Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Psb is now ], . He is also now . In my opinion, it looks as if he's trying to piss me off or frustrate me, and that in itself is disruptive. Can an admin please warn him?— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::Psb is now ], . He is also now . In my opinion, it looks as if he's trying to piss me off or frustrate me, and that in itself is disruptive. Can an admin please warn him?— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:::(Aside from a completely neutral party) A quick scan of the aforementioned editor's history, is illuminating. There appears to be few actual contributions other than verbal parries and thrusts with other editors; is it a case of someone who dotes on confrontations? FWiW ] (]) 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
During User:Someguy1221's RfA, Pixelface made an accusation that Someguy1221 was a sock puppet of User:Jack Merridew. This allegation was found to be untrue on the basis of two CheckUsers 1, 2. PF insisted on the second because, apparently, John Vandenberg isn't impartial enough.
It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering. HOWEVER, consider Pixelface's subsequent petulance, this thinly veiled accusation that Jack Merridew is running or intends to run a sockpuppeteering operation, and continued refusal to explain just why he thought there was something dubious going on- this leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a dirty and bad faith attack on Jack Merridew, an editor Pixelface dislikes on purely ideological grounds.
I have no idea why Pixelface believes, or believed, I and User:Someguy1221 are related. I'd not heard of him previously or crossed his path in any way I'm aware of.
Oh, I know that. He has admitted that he was wrong; that's not really the issue. His battleground approach to me, others, and various policies and guidelines is of wide concern as the links I and others have offered show. And of, course, there is more if one digs. Cheers, Jack Merridew05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, what are you looking for that isn't being addressed at the RFC? What admin action are you seeking? Durova05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the User RFC garnered a fair number of comments but no real change in behaviour. As to actions, I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Pixelface is relentlessly disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As a note on the User RFC, PF has not performed any more than 1RR changes on policy/guideline pages since the RFC. But the other factors mentioned do not seem to have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As noted by Masem, the only behaviour that Pixelface has changed is the edit-warring on policy pages, and all the other problems remain intact. Since he has already been blocked multiple times for this, I think a 72-hour block is in order, with an eye towards eventually making it indefinite if he cannot learn to civilly engage with other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Are we blocking people for 72 hours now for filing SPIs on self-admitted sockpuppets? And I believe you made a comment at my user RFC about your own civility Kww. Like I've said before, when I'm treated in a civil way, I typically respond in a civil way. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Masem, your desired outcome was fairly vague. And I never agreed to follow 1RR on policy and guideline pages. Which reminds me, I still need to start a thread about that change to WP:POL which came about in October. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't blow off that user RFC, although it looks like most of the community ignored it. It was archived by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comment, and I had plenty more to say. I edited the page 11 times, I edited the talkpage 25 times, and I was the first to propose a solution. I promised to not edit WP:NOT during January before you did, and that policy was unprotected as a result. I also promised to not edit WP:NOT for two more months. However, you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned and you were warned by one of your three assigned mentors after your edit-warring on WP:NOT, where you just happened to accuse me of "vandalism." Now there is a baseless accusation. I suggest that if you don't want people to think you're operating sockpuppets, don't operate sockpuppets to begin with. Dominic can verify that he received an email, over 200K, with evidence that led me to believe that you might have been Someguy1221. I really think you should have told Reyk about your history before you let him start this thread. Oh, and please don't leave any more trout on my user talkpage. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, there are three problems with Pixelface's conduct in this issue:-
An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry by, and disruption of the RfA of, Someguy1221 - someone completely uninvolved and blameless in this matter. Fortunately this did not affect the outcome of the RfA, and an apology has been made.
An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against Jack Merridew, which was not so much withdrawn as laughed out of court. There's been no apology for this and judging by the apparent past history between these editors, there is unlikely to be.
An unsubstantiated accusation that John Vandenberg isn't impartial - to the extent that he would falsely report checkuser findings. I'm not aware of any withdrawal or apology related to this. I'm aware that there is no explicit accusation of falsification, but it makes no sense to say "I question your impartiality, and I've emailed the evidence to another Checkuser" unless one believes the report of the first checkuser to be false.
Provided that Pixelface accepts that these are serious conduct issues and undertakes to address them, then I think no further sanction is necessary. I am well aware that the editors on the receiving end of Pixelface's problematic conduct are respectively an admin (now), a veteran editor, and a checkuser, and that as such these people ought to be able to laugh off such attacks. I trust that they will be able to do so, but our discussion here ought not to be about punishment for past actions, but prevention of future disruption, in particular prevention of discouragement to the much less-experienced editors that Pixelface will surely come into contact with. SHEFFIELDSTEEL14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, my accusation was substantiated, to Dominic, who had previously performed a reliable checkuser on Jack Merridew. Second of all, Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet, and is apparently proud of that fact. Third of all, I had no intention of ever submitting my evidence to Jayvdb, one of Jack Merridew's three assigned mentors, who Jack Merridew contacted by himself. I don't think any of his assigned mentors should be performing checkusers on Jack Merridew. In addition to being one of Jack Merridew's mentors, Jayvdb said that Jack Merridew had "earned" a final chance in December and Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the 2008 Arbcom elections. I expect Jayvdb to recuse in any further checkuser requests related to Jack Merridew. It does make sense to provide the evidence which led me to believe that the two accounts may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets to a checkuser, and I did so. Reyk certainly didn't seem to be aware of Jack Merridew's past history and frankly, Jack Merridew should have told Reyk about that history when Reyk told Jack Merridew he was thinking of starting an ANI thread. I have already apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking that he may be Jack Merridew. He is the only editor in this situation who deserved an apology. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There was no need for Jack to tell me anything. There is a rather conspicuous disclosure of his past on his user page- coming clean about his past is, I think, good evidence that he's acting in good faith now. ReykYO!01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Above at the start of this thread you called this comment by me a "thinly veiled accusation", which seems to indicate you were totally unaware that Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet and has edited under several sockpuppets in the past. Jack Merridew has done several disruptive things since being unbanned in December, but that's a topic for another thread. I'd be happy to list them on a user subpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
While I disagree with Pixelface's suspicions in this particular instance and encourage him to be cautious when alleging sockpuppetry (perhaps consulting with a trusted fellow editor before making an allegation in an RfA?), he is by and large a constructive and good faith editor who is frequently hounded by those on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum. A good deal of what is typically alleged against Pixelface is partisan in nature and frequently hypocritical, i.e. dismissing him because of his beleifs when those doing the dismissing engage in the same allegedly poor behavior or worse. Few try to make attempts to reach out and in fact only perpetuate and escalate tensions. It becomes an effort to stifle the dissenting view rather than trying to reach an amicable understanding or a polite agree to disagree. Everyone should spend more time working together to rescue and improve articles rather than on trying to see sockpuppetry under every corner (unless it is blatantly obvious as in the recent report I filed that turned up 25 socks!) or tattling on each other at ANI. WAAAAY too much time is wasted in these discussions rather than on actually building Misplaced Pages and besides as Sheffield suggests above, it is really not that hard to ignore others when the accusations seem baseless. We typically only encourage people or make things worse by feeding into or getting up in arms over some things that can easily be ignored or passed over. In other words, to Pixelface, please help us work on article rescue and ask someone you trust first if you think sockpuppet looks possibly, because say if you asked me for example first in this case, I would have discouraged making the accusation in the RfA. To everyone else, please stop trying to bait Pixelface and enflaming tensions. We are here first and foremost to build "the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit". The priority should not be trying to get each other in trouble. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
While it is true that anyone can gode another into behaving improperly, PF is the only editor in these cases that seems to be throwing personal attacks around. There's obviously animosity between Jack and PF, but I have yet to see an instance of Jack attacking PF on a personal note, even when PF starts off that way (I'm not saying there not might be any, I'm just not aware of any). We've been through this before that PF needs to stop engaging in personal attack, even if there seems to be an overwhelming number of more vocal editors that are against his position which may mirror an even larger number of non-vocal editors. WP is not a battleground - calm and rationale discussion is the means to settle disputes, not attacks at editors themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree with the characterization of Pixelface as being "by and large a constructive and good-faith editor". He is by and large a chronic source of low-level disruption and bad behaviour. His RFC demonstrates his general unwillingness to recognize the problems he creates, and, if this event isn't sufficient to cause him to be blocked, it should at least put him at the final warning stage.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Accusations of sock pupperty are common, and often they are proven wrong. Maybe Pixelface had a legitimate reason to worry about Jack, since he has been blocked multiple times for sock puppet abuse:
To paraphrase Reyk's bad faith attack on Pixelface, now we have "editor dislike on purely ideological grounds", Kww and Masem joining the argument.
If I were Pixelface I would have consulted the three admins, Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) which are mentoring Jack to make sure the bad behavior does not happen again.
Pixelface apologized that he was wrong, but that wasn't good enough. Jack Merridew added a huge trout to his page, but that wasn't good enough. Why can't editors accept this apology? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't dislike Pixelface on "purely ideological grounds". I maintain a civil and friendly relationship with DGG, for example, who is certainly as ideologically my opposite as Pixelface. I dislike Pixelface for edit-warring, incivility, and a complete inability to work with people that disagree with him.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Struck comment. So do you agree that Pixelface dislikes Jack on purely ideological grounds? Maybe Reyk should strike that comment too. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Judging only on what I've seen, the language that PF uses in talking about Jack is complete dislike or disrespect for the person, not ideology, due to Jack's past sockpuppetry that he was banned for. At the same time, PF also is very opposite in ideology from Jack. It's fine for PF to comment and debate the ideological differences, but I've seen PF engage in attacks against Jack as an editor (including calling him out by his real name). (And to echo Kww, I certainly don't dislike PF as an editor, and respect that his ideology reflects numerous unvoiced editors of fiction and thus useful; I dislike the means which he approaches debate which edges on the border of appropriate behavior.) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's hard for me to evaluate. I strongly opposed the restoration of Jack Merridew's editing privileges, and still think it was a mistake on philosophical grounds (I'm equal-opportunity on that aspect as well ... I think it's a grievous error to allow A. Nobody to edit, as well, and he's on the opposite end of the exclusionism/inclusionism spectrum from Jack). That said, I'm not aware of any explicit misbehaviour by Jack since his unbanning.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Kww, so I guess now would be a bad time to bring up this edit-warring by you, which immediately followedmyedits to those articles? At that time, there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And there was no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either. That first thread is basically WesleyDodds telling WikiProject Comics that he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." Look at all the complaints at Talk:List of characters in_Watchmensince then. Are you seriously saying that the characters Ozymandias is not notable? I can work with people who disagree me. But can you? --Pixelface (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I had reason to believe that a user might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jack Merridew, and I think Dominic may agree with me. He did perform a checkuser after I sent him my evidence afterall. I admit that my edits to articles have drastically fallen off as of late, but part of that is because of editors like you Kww, following me around and reverting my every edit. Like this for example. Have you noticed how I'm not hounding you and reverting your edits to articles? I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) didn't do so to me. But even considering all my edits in WP/WT-space lately (which many people support), over 50% of my edits are still to article-space. Most of those edits came at a time when people were not hounding me, and I was free to improve any article whatsoever, articles like GTD-5 EAX.
Arbcom has never considered a topic ban for me, something that cannot be said about you Kww. I don't know what problems you think I've "created." I'm not the one who said over seven years ago "I agree with this one completely" when someone said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." Take it up with the editor who said that and the people who listened to him and followed him. I've never understood your attitude towards me. One of the very first things I remember you saying to me was "Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen." And believe me Kww, I am grateful for things like this. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Pixelface is NOT "the only editor...throwing pesonal attacks around." On his talk page, for instance, someone makes a play on his username by calling him "egg on face" or something to that effect and if necessary, I am sure we can turn up a number of diffs in which editors were incivil to him as well. I don't condone incivility by anyone, regardless of inclusion stance. Pixelface should remain civil, but so should others as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If people are ploying him on his talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA and they should be brought forward as well. I don't watch his talk page, I know what I see through the various talk page discussions on certain policies and guidelines, and clearly there PF is pretty much the only one that engages in personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Evidence for this? I don't see it on the policy/guideline talk pages, but it would be helpful to know if it's happening on user pages. (as to justify any addition behavior remedies) --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd be interested in evidence that I "routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks" as well.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting, but I've already apologized to Someguy1221. And Masem, if the user RFC you started on me hadn't been archived when it did (organizing a timeline from last April was proving to be difficult), you would have seen me present plenty of Jack Merridew's inciviilty towards me, going back to December 2007. I didn't start it. But I may put all that on a user subpage. You're right Masem, Misplaced Pages is not supposed to a be a battleground, which is why I would really appreciate it if would you stop starting threads about me that go nowhere — your recent AE thread comes to mind. You know, a recent paper has found that Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes — and I've certainly found that to be true in my own experience. And I think it's worth noting that the user who intiated E&C2 and listed me as an involved party is now banned from editing Misplaced Pages. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting- again with the churlish personal attacks. It never stops with you, does it? ReykYO!01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
One striking element of the RfC is that Pixelface entered no response to it. Also, Pixelface was more recently the subject of a Wikiquette alert. Due to the nature of the surrounding environment (inclusionism/deletionistm) it is unlikely that consensus will form at a community level. So one possibility would be arbitration. There have been enough recent formal DR attempts to justify a case. Durova16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
PF did respond, but on the talk page, as well as offering one possible remedy that wasn't accepted by the editors involved (including myself, full disclaimer). But there seemed to be no effort by PF to work out towards other remedies given. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, past experience with established editors has been that unless they do something really obviously bannable (legal threats, etc.) it's difficult for the community to take action. Action may occur, but generally slowly and with plenty of drama. Since Pixelface has 12,000 edits and is a participant in a polarized wiki-ideological debate, perhaps the best approach would be:
1. Try a little more dispute resolution.
2. If that doesn't succeed, initiate RFAR.
In the meantime, please exercise care to avoid provocative action. Place trout on the grill, not on the editor's talk page. When a first trout doesn't succeed later trouts are rarely effective. Just be as reasonable as possible. And for editors who agree with Pixelface ideologically, please encourage Pixelface to pursue that belief without sniping at others who disagree. No one likes arbitration, so let's do our best to resolve this amicably. Durova17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Masem created that user RFC about me 5 hours and 20 minutes after Jack Merridew started an ANI thread about me on December 30, following these edits by Jack Merridew and me to the policy Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, where Jack Merridew stated he was reverting "vandalism" by me. The section of policy I was removing does not have consensus to be policy, it has not had consensus to be policy ever since it was proposed, and many threads at WT:NOT have been devoted to it. The policy Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not was protected for a month, and was unprotected after I promised not to edit that policy at all during the protection period, and after I requested unprotection. In addition to that, at the user RFC, I promised to not to edit that policy at all during February or March 2009, and I've kept that promise. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008 and was warned by one of his three assigned mentors about his edits to that policy.
In the Statement of the dispute, Masem objected to my long responses and use of diffs, which makes crafting a response a bit difficult in my opinion. I asked Masem and Protonk for a wordlimit, and received none. Nevertheless, I edited the user RFC page 11 times, I edited the talkpage 25 times, and I was the first editor to propose a solution.
I am still unaware of which dispute it was exactly that the four certifiers made previous attempts to resolve, and when they attempted to resolve it. Diffs were never provided. I did respond in several areas below on the user RFC page, saying much of what I was going to say in the Response section. IIRC, JzG entered no response at his user RFC. I considered (and still am considering) putting a response in my userspace, going over Masem's complaint line by line, as well as others. The user RFC about me was archived by Ncmvocalist after over two weeks of no comment. During that time I was busy doing other things, and I was actually quite surprised when I noticed it had been archived. I had typed up a fairly long statement by that point. Protonk had also started an RFC on a proposal during my user RFC, and that consumed much of my time.
