calling for a block of both Jjcenterprises and his anon address and a speedy deletion of the image. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With a username like that, and this file summary, it seems that this is at least a role account. However, the edits do not seem to be vandalism by our definition- "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages" (c.f. WP:VAN). While there may be WP:OWN or WP:PROMOTION issues, I don't think an immediate block is necessary. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While considering what to do, you may want to take note that the purported "CD cover" that he claims to have designed himself for the release isn't a CD cover. That 4x3 ratio screams "desktop wallpaper". CDs are square.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks square here. What you're seeing at 4x3 is the typical way pictures look on a TV or laptop screen that attempts to fill in the picture by stretching it. What kind of gave it away was that the Parental Advisory sticker looked a bit broader than normal. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still too high res for fair use though, it should be 300 pixels or so to limit adequate reproduction. Mfield (Oi!) 05:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

True. The quality of the second of the two items I linked to, would be more like it. Baseball Bugs carrots 06:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the smaller ones. File:Mercedes_CD.jpg was uploaded at 1024x768, and there's an 800x600 version laying around somewhere, too. The small one may well be a CD cover scan, but the large one isn't.—Kww(talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An anon reverted the image on Rear End. It may need to be deleted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirlikovali

Someone might want to take a look at the massive WP:BLP violation on User talk:Kirlikovali. Taner Akcam is a Turkish scholar who recognizes the Armenian Genocide and is a frequent target of ultra-nationalist Turks. Few years back he was arrested by Canadian border patrol who used a printout from a vandalized wikipedia article as evidence that he was a terrorist. VartanM (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of disruptive tendentious editing. Talk page blanked, short block (48h), warned of possible topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Francesco Carotta

Would an uninvolved Admin please take a look at this page? I've removed some comments but they keep being made (and I missed some). I've warned Populares (talk · contribs) twice, but that's had no effect, and another editor has warned 92.225.57.158 (talk · contribs). Thanks.

Vegetarianism and Sikhism

Hi, Could I request that this page be stopped from editing while the mediation cabal is underway?--Sikh-history (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no reason within the protection policy to do so. Also, please make future requests at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Regards SoWhy 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account remains unblocked

RohirrimRider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) logs in every few months and makes such constructive edits as inserting Adolph Hitler images in Pope and creating articles like Semie Durrani. Shouldn't this guy be indef-blocked so he doesn't have an autoconfirmed account to vandalize semi-protected articles when he returns again in a few months? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)