Bignole did file a recent Wikiquette alert against me, but he seemed to misunderstand some things I said to him, although I admit many were uncivil. That WQA thread was archived with no action. Masem did file a recent AE thread against me, after I suggested a thread about Bignole might be warranted because Bignole was arguing over a page that Arbcom explicitly mentioned during E&C1, an arbitration case which lists Bignole as an involved party. The AE thread about me that Masem started was also archived with no action. I am getting really tired of Masem starting threads and pages concerning me.
John254 listed me as an involved party of E&C2 (but is now banned), and Masem's RFA occurred during E&C1 and Masem edited the E&C2 case pages quite a bit. I think arbitration is a bad idea, since I believe E&C2 only served to inflame the dispute and make it worse. Many of the current arbitrators would also have to recuse. I think the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution policy is lacking in several ways, and that seems to be supported by a recent paper which found that Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This complaint was filed by User:Reyk. This suggests that the complaint is ideologically motivated. It is uncivil to use AN/I to play the "ban my opponent game". I suggest Reyk drops this mode of operation. Arbitration is probably not necessary here. Judicious application of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be sufficient. Jehochman18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you point out where Reyk asked for a ban? I don't see it. It was Jack Merridew who stated I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Mentioning a possible ban as the extreme end of a range of possible remedies is a bit different, and it was not Reyk who made the mention. Unless there's another post to that effect? Durova18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if Reyk had brought it, that wouldn't invalidate it. Nothing about being an exclusionist means that he has to accept misbehaviour from anyone, including ardent inclusionists. This board should be about behaviour, not ideology, and Pixelface's behaviour is certainly open to question.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit more worrisome to see an outright accusation of game playing against one editor, based upon a comment made by someone else. If this dispute does sink to outright game playing (which I hope it doesn't) a mistaken accusation by an administrator could be used against Reyk. It would be more helpful of Jehochman to either substantiate the accusation better or else withdraw it. Durova18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
After getting a new source in the mail today, I have made a suggestion for Pixelface to help me at User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, but I extend the request to help to everyone. Let's all stop trying to get each other in trouble, escalating tensions in AfDs, etc. and work together to use such sources as the one I mention on Pixelface's talk page to bring these articles concerning the most "notable" fictional characters all up to DYK, Good, and/or featured status. We know the sources exist for these ones and now is the time to pool our resources together to bring them to these statuses. I trust any editors who in good faith are not here to perpetuate ideological disputes will put that all aside and work for the good of the project and who knows maybe and hopefully in doing so, we will all gain better respect for each other in the process. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effort, it doesn't address why this ANI exists: PF's means of editing. We will never get rid of inclusionists vs deletionists, even if we work towards good middle ground efforts, and it is important to keep civility in line regardless of where one is editing. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think editors would be more civil with each other if they have some constructive interactions as well. One editor a while back referred to me as an "extreme inclusionist not welcome" on her talk page. So, rather than just take her to ANI for being incivil or what have you, I helped identify socks that were harassing her and we've had various other helpful gestures toward each other. Sure, we'll still be on opposite sides of AfDs, but it isn't mean when we debate anymore. Rather than trying to defeat opposition by calling for blocks that tend only annoy editors, why not try a more carrot approach? Best, --A Nobody19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we need editors to behave civilly toward those they disagree with. Behave is the operative word. Speaking polite words while sticking the knife in another editor (and twisting) does not count as civil behavior. The attempt here to get Pixelface sanctioned might have been taken seriously if it had been filed by an uninvolved editor. Disagreements should not be escalated with WP:AN/I filings. People aren't given flowers here--they get blocked or banned. We all know that. Jehochman21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This thread is not about me. It's about Pixelface's pattern of escalating belligerence- behaviour for which I and others in this thread have provided actual evidence. Which is more than I can say for your vague and spurious notion that, just because Pixelface and I don't see eye to eye on the inclusionism/deletionism debate, my objections to his behaviour must be politically motivated. ReykYO!22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It is unclear how uninvolved Wikipedians are to become aware that a problem exists, if involved parties may not post evidence to a noticeboard. Question to Jehochman: what avenue would you recommend as appropriate for Reyk, if you find this so objectionable? Bear in mind that user conduct RFC and Wikiquette alert have both been attempted already. Durova22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There was an RFC where plenty of uninvolved Wikipedians reviewed the problem, and you'll notice that WP:ANI is not listed on WP:DR. If a user is making snarky comments, WP:WQA is often a useful. "Help me with difficult communications I am having with this user" is a better approach than "sanction this user for being rude." If a sanctions request is made, the prior dispute and the prior RFC should have been disclosed. Both important pieces of context were left out of the initial complaint. That's what made me skeptical about motives. We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and bash each other. Jehochman00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Many editors aren't talented at initiating noticeboard threads; they don't know what to say. Yet it certainly added to the appearance of good faith that two prior types of dispute resolution had been tried: these people attempted DR over a conduct issue, then sought administrative attention when the conduct failed to improve. This board would be a more orderly place if more editors followed that approach. WP:AGF is indeed a good idea; best to lead by example. Durova05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Reyk started this thread because of this comment I made at Someguy1221's RFA. I struck that comment 40 minutes after I made it upon MSGJ's suggestion and emailed a checkuser, Dominic, since my evidence pertained to a potential admin, and since it contained some private information, and since WP:SPI says "For exceptionally sensitive matters (e.g., admin sock-puppetry, harassment, privacy), please contact any CheckUser or any Arbitration Committee member, by e-mail." I had already apologized to Someguy1221 two days before Reyk started this thread. I don't know what Reyk wants. I'm certainly not the first person to suspect another user of being a sockpuppet and be wrong, and I think Reyk's creation of this thread has merely served to blow this event out of proportion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Reyk, first of all, it's not "bad faith" to think that Jack Merridew may have another sockpuppet, since he is an admitted sockpuppet and has edited under multiple previous usernames (D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, Moby Dick, Note to Cool Cat, Senang Hati, Thomas Jerome Newton), he has previously lied on a noticeboard about it, and is apparently proud of being a sockpuppet ("This account is a sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely.", "for great justice and epic lulz" )
My suggestion that Someguy1221 might be Jack Merridew was also not baseless. After MSGJ told me to file an SPI, I began gathering my evidence together. My email to Dominic, who previously performed a checkuser on Jack Merridew during the arbitration case E&C2, was over 200K. Dominic can verify that. During the time I was organizing my evidence, Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb to perform a checkuser, an editor who said Jack Merridew had earned a final chance when Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned (from abusing multiple accounts) in December. Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the December 2008 Arbcom elections and I voted against Jayvdb. Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb before I could email Dominic, and I questioned Jayvdb's impartiality regarding Jack Merridew. I was not going to send the evidence to Jayvdb.
After jeers and sneers yet another unwelcome trout on my talkpage from Jack Merridew, and after what could be interpreted as insults to me from Jayvdb and Sceptre and MSGJ, I apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking he might be Jack Merridew. No insult was intended to Someguy1221. I think I behaved quite civilly, considering.
I would like Sceptre and Jack Merridew to stay away from me. One thing I was never able to bring up at my user RFC (which was apparently closed by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comments) is that last May after I got into an argument with Sceptre's friend Seraphim, Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim. Then Jack Merridew commented, while banned. Sceptre mentioned that "badger ring" just a while ago at WT:RFA.
Jack Merridew has already been ordered by Arbcom to stay away from one editor. And I want him to stay away from me, although that may be a matter for RFAR and not ANI.
I didn't disrupt WP:N like Karanacs claimed, I never called Bignole "pathetic", and Masem apparently only opened that AE thread (yet another thread Masem has started where zero action as taken) because I told Bignole that Bignole's recent actions at Talk:List of South Park episodes (which Arbcom explicitly mentioned in E&C1, an arbitration case Bignole was an involved party of) might violate the ruling of that case.
Um, my "involvement" in E&C1 was when I stated that I would not be taking part in said discussion because I didn't have the time to devote to it. So, please stop saying that I was an "involved party", because I wasn't. I have one comment, which was given right when it opened. I never ventured back to the page again. Secondly, I made not "actions" on the List of South Park episodes. Discussions of mergers is not a violation of anything, especially when I did not start said discussion of merger. The E&C1 says, "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Dicussing a merger is exactly that. As for the "pathetic" bit, you called my actions "pathetic", which is the same thing as calling me pathetic. I let it slide, but considering that that wasn't the last time you said that to me at the LoSPe page, that was why I filed that Wikietiquette alert about your behavior. The fact that you cannot even recognize when you are being incivil to other editors shows that there is a problem. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You're listed as an involved party of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. In that arbitration case, List of South Park episodes was explicitly mentioned by Arbcom. On March 18, 2008 at Talk:List of South Park episodes I told you "This article was explicitly mentioned by Arbcom in E&C1, an arbitration case that you were an involved party of. A new request for arbitration or arbitration enforcement may be in order, since you apparently refuse to let it go." Six hours later, Masem started an AE thread about me. And once again, a thread started by Masem about me resulted in no action. And no, if I think an action you do is pathetic, that is not the same thing as thinking that you are pathetic. It's the action I disagree with. --Pixelface (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I know that Jack Merridew has done some shady things in the past. I also know that, for the last ten months or so, he's scrupulously kept his nose clean. All the evidence suggests that he's a reformed character and almost certainly innocent of continued misbehaviour, and deserves to be treated with the same respect and decency given to any other productive member of Misplaced Pages. Having a bad record does not make him an open target for your frivolous allegations.
You made a baseless accusation in a very public place rather than going through SPI like you should have. You dragged an innocent person into your attack on Jack Merridew. You insisted on a second checkuser after the first one told you something you didn't want to hear and called another editor's impartiality into question in the process. When conclusively proven incorrect you refuse to apologize to the person you've wronged and continue to insist he's currently sockpuppeteering. And throughout the whole thing you have not provided the community one shred of evidence that you were actually acting in good faith; you refuse to, because apparently Jack might use it improve his nonexistent socking campaign. Personally, I think if your "evidence" was ever released the community would ridicule it as obviously desperate and contrived flim-flam.
Now you say you want Jack Merridew to leave you alone. Well, why don't you leavehimalone? Why provoke him into "sneering" and troutslapping you with this muck-raking, when otherwise you have not much to do with him at all except maybe the odd encounter in policy and guideline talk pages?
You are in the wrong here, Pixelface, and your behaviour is getting more and more obnoxious. It needs to stop. For your own sake, listen to all these people who say your behaviour is poor and consider they may have a point. Otherwise, one day, you'll go that one step too far and wind up with a lengthy block. ReykYO!01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It probably would best for those on both sides to disengage and avoid each other. Misplaced Pages is a big place and as such there are plenty of articles needing improvement and people can and should focus on what interests them while ignoring those trying to bait them. There's been clear incivility and escalation all around and nothing good or bipartisan is coming from anything. As I've suggested above, we should focus on specific article improvements. We should not just beat dead horses on ANI. Pixelface had suspicions, checkuser didn't confirm them and he said he was wrong and apologized on his talk page. All this thread is doing is escalating things. When I recently asked for admin input on ANI when I suspected canvassing, the editor in question notified other editors and that's that. Just as I asked a question in my thread title rather than asserting he had done wrong as if it were a fact. No need to assume I'm right and no sense going on and on any further against him. I should not and have no interest in demanding anything else or needlessly escalating things. I had a concern, it was addressed and that's that. It shouldn't be about venue shopping or trying to squash our opposition. Thus, this thread too is moving away from constructive discussion and is not going to result in anything worthwhile by continuing it. I hope that Pixelface consults with trusted editors before making any accusations public that may be unwise to make and I hope that editors on both sides will not be incivil toward each other. Moreover, I hope that editors will devote the bulk of their energy to improving articles rather than adding to a battleground atmosphere in discussions. And finally, it would indeed be wise if the various editors with argumentative pasts avoid provoking each other further, and I mean all of us. Let's start the week on a good note, disengage from escalation, and all see how many DYK, Good, and featured articles we can get! Sincerely, --A Nobody04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this entire long discussion can be summed up with this sentence found in the first paragraph:
Let me put it this way. Suppose I were to accuse you and some random editor of being the same person. Then, when proven wrong, I profusely apologize to the other editor but sullenly refuse to apologize to you. And when asked why I thought the other editor was your sockpuppet, I refuse to answer, saying "Ikip will just use the information to continue his sockpuppeteering". You'd say I was gaming the system, assuming bad faith and being provocatively nasty to you. You'd be justified to feel that way. Well, that is exactly how Pixelface has behaved toward Jack Merridew. ReykYO!08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Meh, this is a mess. Reyk, I doubt you're going to get the concrete resolution you want here. I'd recommend filing a WP:RFAR. This has gone through plenty of channels and I don't see anything short of arbitration putting down something strong enough to stop his behavior. The thread here has degenerated rather badly, and is far too muddled with random accusations for an outside observer to make any sense of it. A RFAR would be a better and more organized step. — sephiroth bcr08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, Jack Merridew actually has not "kept is nose clean" for the last ten months or so, but that doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I never said Jack Merridew was, in fact, operating the account Someguy1221. My comment at Someguy1221's RFA, which you seem so enraged about, was on that page for a total of 40 minutes. And I did go to WP:SPI after MSGJ suggested I do so. My comment was not baseless. My email to Dominic was over 200K and apparently Dominic felt it was reason enough to run a checkuser. I apologized to Someguy1221 two days before you started this ANI thread. I emailed my evidence to the checkuser I was planning on emailing my evidence to. Apparently Jack Merridew couldn't wait and decided to contact one of his mentors first. And checkusers cannot "conclusively prove" that one user is not another. I provided my evidence to Dominic. I don't need to provide you, or the "community" with any of it. And I expect Dominic to not provide you or the community with it either.
I think it's safe to say that me and Jack Merridew know more about our interactions than you do. They go back to December 2007, when I contributed to the case pages of E&C1, where I ran into Jack Merridew while he was a banned user, talking to White Cat. Jack Merridew was banned in May 2007 for harassing White Cat, and was ordered by Arbcom to avoid that user as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008. You probably don't know that Jack Merridew followed me around to AFDs in March 2008, much like he followed White Cat around.
I was wrong about Someguy1221. I admitted I was wrong. I apologized. And by the way, there are only two editors on Misplaced Pages I've ever seen use the word "churlish." There's you. And the other is a friend of Jack Merridew. --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to vilify a person in a very public place that has nothing to do with the sockpuppet investigation process, potentially torpedoing another user's RfA in the process, then it's only natural to expect that the audience for your attack on Jack Merridew might want to see some justification. And you seem to think that you can justify your present poor behaviour towards him by repeatedly rehashing the same stale litany of his misdeeds from over a year ago. It doesn't work that way. Just because he's done some things in the past does not entitle you to make accusations willy-nilly. You seem to be incapable of understanding that you've wronged Jack Merridew as much as you wronged Someguy1221 and that Jack's equally deserving of an apology, not continued personal attacks and more accusations of continued sock-puppeteering. As for me staring this ANI two days after your post at the RfA, I thought it would be proper to run it by him first. Not that that has anything to do with anything. Finally, I don't know why you would mention the fact that I use the word "churlish" but it could be taken as yet another insinuation of the same kind. I hope that's not what you're getting at, and if it is I advise you to quickly and quietly drop it. ReykYO!22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND has gotten so bad that people tend to assume bad faith and refuse to apologize for anything, because their apology will be used against them as evidence of their bad behavior. I disagree. I really appreciate some acknowledgment from Pixelface that some of the things he said were incivil, at least to one editor. Let's just drop it for now, because the goal is to correct the bad behavior rather than engage in a witchhunt. Everyone deserves another chance if they acknowledge they got carried away. If Pixelface tones it down and stops focusing on the character/intelligence of other editors in discussions about content/policy, we won't have any problems. Moreover, I think he might actually find that he'll attract more bees with honey than with a stick. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
General comment: I have two concerns with what seems to be double standards in this thread:
Outrage over unsubstantiated sockpuppet allegations: Pixelface suspected sockpuppetry; checkusers did not substantiate these suspicions. Pixelface acknowledged his error and apologized. So, he gets a big trout on his userpage (by the way, the same editor trouted Pixelface before...), and taken to ANI... Now, I have had four checkusers done on me. One confirmed my two alternate accounts that have been abandoend since 2007 and another said an account that never edited at the same time as my main account was only "likely" me (that account is also inactive). Yet, in there, I have had a few accounts alleged to be mine on even more baffling of grounds than Pixelface's suspicions regarding these other users. Checkusers naturally did not subtantiate these accounts either and in fact if one editor's username and userpage is correct, he is not even on the same continent as me! So, should someone demand that apoligies be given to User:ISOLA'd ELBA, User:Testmasterflex, and User:Fairfieldfencer? Should those who made unsubtantiated allegations against these editors be blocked for filing frivolous requests? If not, then we should not be up in arms over Pixelface's suspicions as well.
Concern over suspected incivility: I do not blindly support editors because they are fellow inclusionists. When I asked him to refactor a statement he made, he did indeed stike the word in question. Indeed, incivility should not be acceptable from any of us; that should be a bipartisan stance. As such, it strikes me as not right to demand Pixelface be civil while ignoring how he has been personally attacked and baited by a multitude of editors. Here are just some relatively recent examples: Pixelface opposed in an RfA and so a user says to Support per Pixelface, obviously mocking the opposer (imagine saying to oppose in an RfA because someone supported the candidate...); regarding the same RfA, another editor accused Pixelface of having OCD (a mental disorder); another editor made a play on Pixelface's username and called him "egg on face"; another editor called it an "oddity" that someone would be nice to Pixelface and later referred to Pixelface as "Agitated Toilet Dwarf'; he has had disgusting talk page personal attacks made against him; notice the edit summary as well; etc.
Thus, what we should be saying is that 1) everyone should be more careful about throwing around sockpuppetry accusations; however, at the same time making the accusations especially if an editor in question has a certain kind of past, should not result in sanctions and in all instances if the allegations are not substantiated apologies probably should be made; and 2) everyone should be urged to be more civil and to avoid their opponents. It should be clear that Pixelface should refrain from insulting editors, but it must also be made clear that we will not tolerate personal attacks or baiting of him either. Now as I said above, everyone should try more of the carrot approach and if not then just disengage from opponents. Best, --A Nobody23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why you're calling me out, considering I'm all for letting Pixelface get off by acknowledging some wrongs. But I think you've failed to recognize two factors that distinguish Pixelface's wrongs from others:
after accusing someone of being a sock, he went out of his way to freeze out and isolate one of the editors. That's not only a continuing assumption of bad faith on his part, but it's the epitome of violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND by using the selective apology to fuel a grudge against that editor. He'd have been better off not apologizing to anyone at all, rather than offering this kind of backhanded apology.
His civility is a repeated problem, and indiscriminately targets anyone who disagrees with him. People he has virtually no history with, and certainly no history of being incivil towards him, will find themselves on the receiving end of a personal attack, or an incivil snide remark about their intelligence or honesty. I agree with you that no one is without sin, but we give much more attention to repeat offenders.
Now, I think there's been progress if Pixelface recognizes that he hasn't been civil. And like I said, I think this problem would all go away if Pixelface focused more on the substance of Misplaced Pages in talk page discussions, rather than peoples' character or intelligence. But we have to stop with this false equivalency of "everyone is to blame, so no one is to blame". Some people are clearly bigger problems than others, and have not yet taken personal responsibility. Again, it's not about doling out penalties. It's about Pixelface finally taking responsibility for a consistent pattern of bad behavior. I'm glad that you finally agree that Pixelface should refrain from insulting other editors. But if others are prodding him, he needs to learn to resolve those conflicts productively rather than turning every comment that irks him into a battle. If you're suggesting that one insult will give Pixelface a free pass to go buck wild on anyone he wants for the remainder of tat discussion, or that one person's past transgressions will give Pixelface a free pass to indefinitely treat them like dirt, then we're never going to foster a positive environment where we can build consensus. In fact, the bad attitude will spread to other editors, unless we put a stop to it every time it reaches a boiling point. Randomran (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Randomran, where did you think I was calling you out? My post above was a general reply to the thread in general and not directed at anyone specifically. It is below your post solely because your post was the bottommost post when I posted my overall thoughts about the discussion as a whole. Anyway, my recommendation is that everyone refrain from incivility and personal attacks and that those with obviously tense pasts either make good faith efforts to reach out to each other or disengage from each other altogether. We spend too much time going back and forth on ANI, guideline talk pages, and in AfDs as a whole that really could be more effectively spent actually improving articles. Maybe it would be best if all of us involved in some of these disputes to let others give them a try and instead focus on article improvement. Best, --A Nobody02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that was a little confusing. Try to keep Misplaced Pages:TALKPAGE#Indentation in mind, because it usually indicates who you're replying to or which thread of thought you're following. It's not always best to just tack your comment onto the bottom. ... as for this situation, as much as I think a blanket warning is accurate, I don't think it's appropriate to just skirt over the repeated problem with Pixelface. When an editor is the victim of incivility, should they: (A) hold an indefinite grudge with the incivil editor and treat their opponent poorly until they feel vindicated, or (B) use that incivility as an excuse to be belligerent to everyone that disagrees with them? My answer is neither, and probably points towards WP:DR. But I'm legitimately curious to know what you think. We can only make progress here if your recommendation is specific. Otherwise it's just an abstract re-statement of our policies, and you shouldn't be surprised when that accomplishes nothing except postpone the AN/I until next time: with Pixelface acting incivilly, and someone jumping in to say "that's okay, other people are doing it too". Randomran (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Seriously, where is this heading? If it settles in polite agreeement (or even polite disagreement) between the parties, then all is well. But if this is likely to fester into Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 3 then maybe a small arbitration now is better than a big arbitration later. As most of the participants know, I've got no dog in this race. But a small case is bigger than a big case. Can (and will) this dispute get resolved amicably on the community level? Durova04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, a small case will be dismissed. A good, clear, specific warning would accomplish more than a small case. Even if it affects multiple people, a warning would be helpful so long as it is specific. "Everyone drop it and be nicer" is probably the best way for this problem to keep going until it hits something big. Randomran (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see this getting dismissed if it goes to arbitration. The combative attitude is pretty apparent and the exhaustion of all previous aspects of dispute resolution (WQA, RfC/U, ANI) would give such a case some credibility. I'd like to agree with Randomran in that the notion that everyone can "drop it and be nicer" is plausible, but I don't see anything short of arbitration changing behavior at this point. — sephiroth bcr07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I think "drop it and be nicer" would be a complete failure, inviting more minor incidents before another explosion. But I don't think ArbCom will be effective, because the other methods of dispute resolution have been undone by the WP:BATTLEGROUNDish defense of "if other people are bad, then Pixelface is allowed to be bad too". I'm not sure why ArbCom would be any different, and would likely end in "we don't take the case... everyone drop it and be nicer". And I've already told you where that will lead. Randomran (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The main problem is that the battleground defense is used when it doesn't even apply. I've been accused of chronic incivility twice in this discussion, for example, but no one can show evidence of me being chronically incivil (or even occasionally). Do I hold opinions that Colonel Warden and Pixelface detest? Certainly. Do I consider undoing redirects on articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT without making any effort to repair that failure to be disruptive editing? Certainly. Do I think trying to hide the fact that you are doing so by not putting it in your edit summary is deceitful? Absolutely. Am I uncivil about it? No.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the whole point of arbitration is to put down something binding and concrete that is a bit more substantive than "drop it and be nicer". Again, I don't know why you think ArbCom wouldn't accept this. There has been multiple avenues of dispute resolution that have been exhausted, and as Protonk emphatically said below, this is a conduct issue, which is what ArbCom was made for. — sephiroth bcr22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, Arbcom's ruling in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters wasn't substantive at all. It kind of was "drop it and be nicer." Which is why I thought Bignole should not be at Talk:List of South Park episodes pushing for a merge. Incidentally, in December 2007, I said "I think if this decision mentions List of South Park episodes, the South Park episode articles will be the next target for the merge tag/redirect tactic.", and Jack Merridew, while banned, replied "The rest of your post is merely a massive assumption of bad faith."
At my user RFC, which was instigated by Jack Merridew, the four certifiers (Masem, Protonk, Sgeureka, and Sceptre — notice that Masem contributed to E&C2, Sgeureka was an involved party of E&C1, and Sceptre was an involved party of E&C1 and E&C2 and at Someguy1221's RFA (and I would like to stay away from me)) never explained which dispute it was that they all tried to resolve with me and failed. And E&C1 and E&C2 didn't resolve any disputes. Arbitration cases typically do not resolve disputes. The dispute died down for the most part when TTN was placed under editing restrictions for six months, and then when TTN stopped editing Misplaced Pages altogether.
I'm disheartened that we seem to come to the conclusion that PF's hostility toward JM is okay because JM socked before. This isn't just accusations at Someguy's RfA (which can poison the well like all get out). almost every thread w/ the two of them includes the same tired litany of JM's former socks and PF's insistence that JM's contributions are null and void because of it. Taken by itself, an accusation of socking isn't actionable, and it shouldn't be. Presuming that some reasonable grounds fos suspicion might exist (and you could argue they did), we should not generate a chilling effect for accusers. But this wasn't isolated. PF seems incapable of engaging w/ "deletionists" without trotting out JM's past misbehavior and incapable of dealing w/ JM without having things descend into a slugfest. JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop. Also. STOP CONFLATING THIS WITH CONTENT. Stop stop stop stop. This isn't a content issue. This is a conduct issue between editors who happen to stand across a content divide. The content issue is an impetus, not the crux. This isn't a potential E&C 3 and I'm good and tired of hearing that all conduct issues between deletionists and inclusionists be resolved as content issues or dismissed as based hopelessly in wiki-philosophies. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, Protonk is a smart guy. This isn't E&C3, and it isn't a hopeless content dispute. But how many times does a good point get undermined by other peoples' petty bickering? How are we going to actually stop this? Randomran (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That's easy. Everyone stops baiting and being incivil to each other and when someone is incivil to us just ignore them and not feed into it. If we start ANI threads and all, then we're just letting people get to us and in turn we're spending oodles of time on something other than rescuing articles or bringing them to DYK, GA, or FA status. The wisest course of action is to not even humor comments made in bad faith and to absolutely not make any ourselves. Sincerely, --A Nobody18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Pixelface doesn't stop making incivil comments, and often one or two "comments made in bad faith" are used as an excuse for him to lash out indiscriminately. At what point are we going to draw a clear line and say it cannot be crossed? At what point do you say to Pixelface "next time someone makes a negative comment, you need to learn to take it to WP:DR instead of storming across the line of good behavior?" Because as far as I can tell, it looks like you've chosen to make excuses for Pixelface no matter how many times he crosses the line. Are you saying he should learn, or are you saying he doesn't have to? Randomran (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Pixelface should maintain civility, but so should everyone else who discusses with him. What I have found is that those who have reached out to him rather than starting ANI and RfCs against him actually are able to work constructively with him. Taking people to admin boards tends to make the person brought to the boards resent those doing the bringing. And when it seems like those of different stances are ganging up in those threads and excusing the behavior of those of similar leanings, but anyway, in most istances I think we should take the "not even dignify with a reply" approach when people make unhelpful comments. Best, --A Nobody22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that Pixelface has recognized that he's been incivil, and I'm glad you think he should stop doing that. I also agree with you that everyone should be civil. And while I recognize that Pixelface resents these AN/Is, nobody has the right to be incivil to anyone who participates in an AN/I against them. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and someone's past bad behavior to you is not licence to behave badly towards other people. If he really resents these AN/Is and RFCs, he should stop being incivil -- provoked or not. Learn to disengage, or take it to WP:DR. Don't shift the discussion to peoples' character, and don't insult other people. We can agree to make that clear to everyone, especially repeat offenders like Pixelface... can't we? Randomran (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Typically, I only say something uncivil if someone else says something uncivil first. If nothing happens to the first editor, why punish the second? --Pixelface (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the second editor has worn out that excuse from overuse. Because the second editor's incivility recurs more often. Because the first editor may have already been dealt with, and the second doesn't get to hold a prior resolved issue over their head indefinitely, let alone use it as an excuse to treat the first editor badly. Because the second editor gets overly frustrated by the first editor, and makes the mistake of lashing out at otherwise civil third parties. Because Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Because escalating the conflict often drags talk page discussions off topic, and prevents other cooler heads from reaching a consensus. Because escalating the conflict reliably fails to produce a consensus. Because there are other methods of dispute resolution available. Because the second editor should know better by now.
I'm not even saying any significant action needs to be taken, because you obviously appreciate that you've crossed the line more than a few times. Despite accusations of bad faith from your friends, most of us are not on some ideologically minded crusade to expel, silence, or cripple you. But I'm asking you, politely, for the benefit of Misplaced Pages: can you avoid deriding other editors, avoid taking the WP:BAIT, use WP:DR, and generally stick to making counter-arguments rather than talking about other editors? Or would you rather keep coming back to AN/I? Randomran (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Pixelface and The Team continually dredging it up. The AC has unbanned me and Pixelface et al need to accept that. That they do not puts them in violation of the unban motion re myself. I have made a few 'humourous' comments re Pixelface in reply to provocation; some have cast these as 'mocking' — but I've been quite tame, really. Now it is true that I don't much like Pixelface and view him as highly disruptive, but I'm not after his balls here; I want him to cut it out — 'it' being well discussed above and in the various threads and issues covered.
See these two diffs;
In spite of not agreeing with much of what you said, I was impressed with with it. It has changed how I see you. Cheers (and goodnight), Jack Merridew
My reply may have changed how you see me, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Cheers, --Pixelface
I have tried turning the other cheek and have been slapped again for the effort.
Also, he's commented about the sock motif of my user page, offended at the lulz, it would seem. It is humour. A similar message box graced my user page for 8 months and I got used to it. It is about being straight about my past, something A Somebody Else is not doing. Has anyone noticed this image at the top of my user page? And the alt-text assigned to it? Motif of harmful sensation. Pixelface & Co. can not abide my presence on this site and are going all-out to thwart my return.
Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Jack Merridew and The Team continually dredging it up. The RfC did not proceed and Jack Merridew et al need to accept that.
On wikipedia edit conflict it is important to make yourself sound like the victim.
Regarding this not being about content, recently there were three editors who regularly deleted articles and were talking about another editor. These three editors said they must seperate out the behavior from the content, and if it became a content issue then the chances of punishing this editor (i.e. shutting him up) had no chance.
So who has successfully portrayed themselves as a victim here?
Have the editors who tend to delete sucessfully seperated Pixelface's behavior from his ideology and contributions, which these same editors strongly oppose? Ikip (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean Ikip, but the last time Pixelface directed an apology my way it went "I apologize if anyone was offended by my comment, but I would not want any of the fucking readers of the Genderfuck article to be fucking offended by my fucking comments. Fucking thank you for your fucking time." . He !voted to delete, FWIW, and I !voted keep. I see the issue with his behaviour there as one thing, and the substance of his views as a second. Are you suggesting that the fact that I consider his behaviour to have remained fundamentally unchanged is somehow tangled up with my disagreement with his views about notability? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Pete, did you read what I wrote to you at my user RFC? And that was the first of two times in total that I have used the word "fuck" on Misplaced Pages. You were the first editor to ever start an ANI thread about me, and you didn't contact me about that thread either. And people in that ANI thread thought that comment was funny, as it was intended. Clearly your opinion about it has remained unchanged. --Pixelface (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Your fellow Australian didn't seem to know about your history before he started this thread. And the history between me and you is actually not well-known. I accepted that Arbcom unbanned you months ago. And I'll let the editors on the receiving end of your "humourous" comments determine how "tame" they've been.
I want you to leave me the hell alone. You and Sceptre. I don't want you following me to any more AFDs. I don't want you talking about me to other editors. And what I said was true: My opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. If the sock motif on your userpage is "humour", WHO thinks it's funny? Do you suppose White Cat think it's funny Jack? I can "abide your presence" just fine. And I'm not out to "thwart" your return. I am just sick and tired of you harassing me, like you've harassed other users.
I had reason to believe that Someguy1221 might be you. You contacted Jayvdb before I had gathered all my evidence together. Next time, I'll go to SPI rather than leaving a comment at RFA (which was only there for forty minutes). Please do not edit my user talkpage any more. --Pixelface (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Enough of this bickering. It's not going anywhere. Jack, Reyk, or whoever still has a beef with Pixelface, file a RFAR if you want to proceed on the issue. If not, then this thread should be closed. No impartial observer can make heads or tails of it with people sniping at each other, and nothing concrete is going to come of it. — sephiroth bcr23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Protonk, I never got to go into detail at my user RFC about Jack Merridew's interactions with me because it was archived while I was busy doing better things with my time. Do you think it's unreasonable to think that an editor who has lied about socking in the past may be socking now? And I have NEVER said that Jack Merridew's contributions are "null and void" because of his history. His article edits are fine. But his interactions with certain users are not fine.
He's already been ordered to stay away from one editor. His incivility towards me started during E&C1 while he was banned. And his hounding of me started in March 2008 during E&C2, when he followed me to several AFDs. Then "cute" messages about a "work assignment committee." After he was banned, he continued to monitor what I was doing and saying on Misplaced Pages, sometimes commenting on it to other users (like after Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim) While Jack Merridew was petitioning to be unbanned, he even looked through my contributions and referenced an article about a newscaster that was up for deletion that I commented at. When Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned, I said Arbcom might as well open E&C3. After Jack Merridew was unbanned, he gave Gavin.collins a "D&D Barnstar for great justice and epic lulz." Three days after he was unbanned, he told another user "A lot of WikiProject will morph into WikiaProjects. That's what Pixel's so afreaid of." After he was unbanned, I contacted him about Wikia, and he started at thread at WP:FICT called Articles for Wikia to bother me. He also referred to one of my comments as an "inclusionist manifesto" and contacted Jimbo Wales to scare me. And Jack Merridew did instigate my user RFC after he was unbanned. Plus "trout slapping", twice. Then "jeers" and "sneers." And that's just off the top of my head.
I can engage with "deletionists" just fine thank you. Most of their ideology is built around treating notability guidelines as if they were policy (or a legal document), and they're not. But I think this particular ANI thread is more related to nationalism than some people think. --Pixelface (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(<--) Okay, I am an unaffected observer, and I see people arguing over something that has nothing to do with the original subject. I'm sort of confused about this. I believe that the best way to resolve this situation is to have Pixelface be mentored by an admin. That's it. No block, no fustration. The end of story. MathCool1001:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as one of Misplaced Pages's more experienced mentors, that approach is not advisable. Durova18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The incident that spurred Reyk to start this thread was resolved two days before Reyk came here. I really don't know what admin action Reyk expected by bringing it here. --Pixelface (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
this may be going of the point a bit but why has been mentions so much. If you lo0k at the date it was done surely it would be obvious that peeps have grown up since then. rdunnPLIB 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's part of the general problem. If you have ever expressed any sentiment like that, expect to never be able to live it down in these debates. It's frustrating to see people engaging in discussions then have a diff like that waved in their face as proof that they can't be arguing in good faith. Protonk (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no issue about living anything down. There is nothing, in itself, wrong with taking a stance on the Great Inclusionism/Deletionism Übersquabble. I think it's obvious to most participants in this discussion that dredging that up is just an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue (though it's a little bit alarming to see that at least one admin fell for it). My views on content quality have nothing to do with my views on editor behaviour. I don't really see the need to justify, apologize for, or hide my opinions on that account. ReykYO!22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
redpen keeps reverting. I have made the concession of the bio section being named early life. Having DOBs & marriage dates doesnt make her more likely to have her identity stolen. Mariage dates & DOBs are all throughout wikipedia. So please you alll intercede as redpen keeps reverting. Thanks. 70.108.79.147 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As I had to explain on my talk page here, user is demonstrating a patent unwillingness to work with others. IPs keep adding back in falsified material (violation of BLP) and repeatedly breaking 3RR for it (this is clearly laid out, diff by diff, at SPI). This has also caused Elisabeth Hasselbeck to be protected. IPs are also causing a bit of disruption by placing {{HELPME}} and {{adminhelp}} templates all over the place. I think a rangeblock is necessary here. MuZemike17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to work with others. I havent added false info. EH page is locked bc redpen successfully manipulated you all. I have not abused helpme or adminhelp tags. Y do u want to lock these pages but not tell redpen to stop editing the pages? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
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 Bugscarrots22:40, 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 Bugscarrots23:04, 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)
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 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)
It is a content dispute, and COI, neutrality and OWN dispute. As Looie496 said above, I made a reasonable edit, which was reverted. Then I restored previous tags, which was reverted. I tried to discuss, but motives were questioned and bad faith was assumed, so I requested mediation. Evidence of COI and non-neutrality? The many reasons given on the talk page. BTW, How many dollars per month in referral income do you receive from DreamHost?! Were you administrator of DreamHost's wiki? Do you have a closer relationship than most people? Are you patrolling to protect the article from all "wrong" opinions?! --Judas278 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You "tried to discuss" what, exactly? You have only posted on the article talk page twice (diff1, ) before today, and neither was an attempt to discuss anything. My reason for patrolling the article is that as a customer, I have knowledge of the company and how its system works. This is no different from a user of Windows patrolling and contributing to the article on Microsoft Windows. I have made a small amount of referral money over the years (along with thousands of other customers), but that in no way disqualifies me from contributing. In fact, most of my edits to the article have been to remove "referral spam". I am not an administrator of DreamHost's Wiki, although I was granted sysop privileges to police vandalism, but I have no special relationship with the company. I've been a customer since 2004, and that's pretty much the whole story. Again, none of these facts should prevent me from working on this article. You, on the other hand, have confirmed that you are a former customer with a beef. You have deliberately setup a Misplaced Pages account to edit the DreamHost article to denigrate the company you are unhappy with. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't made more than a handful of dollars per year for ages, and I donated most of it to charity (Susan B. Komen) because DreamHost matches donations. Anyway, you aren't a "newcomer" - you are just an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you have dispensed with any pretense of good faith and are now just wading right in with the personal attacks. I also see that you continue to edit the article with your agenda firmly in mind, ignoring any sort of consensus-building talk page discussion. I recommend that this SPA be blocked, or at the very least topic banned for abuse of editing privileges. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Another thing that occurs to me is that Judas evidently joined Misplaced Pages for the exclusive purpose of attacking a company of which he is a disgruntled former customer. Surely that is a significant conflict of interest? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
In his recent unblock request by template, Alastair has a given a very clear and helpful statement. I hope that those that have voted below will look at it. Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
But in one of his next posts, he follows it with statements like "For simplicity and ease, I will not be submitting Fram's decision and reasoning to block me to third party scrutiny. But it works both ways, others can't really raise it as evidence against me in future without putting me in the unfair position of not being able to defend myself without breaking NLT." Can someone please try to explain to Alastair that that is not how it works? His blocks, including the block for NLT, can be used as evidence in future disputes if needed (e.g., if he makes a new legal threat in two months time, then it is only logical that this one will be mentioned as well when discussing it). Furthermore, he can discuss the block as much as he likes and can have it scrutinized endlessly (although it has been quite thoroughly scrutinized by the editors in the next section and on his talk page already). If this block and what lead to it is discussed again, there is no objection to him e.g. stating "I said I would do X, and I meant it at the time", that's not a legal threat. On the other hand, stating "I repeat it, I will do X (or even I may do X) is a legal threat. SOmehow the difference between what is allowed and what not on Misplaced Pages seems to be completely missed by ALastair in many of his comments, and I would prefer that he stays blocked until those things are cleared up (perhaps mentoring or something similar?). But despite these objections, I let the community (i.e. an uninvolved admin) decide what to do with th unblock request, and will not object to an actual unconditional unblocking. Fram (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this does seem to be dragging on. Several administrators and editors have given Alastair examples of what he should write in the unblock template. Perhaps if he archives the current page and starts with a fresh template with no supplementary commentary (from him or anybody else)... Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 3 April 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. "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)
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 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. Durova20:11, 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. — neuro21:16, 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)
Endorse block The reason for WP:NLT is to diminish the chilling effect that such threats have to the editing environment; nothing that has been quoted from Alistair Haines has the effect of reducing the chill potential, but rather increases it when noting that the block should be apologised for. This editor does not appear to get it, and should remain blocked until there is some indication that they do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
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--Cailil12:26, 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 the 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 seen no movement towards this situation since the RfAr closed. Alastair's current block is bound-up with the RfAr's rulings. We can't resolve these matters for him - these are the site's core policies - it's up to Alastair to work through the ruling and sanctions. However, unfortunately attempting to reach resolution here feels like a test of the paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?--Cailil13:25, 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. Avruch19:08, 30 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--Cailil13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - this was an issue I raised last year at the ArbCom but was never properly or explicitly address by their findings--Cailil19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
My logic is that when the threat is retracted the underlying problem will remain. This is a good editor who has gotten himself into to escalating trouble because he doesn't agree with the ArbCom ruling. The whole reason for the legal rhetoric is that he doesn't feel the RfAr was fair. This is a case with 9 months of history - the threat wasn't out of the blue - it goes back to a failed attempt at mediation, a series of dispute resolutions that nobody here paid attention to, and quite simply it looks like Alastair was being wikibullied/harassed. WP:NLT is predicated on the retraction of all legal threats as much as it is on immediate indef blocking because of them. We need to hold out the possibility (as Durova has above) of a way back. In this case the only way back is through dispute resolution processes or a review and explanation of the RfAr in light of the continuing problems of the editors involved--Cailil14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If he's threatening legal action over an unfair arbcom ruling, or for any reason at all, then he stays blocked. Presumably he still has an avenue to challenge the arbcom ruling. But a legal threat ain't it. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugscarrots17:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. I'm not arguing with you BB. The thing is Alastair will most probably retract the threats and be unblocked. But the problem that caused them will continue and his breach of the ArbCom rulings will continue. So I'm assuming he WILL renounce the legal rhetoric but i'm saying that after that we need to look at WP:DR to make sure no further issues emerge in the future--Cailil19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that it's up to him. He has to decide how badly he wants to edit wikipedia. He can either behave or not. And if he won't cooperate, he can stay blocked. Baseball Bugscarrots06:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
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. Húsönd19:47, 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.logos19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal information? Was it, like, confidential information that you accidentally posted on your userpage for everyone to see and edit?! Húsönd20:07, 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.logos20:13, 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.logos20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If a duck does not want to reveal her duckness, you have no right whatsoever to expose her duckness, especially when you just assume he / she is a duck, without being 100% sure (if he / she is a goose?).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:54, 31 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)
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)
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.logos21:05, 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)
That's how we weed out the unfit. The third one was lost for a good cause though. And at least it's a blue link, not a red one. Húsönd18:28, 31 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL21:19, 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)
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. Prodego21:46, 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. Prodego23:48, 30 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 blue03:50, 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 blue22:12, 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. Húsönd22:22, 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 blue22:33, 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. Prodego23:48, 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. Prodego03:28, 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 blue03:45, 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.logos22:30, 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. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:36, 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.logos22:43, 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. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:39, 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. Húsönd23:01, 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)
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. Húsönd23:12, 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)
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)
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 and sip not blood, but wine. 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)
This is the worse thing you can do. if you want a "better" (I don't like "cleaner" as a term) Misplaced Pages, stay in, and fight for it. Don't let abominable list (sorry but I cannot fing a "gentler" word to characterize this thing) disappoint you.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is growing tedious. Frankly, I am used to seeing other nationalist groups canvass and vote en masse. POV editing - and make no mistake, when you bring your nationalist feelings to an article, you ARE pov editing, my friends - is antithetical and corrosive to the values we aspire to in Misplaced Pages. Every single time someone uses Misplaced Pages to push an ethnic or nationalist agenda, we should take a metal baseball bat to them (metaphorically-speaking, of course). Husond was none too graceful and less than perfect in pointing out the clearly displayed ego-icons of nationality, but he abso-frakkin-lutely did not out anyone. He is likely expressing a frustration most of us feel when a group of folk try to use Misplaced Pages for a use not intended. I feel it, too. If you are going to edit and vote your nationality, ethnicity, religioun, etc., be prepared to be bitch-slapped as hard as we can possibly muster. Thank His Noodly Appendage that we have a noticeboard for this sort of crap. - Arcayne()13:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Husond is an adm, and he knows rules, provisions and procedures. If he thought what you say he thought, he could and he can follow them. If you believe that his choice was the right one, and that this list is not a disgrace, than ok, we obviously believe in different Wikipedias.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that injecting one's nationality, ethnicity, etc into the editing process to promote aforementioned ethnicity. etc. is acceptable in Misplaced Pages, then you are indeed thinking of some other online encyclopedia. I didn't say that his method of pointing out the pov-editing (aka, DUCK) was graceful, but it wasn't wrong. Since he didn't OUT anyone, what "rules, provisions and procedures" are you of the opinion that he violated? - Arcayne()14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Read DGG's rationale in the MfD, and you'll understand exactly what I mean. And I did not say he "violated" them, but that he chose another path agaisnt the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and this is even worse.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading that if an admin is suspected of wrong doing then thier powers are temorarily removed whilst they are investigated. rdunnPLIB 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Husond has been kindly advised to voluntarily withdraw the list now. This would end the drama immediately, and I also think that it would be an action greatly appreciated by everybody here.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No. If there is serious concern that an admin account is compromised, or is there is evidence of extreme behaviour by an admin (going on a deletion or unblocking spree against all commonly accepted standards or something similar), then an emergency desysopping may be done. A temporary desysopping may also be done if e.g. ArbCom believes that there is sufficient evidence to indicate e.g. sokcpuppeteering by the admin. But complaints by a number of editors, no matter if they are correct, incorrect, or something inbetween, by itself never have lead to a temporary suspension of admin powers, certainly not when the actual complaint has little or nothing to do with the editor being an admin. Fram (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Various editors seem to have put unfortunate interpretations on this. No one is saying (or should be saying) that Greeks are wrong or bad in any way, nor is using the term FYROM. All that Husond has demonstrated is that the straw poll is non-representative of the wider Misplaced Pages community (which is not 50% of Greek descent). Given its location, that's not surprising. SHEFFIELDSTEEL14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
But it is offencive in that its singling out people unfairly in that Husond hasnt asked the users if he can reveal thier nationality. rdunnPLIB 14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If he knew nationalities not officialy disclosed, and he had revealed them without previously asking, then WP:OUT would have been more than self-evident.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
What else can be done? We can't advertise to the wider community as that would be deemed forum shopping. In my opinion, if you lose a poll take it on the chin and then perhaps a lot later try and convince others to come over to your point of view. Jack forbes (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. And IMO what Husond did is more in violation of WP:POINT than WP:OUTING. Personally, I don't feel like "going after him" (let's punish the bastard etc. etc.), but I do expect some gesture of good will. The voluntary withdrawal of the page would be the best one, and personally it would earn me.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Try also WP:HARASSing the users by parading them with flags attached to their names as some better remain unnamed progroms in some countries of the recent past where people had to carry signs of their ethnicity on their clothes. This is just the updated wiki equivalent. Dr.K.logos15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And I do feel the need to stress once more (knowing the danger to become boring, and irrelevant!) that one of the reasons this list (still abominable IMO) caused this wave of reactions (excessive for some of you, not for me; both opinions respectable) is that it touched sensitive aspects of the collective sub-conscious. "Φακέλωμα" was a plague for the Greek society for decades. People with such memories, experiences, stories from their families etc. etc. feel that they suffer the same things in Misplaced Pages by just facing this list. "Disgust" is the first thing I felt looking at it. The visual effect was extremely strong for me as well. Excessive? Maybe! But couldn't it be avoided? Did we need it? No! Husond had already made his point eloquently and clearly!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Point taken, and respected. Yet, I'm afraid whoever is called upon to call a "result" on that poll will have to do even more fakeloma: how many of the !voters are actually productive contributors, which are single-purpose accounts, which are continual drama llamas and which are notorious nationalist warriors. That, too, will have to be taken into account (and it is possibly even more pertinent than the mere nationality issue). Fut.Perf.☼15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Fut, please don't start another discusson about who is "productive", "revered" etc. Because this was an argument used in ChrisO's motion against Kekrops (how can we question the arguments of the "revered adm" against the "nationalist" Kekrops?!). Seeing some choices, actions, suggestions and arguments of both Husond's and ChrisO's, as well as your totally inacceptable initial comment against Avg, I really think that we should be very very careful when trying to categorize users into small boxes. Finally, I also feel that it was a huge mistake of yours to ask for the topic-ban of both Avg and Kekrops, and I am happy both these requests were wisely rejected.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(Just a note: "revered" is probably not quite the word you want here. Try "respected" :-) -- As for Avg, I stand by my opinion. He should have been banned long ago. And there is unfortunately no polite way of describing why. Fut.Perf.☼15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, here is the problem as I see it. If we start going down the road of naming voters nationalities the next step may be their religious affiliations. Shall we then be asking if they are Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc? I don't think that would go down too well in some circles, why should this be any different? Jack forbes (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If there ever were a political decision that were equally transparently divided between factionalised groups, then yes, evidently, we should talk about it. Just like when dozens of Muslim users came to demand we should not use pictures of Mohammed. Of course we named the obvious fact that those people were all Muslims. Fut.Perf.☼15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Because the saving grace of Misplaced Pages is that because it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the articles borne out of that effort are neutral in that a mélange of viewpoints are represented, thus finding the objective neutral ground. When nationalist/ethnic/religious groupies band together to push a specific viewpoint, it skews away from objective neutrality. And, since it has been repeatedly (and incorrectly) suggested that Husond named these editors' nationalities, it needs to be reiterated that the users themselves have self-identified as being of the nationality/ethnicity noted. Husond only saw a patten and pointed it out. If you don't want your nationality/gender/ethnicity/sexual preference used in arguments that utilize those viewpoints (and shame on you for bringing your personal beliefs into articles to begin with), keep those identifying parts to yourself. It isn't rocket science. - Arcayne()15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Do not forget that there were also others listed who did not make this information readily available in their userpages, but they were inferred to be Greek by Husond... NikoSilver15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And quite rightly they were. Get real man, don't pretend you are not yourself categorising your fellow editors in that way. Everybody who edits regularly in these domains does. Everybody knows who the "Skopians" are, who the Bulgarians are and who the Turks are in this game. Are you going to make me dig out links where you yourself and your friends talk about each other in precisely these terms? Aren't you the person who had an ethnic editor blacklist in his own userspace until quite recently? Fut.Perf.☼15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Does the WP community know that Husond had accused all Greek users of being a "fiercely opposing" and "unnecessarily politicizing" faction in the very background section of the poll he initiated? He didn't even have the decency to use it in his own "support position", but he had to slap it in the (supposed-to-be-NPOV) background section, for all to read! Is it moral and correct to discourage future visitors of the page from voting "oppose" because they will be characterized as joining this ...faction? Doesn't this render the poll stained, biased and nullified? And, btw, where is the sense of fair-play, where's the chivalry? How shameful... NikoSilver16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(Isolated) comment: Merely noting that the page is definitely not racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question is how should Misplaced Pages handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - Ev (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The name of a certain lovely country in Southeast Europe certainly does seem to raise an excess of drama every time it is named, and this frustrates everyone involved, but the way to resolve these disputes is not to lump all editors from an adjoining lovely nation as "those people" and assume none of them are amenable to reason. It only makes it more difficult for reason and reasonableness to prevail in the discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Jonathunder, of course. But lumping toghether "all editors from X nation" is not what is happening here. Instead, we're dealing with a specific group of Greek users active in this long drawn-out naming issue, who happen to reflect the attitudes of a certain sector of Greek society. Closing our eyes and pretending that this is not the case only makes it even more difficult to reach a solution, as we would not be addressing the real problem. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes of course. How could I be missed amidst all these over-generalisations? What specific group am I supposed to be a member of? This is the absolutely first time I entered in such a poll. But since I am Greek I must automatically belong in whichever group "these people" belong to. This discussion is unreal. Dr.K.logos18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The only way to make reasonableness prevail in that case is if the decision is finally taken out of the hands of those who have their own nations' political interests at stake in it. So, please, please, everybody, instead of wondering why people get so heated over this, come and decide this for us. Enter your judgment on that poll. Make the national factions a minority in the process. I don't care if you decide it this way or the other. You can vote at random, for all I care. I just want this decided by somebody other than them. Fut.Perf.☼18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a formal straw poll that has been advertised at a number of outside places, though as far as I know not formally through the RFC mechanism. Usually, RFCs in such issues have drawn negligible amounts of response, so I can understand that nobody bothered this time. Fut.Perf.☼18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It might be a good idea nevertheless. Well, I shall take my time and read through the discussions, arguments and different points of view and will make a decision on that as to where my vote will go. Don't expect a quick vote. Oh, if someone insists on including my nationality after my vote please call me Scottish. That's my particular POV. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Now this is just being smug. He's gloating about how the MFD is petty and how he's gonna keep his page. Please help vote, i'm still wondering how he got to be an admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a question. How would people feel if an admin compiled a list of Jews editing Israel and slapped a big Star of David next to each of their names? Or a list of African Americans editing Barack Obama? Or a list of homosexuals editing same-sex marriage, pink triangles and all? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, here's an idea Husond. You are an admin and expected to help play down any controversy that gets out of hand. Why don't you delete the list you compiled and do just that? Or do you want this to go on and on? You are not doing your cause any good when everyone is concentrating on your controversial list (which doesn't seem to be getting much support) and not on the debate which brought on the straw poll in the first place. Either you act like an admin or you don't. Jack forbes (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure his pay grade requires him to listen to rude demands to obey. I know I'm not paid enough for that. I suggest you try to be civil, forbes. KillerChihuahua19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And I'm not sure you even read my post Chihuahua. I demanded nothing, I suggested it. Please be more civil yourself, it's not hard you know. Jack forbes (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Jack, you noted that admins are supposed to play down controversy that gets out of hand. Part of that is true; admins are supposed to step in when things get wacky and set a more appropriate tone. However, when they pick up the mop, they don't put blinders on. When they see clear pov nationalism going on, they - as anyone else - have a responsibility to point it out. Husond did so and proved it. One of the major points you are missing here is the idea that nationalism, ethnicity and religious background cannot are not a defense in editing. You are supposed to leave those at the sign-in page. If you cannot do so, you do not belong here. There are literally millions of forums where one can go to spew whatever little rant/tirade/bs you wish. Misplaced Pages is not a forum, and not a soapbox. When we see it, we are going to beat it like a rented mule. Every time. As we should. Whether Husond went about it in a ham-fisted way is secondary. Are you complaining that he should have had more grace in pointing out the clearly-identified pov? If so, I'd probably agree with you. If you are saying he was wrong for doing so, we are going to have to agree to disagree. - Arcayne()15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's all too well, but Husond had built his "case" way before that. He actually initiated the poll blaming Greek users . He even accused Greek users of "fraud" in this very topic we're discussing now, without of course substantiating his claims although I challenged him twice. It is very very clear Husond is preoccupied against Greeks and would do anything to invalidate Greek opinion. --Avg (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not intend to return to this subject but will do so in order to reply to your post. I have been looking at the Greece talk page to discover the reason for Husond's suspicions concerning pov nationalism. Basically it concerns the naming of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or as others would call it the Republic of Macedonia. There are editors over there who claim the Republic of Macedonia is the most common English language name of the country. I beg to differ, I have always heard it referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, whether that be in the news or football circles. Now, I'm just a wee Scottish guy with not a drop of Greek blood in me or even a visit to Greece on my cv who happens to agree with many of the points those so called Greek nationalists put forward. They also appear to have plenty of references to back up their POV, so why don't people who jump on the nationalist bandwagon have a look at the discussions that are ongoing and look at the evidence before they start listing peoples nationalities. I would be the first person to say it was nationalist pov if they had nothing to back up their opinions. Honestly, have a look at the discussion and evidence from both parties. Jack forbes (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If I could add one more thing. Arcayne, if you do have a look at the Greece talk page try and forget their nationalities and concentrate on the debate and references provided. You may conclude that you don't agree with them (or maybe you will) but I don't think you can say they don't make a good point. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Do not forget that there were also others listed who did not make this information readily available in their userpages, but they were inferred to be Greek by Husond... NikoSilver11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
He stated that they know Greek. If a user is writing in Greek (or any foreign language) on their user page, or revealing anything about themselves in any way, that info is fair game. Baseball Bugscarrots11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But still infering that someone is from somewhere where they are not shouldnt be is unfair.
ps (to Baseball Bugs) What I meant when I said "hasnt that been what has happened" was that the peeps who dont like it have scrutinised the page. rdunnPLIB 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the so-called "outing" is the complaint, which is a distraction from the allegation of collusion. It's the classic non-denial denial. Baseball Bugscarrots17:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to overcomplicate things. Husond hypothesis is that if you voted "oppose" to the abovementioned poll you must be Greek, because no one else could possibly have this opinion. For some users, he is right, they have the information available in their user pages. For others, he simply infers the information with criteria that are at least shaky and an intrusion to privacy. And finally, some others, who explicitly mention they are not Greek, he simply ignores. Funniest fact of all? Future Perfect at Sunrise himself speaks Greek. He should be categorised as a Greek by Husond's logic.--Avg (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, my niece speaks Greek along with several other languages, she's a lot smarter than her uncle. Would you think it right to classify her as Greek as Husond would have done when she has as much Greek blood in her veins as I have (none)? Don't you think that is assuming too much? Avg, are you saying I have been omitted from his list? I hate being ignored, it makes me feel so insignificant. :) Jack forbes (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The editor who compiled the list is trying to show a pattern of bias. Instead of griping about "outing", the supposedly biased editors should work on refuting the charge of bias. Griping about being "outed" rather than refuting the claim of bias makes it look like the claim of bias could be true. Baseball Bugscarrots18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Baseball bugs, how to refute something as absurd as "All Greeks are biased, therefore anyone who votes oppose must be a Greek, so I will put a flag beside each opposer name regardless if they are Greeks or not and I don't care if I offend some people, out some other or even be plain wrong"? Where to start really. False premises, false assertion, false methodology. A total mess.--Avg (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not outing. If Husond infers someone's nationality incorrectly, they can say "No, you're wrong". If he infers it correctly, that is evidence that any reasonable person could infer the same thing. Either way, nothing has been "outed". shoy (reactions) 00:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is specifically what WP:OUTING prohibits: "Do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information, as this would give the person posting the information – and anyone else who saw the page – feedback on the accuracy of the material.".--Avg (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I quote thusly "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment." If you use common sence then nationality should be added to the bracketed list. rdunnPLIB 08:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If such information is on their user page or is otherwise evident from their own work, then they can't claim "outing" - they "outed" themselves. Baseball Bugscarrots08:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is ridiculous. It's like somebody waving the Stars and Stripes, chanting "USA! USA!" and wearing an "I ♥ Uncle Sam" T-shirt accusing a person of "outing" them for calling them "American". If you don't want to be mistaken for a national or ethnic chauvinist on Misplaced Pages, then don't edit like one.--Folantin (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats NOT what i mean. what I am trying to say is that some people can be offended at being called "insert-nationality-here" and that it should be covered in wp:outing because someones national identity, to them, might be important. rdunnPLIB 10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If they make any personal fact about themselves known, then having it echoed back to them is the risk they take. The rule about "outing" cannot apply when you "out" yourself. Baseball Bugscarrots10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This kind of question arises from time to time, and it always turns out the same. If you say "I am 'A'" and someone else says, "That guy is 'A'", then the "outing" claim is false. If someone might be offended at having someone say, "That guy is 'A'", then they shouldn't post "I am 'A'" in the first place. Baseball Bugscarrots10:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
oh so if I claim that two users are from (for example) Germany when all the proof I have is the fact that they can speak German and I then claim to be from England when the only thing I know to be correct and when my assumption about the other two is incorrect and they turn out to be from France, and they find the suggestion that they are from Germany to be offencive, then they cancel each other out do they? (by the way I know its hypocritical for me to say this but I have family from all three countries, but this post is just an example of what could happen if someone didnt) rdunnPLIB 10:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The point is that there is an allegation of biased and blocked voting, and instead of addressing that, the response is a bogus complaint about "outing" - a non-denial denial as I said earlier. You all need to speak to the allegation of bias, and drop this "outing" nonsense. Baseball Bugscarrots11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. National and ethnic block-voting is a fact on Misplaced Pages and it's rarely to the advantage of reliable encyclopaedic content. Most admins turn a blind eye to it because they are more interested in internal Wiki-politics than trying to keep our articles free from being skewed by special interest groups. --Folantin (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's and the article Greece
I though first reporting this in the edit-warring noticebard, but I then felt that this is the best place, since edit-warring is not the only thing I wanted to present, and ask for your opinions and feedback. First let me say that I feel really badly, because this is the first time I come here as a "reporter", and especially reporting the behavior of another user.
Edit-warring is the first thing. Fut has, only for today, reverted the Greece article 3 times , ,. You can check his contributions for further edit-warring, e.g. in 2008 civil unrest in Greece we have 3 reverts during two days (I also reverted there twice in two days, which I regret). Some days, he was edit-warring in the Greece article for two issues simultaneously, the naming dispute, and the motto (just an example of his reverts on March 25: , !
But edit-warring is of minor importance for me, when we have to deal with "attitude" issues! Let's explain myself: Fut is insulting towards all the users who do not agree with him. He is impolite, non-civil, and tries to label them in any possible negative way. This remark of his against User:Avg is on the verge of being considered as a personal attack.
But the worse came today, and it is this statement of his:
"The situation is clear: there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned."
Read again: "... fight it out ... until one side is banned". As a member of "a local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity" I feel really offended.
How can these words be written by an administrator, and, especially, by the user who initiated the WP:ARBMAC? Is this the spirit of Misplaced Pages? Is this how we work and express ourselves here? I think the least Fut could do is to declare that he did not mean what his words say.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I totally mean it. The current case at Greece reveals a very deep-seated structural problem with the Misplaced Pages decision-making model: (a) The self-selecting nature of participation in decision-making means that things ultimately get decided by those who are most passionate about them. (b) Where editorial decisions affect POV interests of externally defined groups, such as nationalities or religions, it is naturally members of those groups who are most passionate. (c) This means that things get decided by people who have their own POV interests at stake. Under these circumstances, decision-making in contentious corners of the project is reduced to a stand-off between national factions according to force of numbers, and where one faction numerically dominates, it can create and defend its own POV islands. This can't be tolerated. As long as Misplaced Pages doesn't find a way to reduce the power of local POV cliques, I will protest and, if necessary, edit-war against them. Fut.Perf.☼12:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, just one tiny correction: I never "edit-warred" about the national motto on that page. I removed it exactly once, and then consensus for the removal prevailed on the talk page. Fut.Perf.☼12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
How is that? He is stating what a number of editors see as a serious problem on Misplaced Pages. What he says he will do seems, at the moment, if not the only thing to do about the problem, at least one thing that can be done by those with the stamina. Misplaced Pages is in danger of having walled gardens -- in fact, I believe it does have a number of walled gardens -- where our policies and guidelines are extremely hard to maintain if they can be maintained at all. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that he disrupts Misplaced Pages to make a point. However, let's take one step back. Is his point even remotely valid? Future claims he belongs to the moral majority of uninvolved editors who are pushed aside by a small ethnic faction. Has he even substantiated his claims? No. In fact when he's faced with arguments he resorts to personal attacks and threats. What actually happens is that he is a heavily involved party, subject of sanctions of WP:ARBMAC, whose three principles (Purpose of Misplaced Pages, Decorum, Editorial process) he has repeatedly violated. --Avg (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
By way of clarification, I absolutely agree: when the point is *invalid*, it most certainly doesn't deserve any disruption. Disruption in pursuit of an invalid point is the count buffoon's job; buffoons' labour union would be very unhappy about competition in that area. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think FP could do with a prolonged Wikibreak, to be perfectly frank. His erratic behaviour in recent weeks is a sign of increasing frustration and, sadly, loss of his formerly trademark German sangfroid. The FP of late is certainly not the FP we'd grown to know and love. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Although I tried to stay away and not involve in the current discussions, I see the situation is worsening and I'll comment as well. The cause of the problem is essentially the Macedonia naming dispute that is going on for years in the real world, but reflecting here in WP as well. In short (for those uninformed if there are any...), Greece objects the usage of name Macedonia by its neighboring country (Republic of Macedonia) everywhere in the real world (mainly because there is a region in Greece called with the same name) and, as a consequence, Greek editors here in WP strictly follow that Greek national policy and try to impose their POV as much as possible. However, before several years a WP community wide compromise has been reached and the country here in WP is referred to as Republic of Macedonia, a solution that balances between the option to reference the country as simply as Macedonia (that the Macedonia’s constitutional , it can be also said a self-identification name, and also widely used by English speaking people and media) and the provisional reference the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that was originally invented before several years and intended to be used in UN until the dispute is resolved (note that it is not a name, it is a provisional reference). However, from time to time there are regular disruptions caused by some Greek editors in order to impose their view (to change the WP policy of usage of Republic of Macedonia to FYROM). I must say it is pretty much irritating, it causes long and unproductive discussions involving politics, history, personal attacks, edit warring, page protections etc, etc… This is pretty much frustrating, it completely takes the time and desire to truly edit and improve those articles and I understand the FPS behavior in such circumstances (that is the reason why I'm always trying to stay away from this kind of discussions because they almost always don’t finish productively). This incident is a result of the long standing discussion on Greece article talk page when several editors (including FPS) tried to line up that article with the rest of WP articles (to use the same naming policy as in the rest of the Macedonia related articles) and it was fiercely opposed by Greek editors. So, we have a situation when all non-Greek editors from different places all over the world have an opposite view with the Greek editors (you can check the talk page to confirm this) and the situation is now even more complicated than it was at the beginning of discussion. I also think there is a problem here in WP because it seems it is very hard to produce neutral solution (there are no applicable mechanisms) when a group of editors (in this case grouped on national basis) is hardly pushing a solution without much concern about opposite views. About FPS, I think he is one of the most devoted, cool-headed and neutral editors involved in Macedonia’s related articles for years, you can check his edit history and see that he really spent hard time to keep those articles neutral and in good shape. These articles we are talking about will be a total mess without having assistance of neutral admins involved as much as FPS in the recent period. Therefore before any decision has been made, I urge neutral and uninvolved readers to dig in more in the history of this conflict, to extract conclusions on their own and probably all this mess should be resolved on a higher level (RfA looks appropriate to me).MatriX (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
MatriX,Please avoid tagging user with ethnic labels. How does anyone know what ethnicity/nationality we are dealing with? How do you know that FPS is no Greek? Can anyone prove anything? Perhaps. MatriX please remove your ethnic label, otherwise thank you for your contribution and good to have you on board.
I consider myself a neutral editor. I am a neutral editor. I follow established precedents and they say that depending on the context we use one of the two (or both) terms. If anyone can prove that I do not back my statements... prove it.Politis (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
While FP's choice of words could be qualified as — infelicitous — the problem he describes is real and has already led to a number of catastrophic disputes to the quality of the encyclopedia. Because of self-selection, pseudo-consensus forms around local "convection cells" of editors battling around a few very strong points of view, to the point of scaring away anyone with a semblance of neutrality. The constant abuse, disregard for policy, and aggressiveness in those walled gardens are so strong that few administrators dare venture in them, and are always unfailingly attacked for trying to preserve the encyclopedia.
FP should be commended for willingly trying to bring some neutrality and conformance to our core principles despite the organized and oftentimes vicious attacks that such attempts bring. The community should seriously consider methods by which the work of dedicated volunteers like FP could be supported; and perhaps consider improvements to policy to solve the longstanding problem of real-world disputes corrupting the encyclopedia before we burn even more admins and have to throw up our hands in defeat. — Coren13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Coren. Just a small point, I would want to stress that in this dispute I definitely do not consider myself as having ventured in "as an administrator". I'm clearly a party with my own opinion here - but it's an opinion not predetermined by my national allegiance, that's the point. – Apart from that, I can only repeat my plea of the other day: the only way, given present wiki procedures, to take the decision out of the hands of the partisans is to outnumber them. There's a poll that's still open. Please please, everybody who has not yet done so, I know it's a boring issue, but please go and register an opinion there. I truly don't care which side you decide, as long as we'll have a result that is not exclusively dominated by the national partisan vote. Fut.Perf.☼13:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the problem is that ArbCom constantly appear to frighten the useful users (inc. admins) away from this much more informal, yet equally important form of dispute resolution. The same goes for when ArbCom fail to recognise things that need to be recognised. For example, certain arbitrators seem to be unable, incapable or unwilling to fully support attempts to recognise or formally appreciate the ideal way things are meant to work, like here, when usually, that's not how it would work. Until each of the users who abstained (as well as that who despicably opposed) get it through their heads that the only kind of obligation on Misplaced Pages are those that are self-imposed, this will not change. If you want tireless voluntary self-appointed work to be recognised, then please do something more substantive yourself than just ask or talk about a need that it be recognised by everyone else. If ArbCom cannot fully support this sort of thing formally, then it's beyond me how any arbitrator can honestly expect the community as a whole to do so in the same fashion. As it is, although we have legitimate reasons to oppose certain RFAs, it seems we also have a large share of silly excuses too; attempts by the community to formally recognise/support admin-work would have a similar result. I do agree that FPS's work should be commended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I echo Coren's thoughts with respect to the general project-wide problem of clusters of ethno-nationalist editors attempting to circumvent NPOV through supposed consensus. In the instant case, though, the diffs cited by Yannismarou with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise's edits to Greece could indeed be construed as edit-warring, which I am sure he knows is never an appropriate solution for any problem. Sandstein 13:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For anything like this to have a meaning, the first argument in his whole reasoning has to be correct. And his first argument here is that (in this case) the Greeks are a minority turning consensus around to their favor, while all others are a majority unable to establish NPOV. The fact is that we all remain *unconvinced* of the veracity of this argument, and FP refuses to even discuss about proving it, or about the other side's opinion which he dismisses degradingly. Other than that, I totally support his rationale, and I'd do anything I could to support him in a similar case where I judged that there was collective POV pushing. In this case, however, he is terribly wrong, and the more public such a persistence becomes (like e.g. with this thread right above), the more third party opinions come with the Greek side (just check the last 3-4 oppose votes and their rationale). This is a serious indication he is wrong, which combined with the fact he doesn't want to discuss it, makes things even worse... BTW I also think very high of him, and he knows it. NikoSilver13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As Coren says, Future Perfect is just describing a real problem, and he should be commended for his efforts (and told to use better wording the next time). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that if FPS is to become a high profile case, then all his contributions - under all his user names, if applicable - should be examined. We should examin his method of seeking election, potential racial prejudice (where agreed) and swearing/intimidation tactics. My respectful feeling would be that he is best suited as an editor, not an administrator. He definetly seems to be pursuing something. Thank you all. Politis (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this affair shows the limitations both of Misplaced Pages policy and of existing arbitration remedies. Fut. Perf. is absolutely right to point out that we have what amounts to a "walled garden" of POV in articles relating to Greece, where Greek editors seek to impose a form of words that is consistent with the views of their government and nationalist parties. It's comparable to (for instance) Arab editors insisting on referring to Israel as "the Zionist entity" on all articles relating to Arab countries. Clearly this isn't acceptable; it's a fundamental violation of NPOV as well as a range of other policies, including our naming conventions. A number of Greek editors are indisputably using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to promote their faction's POV, in open defiance of our standing policies.
There's also no doubt that the provisions of the previous arbitration case on this issue - WP:ARBMAC - have been systematically violated. Each one of the principles set out by the ArbCom in that case has been broken by multiple editors. Bad faith is consistently being shown, wikilawyering is endemic, basic policy requirements are simply being ignored and external political dicta are being imported as justifications. Unfortunately, this is where arbitration enforcement appears to break down. We can deal adequately with individual editors, but when you have a dozen or more editors acting as an ethnic-nationalist block vote, admins appear (understandably) to be much more reluctant to impose some order.
The problem is endemic across Misplaced Pages; as well as established editors edit-warring on obvious articles such as Greece, we have a constant drizzle of vandalism from newly-registered editors or Greek IP addresses, often on articles with only a loose connection with Macedonia (such as Staffordshire University). A number of editors, including Fut. Perf. and myself, are monitoring these problems but face constant hostility from nationalists on both sides (predominately Greeks, it has to be said).
Unfortunately a second arbitration case is likely to be needed to address this problem. The creation of POV walled gardens by any group, be it an ethnic, religious or political one, is a problem we've had for a long time. It's the nature of these things that they cannot adequately be resolved within the walled garden - someone needs to knock down the walls. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the primary problem here is that Future Perfect is taking on more than one admin should. There should be 6 or 7 admins giving their attention to this particular national issue. Chillum13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I second that. A group of admins should work on Balkan-related articles, not — as quite frequently — Fut. Perf. alone.
If the issue is that much disputed, probably some kind of reference is needed to both solutions ONCE in every article. (According to the Greek government..., according to other sources the name is...) Squash Racket (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But FutPer is not acting as an objective adms my friends?! Could you explain me why is he now un-bolging the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia name from the Republic of Macedonia article without prior discussion?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As a recent newcomer to the Macedonia naming dispute I think that this complaint is unwarranted. On the Talk:Greece page it was advertised in a discussion of the overall "naming" issue as an attempt to talk things out with a cooler head and more reasonably. When I followed the link, however, it led me here to an attempt to remove from the discussion one of the more vocal opponents of the uncompromising Greek POV. The lead-up text to following the link here was misleading. I think that it is a case of WP:GAME. Future Perfect is trying to improve Misplaced Pages by enforcing standards within one of its most closely-guarded "walled gardens". He doesn't deserve to be placed here. Some of the same editors who above sound so calm and reasonable are not so calm and reasonable at Talk:Greece. I was accused by one of the preceding editors of being a sockpuppet before he ever even examined my user page and edit history. There is a history there of very strong nationalistic opinions driving unwarranted attacks, rude and insulting comments, and uncompromising positions in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Future Perfect needs some help there. (Taivo (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
Including yourself, Taivo? Talking about rich northern European neighbors who can buy poor Eastern Europeans in order to shut it up? Kapnisma (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No one is immune from hyperbole to make a point in a heated discussion, but I fail to see that as a personal attack. It was a comment about Greece and Greek politics, not about individual editors. (Taivo (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
Taivo, I respect your efforts in the talkpage and I thank you. I notice you voted second, before the oppose rationale was posted. Just out of curiosity, and without any intent to imply anything, what brought you to the poll? NikoSilver14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't honestly remember. No one asked me on my talk page, which sometimes happens. I sometimes look at the Misplaced Pages requests for arbitration page and other such fora and occasionally a topic catches my interest. Sometimes there is something that comes up on a language page that I watch. I don't remember in this case. (Taivo (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
It would be helpful if you remembered, because evidently I wasn't the only one wondering about it (only a lot more cautiously). NikoSilver15:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If people are suspecting me of canvassing: I swear I didn't (except through my open appeals on this board, in this very thread), and I specifically don't remember ever having interacted with Taivo (or with any other of the "newcomers" in the debate, certainly not in private.) Fut.Perf.☼16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me put this as carefully as possible. You are asking about a single supporter who is clearly an active Misplaced Pages editor and who is clearly not a sock puppet. Why isn't anyone asking about the drove of opponents who suddenly showed up whose edit history is old and vague at best? My interests have ranged from Book of Mormon to Aramaic language to Death Valley (California) to Buyang language to Rivne (Ukraine) and beyond. I have created dozens of stubs for obscure languages and added bibliographic references for even more languages. You can look at my real world web pages here and here and here and see my photo here and my USU faculty page here. I actually studied Ancient Greek back in graduate school and own three different copies of the film "Alexander", so my interest in Greece is not totally out of the blue. The vast majority of the opponents appear to be one-topic editors and I suspect are little more than ghosts and formerly active accounts. No one is asking about them or how they managed to suddenly appear at Talk:Greece. (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
If you want genuine sock puppetry there’s some further down this very thread where one of our Greek nationalist editors has logged out and re-emerged as an anonymous IP from Panama in order to accuse Future Perfect of being part of some conspiracy theory to “Balkanise the Balkans” (or whatever). His later comments suggest he thinks sock and meat puppetry is standard practice and allowable by Wiki-policy so you’ve got to wonder how much of this kind of thing is going on in this neck of the woods and how many of the “votes” are genuine. Folantin (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the "Panamese" anon below is one of a small group of well-known banned harassers (and should have been rolled back before people opted to answer to him). But I have no reason to believe he's a sock of any of the people who turned up at the poll, and I also don't think any of those are literally socks of each other. There are a couple of longtime inactive or semi-active accounts there that got suddenly revived, pointing to some possible canvassing among the old boys network, and there are also of course several edit-warring-only single purpose accounts among them, but that's about all. I'm very much in favour of the idea that the weight of a !vote should be evaluated critically according to the account's overall productivity, but none of them is strictly illegitimate. Fut.Perf.☼13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. From past experience I know that ANI is one of the few places on Misplaced Pages where banned users can sock with impunity ;)!--Folantin (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I see suggestions here to even "examine his method of seeking election". FPaS has been an admin since November 2006, for crying out loud; insinuating now, without any evidence provided at all that his "method of seeking election" needs to be examined, is a brutal personal attack and does not help to resolve conflicts like this one at all. Politis, please retract that statement (in full, the rest of your suggestions are not much better) or provide ample diffs to support it. Fram (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Fram, I truly agree with your sentiment and you find an ally in me; can you just as forecfully put a stop to editors labelling some users as 'Greeks' and using the term in a deragatory manner? As I keep stating, we should never give ethnic labels in a mostly anonymous site such as wikipedia. Otherwise, I think FPS might have a word to say before I take any reverting or proof-supplying action - it seems fair. Also, if that is a 'brutal attack', then how would you describe swearing (using the f word, etc) as FPS had done. I would say that swearing is bullying and my comment was objective under the circumstances Politis (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem, Politis, is that few issues are as clearly identified with a particular country and its expatriates as is the Macedonia naming dispute. Greece was the author of the dispute and has pushed its POV throughout the international community. It has singlehandedly blocked Macedonia's membership in international organizations because of it. When you look at the self-proclaimed nationalities of the users who voted "oppose" they were 90% (or more) persons who freely identified themselves as "Greek" on their user pages, used Greek letters to write their user names, or claimed to be native or nearly native speakers of Greek. To identify this group of editors as "Greek" is hardly prejudicial when that is what they call themselves on their user pages and elsewhere. I also notice that the dispute is bleeding over onto the Republic of Macedonia page where editors who oppose Future Perfect at Greece are pushing their POV on that page and overemphasizing the FYROM designation. The present no arguments for why they want to bold FYROM on the Macedonia page other than "Why not?" (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
Taivo, you receive concrete answers on the bolding issue, while you present inaccurate aguments, e.g. telling that Taiwan's is RoC's internationally recognized name. Can you please respond to what I say in the appropriate talk page. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For anyone who has never spent serious time working on articles which suffer from various forms of nationalist editing, I would strong suggest taking a look at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots. This is one of the most contentious areas of Misplaced Pages, and Fut Perf. is dead on when making the observation that we are not currently set up to prevent it. He also happens to be one of the few people willing to take the grief that comes with trying to keep the peace (or pieces) from crashing to the ground. You're dealing with countless fringe (and some not so fringe) groupes of editors who genuinely, and militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is "the truth"... that doesn't help foster intellectual, objective discourse. Flagged revisions will probably go a long way to fixing this, but until they are in place, some breathing room needs to be granted to those of us willing to try and mitigate the ugliness. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiberniantears, please give clear example when stating "groupes of editors who genuinely, and militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is "the truth"...". In this particular case, can you pick up quotes that make your case? If you think you were a bit hasty, you might wish to withdraw your comment. Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
At least give me a challenge. I'll give you this one to start. The history of just one page, Turkey. Total trainwreck, and par for the course. Next, read this, and if you need to view the parade of banned sock armies from any of those articles, I'm sure any number of admins here can provide a myriad of lists. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Challenge? No challenge intended. Thanks for the links. The first one seemed irrelevant. The second some kind of a list. Is there some umbilical link between people giving their reasoned argument for an edit that contradicts some admin, and the label "groupes of editors who... militantly believe that their specific ethnocentric view of history is the truth"? Think it through (and no, this is not a challenge). Politis (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is mobbed by people who want to push their nationalist ideas on Misplaced Pages, in any case he's not alone in this discussion, if you have any doubts see talk:Greece. To me this is a situation that should draw attention to POV pushing on national articles and maybe produce a clear policy regarding this attitude, because otherwise, if we accept this situation Misplaced Pages is doomed, people will simply watch "their" pages and defend their national POV against all the world (like how it's done in talk:Greece at this point). I think if anything Future Perfect should be praised for raising this issue. 147.9.205.47 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, I precisely agree to Politis right above. We're not talking about an unsubstantiated opposition here. Nor is it only backed up by the "faction". It is a policy-based rationale backed up by editors of various nationalities at an increasing rate. The problem is that FP (whom I repeat I tremendously respect) refuses to even discuss this rationale and dismisses it as nationalistic. I totally support his rationale as a general idea for examination in other cases, but not this one! Please read for yourselves that other third party users who happen to disagree with the Greeks (including Taivo above), at least acknowledge that the opposition has points which are policy based, and that it is a matter of interpreting which points should prevail over the others. Not to mention that there's a poll running at the moment there, and at least FP should wait for it to finish and then interpret if it is like this or not, and then resort to edit warring (if ever)! NikoSilver15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For any interesting party, the discussiona about FYROM's bolding (a case where Fut once again allegedly exposed his NPOV proactively reverting against established version of the article and before even opening a discussion in the talk page) is here.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is this here? If it's a content dispute, keep it on the talk pages. If you're alleging edit-warring, take it to 3RR. If the problem is "attitude", take it to Civil. If your arguments in support of administrator intervention are baseless claims of racism against anyone who disagrees with you, repeated cries of "I feel really offended (sic)" and the fact that the admin in question reverted an article (!!!), well... yandman15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What’s this? Future Perfect has refused to obey Greek nationalist shibboleths and has dared to refer to Macedonia without its obligatory “Former Yugoslav Republic of” figleaf? Oh dear, oh dear. Let’s hang him out to dry. Let’s lynch him at ArbCom. The heretic. As others have said above, the hijacking of articles by various gangs of POV-pushers is one of the most serious issues facing Misplaced Pages. Whole areas of the encyclopaedia have been given over to factions who care nothing about neutrality, due weight, reliable sourcing or even common English usage (to take one example, most books on Alexander the Great care little about the precise details of his ethnicity – now compare that with the talk pages of his article on Misplaced Pages). The Balkans is one of the worst of these areas and Future Perfect is one of the few admins with the guts to police it day in day out. We’ve got to decide whether we’re here to provide information for the general reader or to disseminate propaganda by special interest groups. Let's start breaking up the gangs and throwing the worst members off this project. --Folantin (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There had been an RfC for this user some time ago. Check it out. Also, note that he usually edits only Greek-related articles, mainly about controversial issues such as minorities etc, with a clear POV in favour of the newly found protectorates. My take (after examining his past here closely; a thing I suggest you do too before rushing out to premature conclusions) is that he's doing mercenary work for establishing the balkanisation of Balkans, that took place in the 90s, further. 190.34.160.226 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
An allegation of a conspiracy theory from an anonymous IP. That ploy always works. Must use it myself one day. --Folantin (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Folantin or Moreschi or whatever: everyone can edit this page (even users with two or more accounts, like yourself and Fut.Perf. Even IP users like myself). As for the conspiracy theory, allow some of us to know better about Fut.Petf.'s deeds here and in real life. Stick to your eunuch singing: you're being used. (My comment above wasn't referred to you in particular: unindenting.). 190.34.160.226 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Stabbing in the dark. But thanks for giving us a clue as to your identity. If you're such a coward you have to log out in order to peddle your absurd Greek nationalist conspiracy theories, you don't get to talk about other users' "eunuch singing". --Folantin (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Money not so good in bug-eyed conspiracist lunacy then? Shame. You want to get where the action is. The CIA, the Mossad, the Masons, the Bilderberg Group, the Elders of Zion, the Airfix Modellers' Club, the Secret Seven and the Cult of Cthulhu all pay top dollar for editing Misplaced Pages.--Folantin (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
My take on this can be described with the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Future came into Macedonia articles with the purpose of cleaning the crap generated from both sides. Initially he was very successful and respected by everyone. However, he slowly got himself too much into the issue and acquired a very strong POV himself, to the point where he now openly advocates a mass banning of one side of the dispute. His basic mistake is that he constructs his arguments (even immediately above) as if by default he's the NPOV crusader. He didn't even hold back a minute to see if his accusations hold any water at all. He doesn't leave any room to third parties to even examine if he is right or wrong. He simply is right and he just needs help in his just cause against nationalists. Well, I feel personally offended to be labelled a nationalist again and again. I hate nationalism as much as anybody. Again and again, I see Future using "we" versus "them" arguments. I am not "them". I am also "we". This is too unhealthy. --Avg (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support thank you. This isn't an easy issue, and FP probably isn't perfect himself, but he's taken on a very big problem and tried to do the best he could with it, and seemingly done well. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - it's not easy to deal with disruption coming from a group of editors as opposed to individuals, but FP deserves our collective thanks for standing up against the tide of POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - I've been involved with other "walled gardens" before, but with time the parochial interests worked with those of us on the outside and improved the article. Consensus was reached, compromises were hammered out, and a good NPOV article was the result. This cabal running the walled garden at Greece and expanding their purview into Republic of Macedonia and other places where the Greek POV ("Greek" as in "of Greece") can be expanded without regard for Misplaced Pages policy and practice is as uncompromising as any I've seen before. There are some notable exceptions, but the most vocal proponents of the Greek view tend to be utterly convinced of the rightness of their "cause" and they don't care who or what they steamroll. Because of this, Future Perfect is called many names by them, none of them deserved. I applaud his patience and tireless effort in this area. (Taivo (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Taking the opportunity to publically thank Fut. Perf. for his significant contributions to the always conflictive area of South-Eastern Europe. His patience & good-humoured approach to even blatant disruption are truly remarkable. - Ev (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to Future Perfect, who deals with the difficult area of POV and fringe theory in the Balkans with a grace, aplomb and humour that few can muster even in less rocky waters. His knowledge of the languages, the region and complexities of the political issues at stake, as well as the various editors involved, are absolutely invaluable. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Recruiting the mice brigade
It's been stated above that 6 or 7 administrators ought to be working on the Greek nationalism dispute. Actually, it should be double that. A team of half a dozen got worn down at a similar dispute (The Troubles). We need a group big enough that work's spread around to a fair share on each set of shoulders. 12 to 15 admins are enough to check and balance each other.
Remember the story about the mice who had a meeting about a cat that was eating them? Everybody agreed that the solution was to put a bell around the cat's neck so they could hear it coming. Somebody asked, "Who bells the cat?" That was the end of their meeting.
An ethnic dispute is a great big cat and there's safety in numbers. So don't hold a vote to thank Future Perfect at Sunrise; hold a vote to join him. Sign up to watchlist these articles, to semiprotect them when necessary, to communicate with editors on the talk pages and show them site policies mean something. When the need occurs, show up to form an impartial consensus. Although not an administrator, I'll add my name at number 12. It doesn't take effect unless the other spaces get filled. Durova17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, after all, wait a bit first, until he finally decides what he stands for. After his reverting (knowing he is acting against a long-standing consensus resulting from a popular vote), he decided that the things are not exactly the way he thought about. So, let's see ... By the way, I would also like to add my name, but I am an involved party, just like Fut.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually when intervening in policy matters it's best to keep as light a touch as possible about the content side. If there's a question about copyright or reliable sources or BLP application that's one thing, but in a discussion like the one in that link I'd rather step back and keep an eye out for civility etc.--being totally evenhanded. In forming consensus, think procedural or policy consensus. Durova03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys I'm touched. But if you want to "vote" for something useful, there is actually still that damned old straw poll open, and as I said, the most crucial thing right now is that it gets a halfway reasonable outcom. It's here. It's now totally submerged by subsequent discussion, but you can safely skip that, there's nothing new in the rest of the page. Fut.Perf.☼20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, by Husond's own definition, the poll has closed at 19:30 UTC today. However, I'm proposing extending it for another day, so that everyone can still vote.--Avg (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And I think that just like Beback this is what all sysops who put their name here want to do; something that obviously Fut (and Avg) misunderstood. Anyway, from my part, I support Durova's initiative (not to help Fut, of course, but monitor articles), and I hope the list with the 12 knights is ready the soonest possible.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I also strongly recommend watching the Macedonia naming dispute abuse log created by Dragons flight a few days ago. There's a constant stream of vandalism, usually involving defacements of the name "Republic of Macedonia" and/or its replacement with POV terms such as "Skopia", "Slavomacedonia" etc. Many of the vandals are anonymous IP addresses in Greece or newly registered users. This is happening all over Misplaced Pages, not just on articles about the country or about Greece. Anyone who watches this for a while, as I have, will soon realise that the vandalism is overwhelmingly in one direction - in favour of the Greek nationalist POV. There are structural reasons why disruptive Greek nationalism may be more prevalent than its Macedonian counterpart (more Internet access, more English-speakers, a bigger overseas diaspora etc), but the end result is that most of the disruption you deal with will be from the Greek nationalists. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Further to ChrisO's request, could please some uninvolved admins have a look at the contributions of some involved admins in the last couple of days since the abuse log does not capture admin renames? As an example, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise changed references from FYROM to ROM at List of Greek roads and User:Ev at a host of articles , falsely stating some kind of standard and policy, while the straw poll is still open.--Avg (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It all comes down to the following question (no kidding)
"Is the name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia POV or NPOV?"
I'm not kidding, this is the crux of the matter. Please, please get involved, do your research and weigh in. We want this to be over. This is the cause of all disputes.--Avg (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not really the right question. The right question is, "By what name is this region most commonly known?" We go by reliable sources, not by worrying about whose feelings might get hurt. Baseball Bugscarrots18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I second that, so what is really the most common unambiguous name for this country? Let me also add that Misplaced Pages simply describes, does not prescribe. Now the reason an apparent content dispute needs administrative intervention is that both sides adamantly believe they're defending NPOV against POV warriors. This will simply never end unless there is some definitive answer that everyone will be forced to follow.--Avg (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In English, it's "Macedonia" or (more formally) "The Republic of Macedonia". "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is regarded as a sesquipedelian joke. --Folantin (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet, UN, EU, NATO, IMF, FIFA, FIBA, EBU and virtually every international organization on this planet are not laughing. But please, don't bring the dispute here.--Avg (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Bugs... by that standard this article would just be titled America. That's why most of these topics are such a disaster... everyone just wheels out their preferred sources. Adding to the problem is a general lack of good English language sources, so various factions within any given article can run circles around the admin corps if too few of us can't read the languages that the sources are written in. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the term Republic of Macedonia is used across Misplaced Pages, with the exception of Greece. On that basis, I think the question that ought to be asked is: what's different about Greece? Alternatively, one could simply turn the original question around: Is "Republic of Macedonia" POV or NPOV? SHEFFIELDSTEEL18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No this is not the case. Republic of Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and plain Macedonia are all used in Misplaced Pages, according to certain conditions. --Avg (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events where the Republic participates officially under the appellation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or variants thereof (e.g. the United Nations, accession to the European Union, the Olympic Games etc.), the official naming conventions of those organisations should be followed when choosing between Republic of Macedonia and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The UN, the EU and Nato all prefer fYROM, so European Union, for example, mentions former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia becoming an EU candidate country. I know that because I reverted several editors making WP:AGF edits before I learnt the error of my ways ;-)
How about: is "Republic of Macedonia" POV or not? Reading the guidelines is very clear a self-identifier is not POV, the guidelines cannot be more clear than that, and yes, why we should use it all over the place but not in Greece page? What's special about Greece? I agree that "Macedonia" can be confused with the Greek region, but "Republic of Macedonia" cannot. So what do you have against "Republic of Macedonia" term and why Greece page should be an island of POV? man with one red shoe20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So what if I proposed a compromise solution that there are two NPOV names which can be used interchangeably?--Avg (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not quite that easy. The, more or less, official position of an established country which is a member of a number of international bodies carries quite a bit of weight. On the other hand, it is not the sole arbiter of what another nation may refer to itself as. As with many of the current international disputes, if the solution was obvious we wouldn't be here arguing. A case by case approach seems appropriate here. henrik•talk20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Henrik above. The name FYROM is not POV, as it is the name that the government recognized at least once. However, to use it today as the primary name by which to refer to the country is less than optimum. The evidence that I've seen indicates that the citizens there refer to it as the ROM. That seems to me, on that basis, to be the most commonly used and recognized form of the name, and the one we should use according to WP:NAME. Yes, I know that internally Macedonia (Greece) refers to itself as Macedonia as well. But I have real trouble seeing how anyone would think that that area calls itself "Republic of Macedonia" or ever has. So, on that basis, I can't see how there is much confusion resulting from using the ROM name for the country. Yes, I know several other countries have the title of their main article as something other than the country's official name. That's fine, because they don't generally use that name themselves internally, and we tend to use the name that is most frequently used by natives and outsiders to refer to that country. I know externally the FYROM name is used a lot for disambiguation purposes.
I guess the example that strikes me as most relevant is the article Roman Catholic Church. I know of nowhere where that body officially uses that specific name to describe itself when dealing with internal matters. It is however the unofficial name by which the organization is most frequently recognized, and there are other uses of the name CC, as can be seen at Catholic Church (disambiguation). In that instance, the wikipedia community decided adding the unofficial "Roman" to the name was sufficient to prevent ambiguity. In this case, the name ROM seems to be to be sufficiently unambiguous on its own. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've already addressed this particular question several times on other pages, so I won't repeat myself at length here, but "FYROM" is not a name and is not used as such by either Greece or the RoM - see my fuller explanation here. It's merely the diplomatic equivalent of a placeholder or asterisk. The only official name of the country and the only name by which it identifies itself is "Republic of Macedonia". The question we have is whether we follow Misplaced Pages policy and call a country what it calls itself, or not? Though of course there should be no question about that; the only reason why this is even an issue in the first place is the determination of many of our Greek editors to promote their government's POV rather than following wikipolicy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And you've got your answers to that little detail also: ,,. As for applying policy as you simply put it, it has been stressed out clearly, WP:NC talks about the most common unambiguous name which in our case is "(the) former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", you yourself helped to show exactly that. Your approach is to construct "Republic of Macedonia" (which is by far the least used of the three names) from "Macedonia" using one of many ways to interpret the naming conflict guideline, which by the way is still a guideline, not a policy. In other words, you're applying a qualifier ("Republic of") to the most common term ("Macedonia"), you're not selecting "RoM" because it's the most common term without ambiguity, you're creating a hybrid by contentiously combining "Macedonia"'s higher frequency of use and "RoM"'s unambiguity. WP:NC prohibits us from constructing or prescribing names and your methodology is, to say the least, disputable, even when applying the "self-identifying term" sauce to cover it, which you have incorporated into the guideline anyway. This does not fully summarize the problem of course, a lot more arguments were posed from both sides, but in my view it demonstrates the simplest approach to a seemingly never ending issue. Every time someone tried to focus on this and other valid points the other side usually held the "Greek POV" tag above his head. A continuing game of messing things up and hope your "opponents" would look more disruptive or ridiculous to outside viewers. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The preceding is an example of the logic applied by the proponents of the Greek POV ("Greek" as in "of Greece"): "Since 'Macedonia' is ambiguous, then we must use the non-name placeholder found in international documents rather than the formal self-identification of the country itself." This is not the solution that Misplaced Pages has used in other places. To distinguish the two Congos, Misplaced Pages reverts to the formal self-identifications "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo". To distinguish the two Chinas, Misplaced Pages reverts to the formal self-identifications "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China". To distinguish independent Ireland from the island as a whole and from the English dominion in the north, we revert to the self-identification "Republic of Ireland". But to the Greek nationalist position, Misplaced Pages practice is unacceptable and the only option for them is the Greek POV. They argue that since international organizations have been forced to use the provisional reference by Athens, that should be the preferred disambiguating option rather than the self-identification of "Republic of Macedonia". They resort to circular logic to accomplish this--a) "Macedonia" is ambiguous, therefore b) Greece forced international organizations to use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", therefore c) "FYROM" is common in international discourse, therefore d) it's not Greek POV to insist on "the most common option besides 'Macedonia'--FYROM" in Misplaced Pages rather than the shorter NPOV self-identification that Misplaced Pages uses in most other cases of disambiguation (and which is just as unambiguous)--"Republic of Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
And the preceding is a perfect example of what the other side is facing. We're advocating Misplaced Pages policy WP:NCON, while you clearly prescribe that Misplaced Pages should act differently because "international organizations have been forced to use fYRoM". That is as POV as it can get. And enough with the "Greek nationalist" stuff. Really. Stop it.--Avg (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Taivo is spot on. There is a close parallel with this situation in the Middle East over Azerbaijan, a geographical region split between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (in fact more Azeris live in Iranian Azerbaijan than in the republic). Yet nobody has any problem with the Misplaced Pages article on the Republic of Azerbaijan being at Azerbaijan because this is its common English name. "Republic of Macedonia" is unambiguous enough for anybody but the most rabid nationalist.--Folantin (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There are various nations where this issue comes up. A continual hot-button has been Burma, which begins with the sentence, "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar..." because its rulers call it one thing and the world wants to call it something else. Baseball Bugscarrots08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact, hitting really close to home, the article on Greece begins "Greece... officially the Hellenic Republic..." "Greece" is not "Greece" to its own people, just to us outsiders. Baseball Bugscarrots08:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but Greece is called "Greece" in English, the Republic of Macedonia is not called FYROM except mostly in official documents and those in my opinion don't count as "current English usage", in normal English: press, books, atlases, encyclopedias it's called "Macedonia". man with one red shoe13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm getting at. This is the English wikipedia, so it behooves us to use what the reliable sources tell us is the most common name (or names) used in English, not the most common names used in Greece necessarily. Baseball Bugscarrots17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The argument for "FYROM" has always been made on the basis of its widespread use internationally and in English. If we were advocating common Greek usage, that would be "Skopje", not "FYROM". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, Kekrops is ill-informed. "FYROM" does 'not' enjoy "widespread use" in English except in documents that are discussing the Macedonia naming dispute including things that are required to use UN or EU terms for the sake of accuracy. It is virtually absent from English maps and atlases. (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
Folantin you're not getting it, Taivo is using his political/ideological bias to evaluate the situation, i was talking about common English usage and policy, not any UN documents or diplomatic unfairness. We don't care why "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is common in English, this is a simple fact. Evaluating the reasons why that happens according to our own POV is prescribing. The analogy with Azerbaijan follows Taivo's reasoning, there's no widely used disambiguating name in English for Azerbaijan (not even sure if there's an alternative name in any other language to that matter), and the reasons for that are again irrelevant. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but "Macedonia" or the "Republic of Macedonia" is common English. There are no other "Republics of Macedonia" the state needs to be distinguished from. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" generally only turns up in the documents of organisations scared the Greek government will throw a hissy fit. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, all indicators presented in the discussions, even the research by ChrisO of mainstream encyclopedias, showed that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a lot more common than "Republic of Macedonia" with plain "Macedonia" ranking first. What we're talking here is which is the most appropriate disambiguating term, which excludes "Macedonia".--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me quote from WP:NAMECON guideline: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." man with one red shoe13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)\
(ec)Actually, Folantin gets it very well. The reason that "Macedonia" is unacceptable to Athens really has nothing to do with disambiguation, that's why those who advocate the Greek POV are not interested in "Republic of Macedonia" which is a good self-identification and is as NPOV as "Republic of China". Indeed, in international organizations, like Macedonia, the Republic of China must be called something else because of a naming dispute that is not too dissimilar from the Macedonia dispute. Indeed, if you look here you will see that "Republic of China" (which, like "Republic of Macedonia" is also not used by the UN) is used in the article on People's Republic of China. In the end, the Greek POV is that Macedonia must be treated differently than every other country in the world in terms of naming. According to them, Misplaced Pages must not be allowed to give Macedonia its self-identification at all costs and they will trot out every UN and EU document they can find on-line in order to justify that demand. They ignore Misplaced Pages precedent (China, Congo, Azerbaijan, etc.) and every Misplaced Pages preference for self-identifications. (Taivo (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Yep. This is why there was nothing "shocking" about Husond's statistics at all. I could guess what the ethnicity of 95%+ of one side of the vote would be before that poll had even taken place. The only people in the world who care about the designation "FYROM" are Greeks. Unfortunately, English Misplaced Pages has a duty to see things from a more global perspective. --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet even from the global perspective, the majority of countries in the world call it "Republic of Macedonia" in their bilateral relations and official documents. (Taivo (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, I meant "Unfortunately for the Greek nationalist perspective". In everyday parlance in the anglophone world modern Macedonia isn't "FYROM".--Folantin (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe so, but it isn't "Republic of Macedonia" either. Who says that in their "everyday parlance"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Istanbul was Constantinople. Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. Why did Constantinople get "the works"? It's nobody's business but the Turks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is mostly "relevant" by what you are trying to imply about the "Greek POV" again, anyway, take a look at Tenedos, Imbros and their talk pages, it was concluded that the traditional names were more common in English than the official Turkish names.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it will be easier to have a constructive debate if editors make an effort not to make assumptions about what other editors might be "trying to imply". SHEFFIELDSTEEL17:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, but you can't blame me for underestimating you, since the obvious point you made could be as obviously addressed with the example i gave, i thought you were probably aiming on something else and since you had chosen to highlight an issue that involves Greek history again, my mind went in that direction. Although now that i think of it, how many people know anything about Imbros and Tenedos ? my answer was not as obvious to others as it was to me afterall. Anyway, Istanbul (the local official name), Imbros and Tenedos (both traditional names of Greek origin that have no official use in Turkey for about 8 decades) are the common English names, and that's why they were chosen.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
To sum up, the dispute is over which formal long name to choose, given that the short form is ambiguous. Both "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are in official use, by different parties. It has been demonstrated rather convincingly that the former is the more common of the two, but some editors feel that the self-identifying term should take precedence over the more common English term, arguing that the country has the "right" to decide its own name. Is that a correct appraisal of Misplaced Pages policy, or a value judgment that should not be influencing the editorial decision-making process? That is the question. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Kekrops' "demonstrated rather convincingly" is not an objective measurement, but only from the POV of a person who openly opposes any usage other than "FYROM". The "hard evidence" is totally ambiguous and inconclusive and depends on one's POV approaching it. He likes to cite a Google search, for example. I won't even bother to respond to the invalidity of a Google search for anything scientific except finding the latest YouTube video. I conducted my own unscientific poll on the issue as well. I asked in Yahoo! Answers, "What countries border Bulgaria?" Of the five answers, one included "Republic of Macedonia", three included "Macedonia", and one (named Hephaestus) had "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Thus the two terms were tied. (As an aside, I included in the survey instructions, "DO NOT give a thumbs down to any other answers", everyone followed that instruction except for Hephaestus, who gave a thumbs down to every one else's answer.) (Taivo (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
It was demonstrated rather convincingly, as the other side's focus on the self-identification argument has shown. Nobody seriously questioned these findings, the search methods used were described in your beloved guideline.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Drakolakkos, there was no "convincing demonstration" at all except in the eyes of those whose viewpoint is Greek. None of the others bothered to even address the "proof" simply because the evidence was 1) so poor, and 2) irrelevant in the face of the self-identification issue. It doesn't matter how "common" or "rare" FYROM is if FYROM itself is irrelevant because it is not a self-identification. Actually, in dealing with the issue of what actually occurs on maps in atlases, I demonstrated conclusively that FYROM is virtually nonexistent in an actual examination of maps and not just doing a worthless Google search. But since the issue of the primacy of self-identification for disambiguation is more important, counting noses is irrelevant. It's like this--you have to disambiguate between two Congos. If counting noses of references were more important than self-identification, then the Democratic Republic of Congo should still be called "Zaire" since that name is far more common on maps and in texts than the new name is. The Greek POV is insisting on unique treatment for the Republic of Macedonia. Misplaced Pages should treat the disambiguation of Macedonia just as it treats every other case of disambiguation (Congo, China, Ireland, America, Azerbaijan, etc.) and use the full form of the self-identification and not some name imposed on an unwilling population by its southern neighbor. (Taivo (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Wow, a lot can happen while the devil scratches his eye. Am I right to assume that the lengthy discussion above didn't produce any practical effects? Now that both me and Future Perfect seem to have escaped punishment for our purported gross misdemeanor, I would expect some actual decisions to finally put a halt to what's happening at Greece, and at once resolve this whole FYROM/Republic of Macedonia imbroglio. Few seem to dispute that we have a serious case of block voting and walled garden here, and yet this is set to be another topic to be forsaken as soon as it reaches the top of this page and plunges into the netherworld of the archives. Are we hamsters in a wheel, or how many more threads like this will it take for some results start to appear? Like Future Perfect reiterates, this will inevitably reach the Arbcom unless the admins who could straightforwardly identify the real problem put hands to work and do something to fix it. The Arbcom is at the risk of being slayed by their worst nemesis Macedonia, and this may well be the last chance before we go through a process that everybody should try to avoid for the sake of the reliability of our encyclopedia and for the sake of our sanity. Húsönd18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why there is this whole thread discussing the content question here on this board again? People just can't restrain themselves, it seems. Fut.Perf.☼18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for straying into content. But what is frustrating to see is that the inhabitants of the Greek walled garden feel compelled to place their POV not just within their own garden, but within the next garden over as well. They are imperialist walled gardeners. (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Husond, your comment is perfectly placed exactly where it should be. The reason I inserted a content section in here is precisely to demonstrate that your assertions of "block voting", "walled garden", "unreliability" can (and should) be accepted if, well, there is actually some POV pushing happening in the article. There can only be POV pushing if the abovementioned name is actually POV. If it is not, and I do not think there has been a decision on this, then I'm afraid all your accusations are moot and you're simply using them to make your POV prevail. So thanks for your comment and I really hope what has been happening is a bit more clear now.--Avg (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't start repeating those arguments all over again. I stress, no more hamster wheel please. Húsönd21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've focused on your apparently biased representation of facts. Your third time in only a week, after your straw poll description and your ethnic profiling.--Avg (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Again with the smokescreen complaints, this time about "ethnic profiling". Husond alleges there is bias in the voting. The ones accused of bias keep changing the subject. Imagine that. Baseball Bugscarrots22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, what more do you want? If someone accuses a whole ethnic group of being biased and it is specifically demonstrated that the accusation is in very shaky grounds (which is precisely that fYRoM is supposedly POV), plus it is demonstrated that the accuser himself is strongly biased, where is the changing of the subject? I'll leave it at that.--Avg (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You err and persist with your assumptions. The whole issued was ignited when I requested the article Greece to comply to Misplaced Pages:MOS#Internal_consistency. The main premise was never addressed, quickly warped to accusations of racial profiling, censorship, bias, etc.. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously with this kind of response, especially when this kind of response comes from a group sharing a common background, a common stronghold of pride. Húsönd23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, he's ignored your notification Looie, but fretted publicly about the cabal controlling that article and provided even more of his own personal proof that the article is totally false. I predict messy edit wars will commence once he either figures out that his old account can edit the (semi-protected) page or waits 2 days to edit it with his new account. Meanwhile all the multiple new sections he is creating on the talk page are really annoying. Please keep this man with a mission on your radars. NJGW (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
He is now sending (ungrammatical) insults on userpages via copy/paste spam. See mine, NJGW's, William M. Connolley's, and Skyemoor's. His inability to behave with anything resembling professional civility is unfortunate, and his insults are unacceptable. I told him on my talk page that I was reporting his actions here. Awickert (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
He is now taking a 24 hour break from the project which he can use to read up on the policies and guidelines that concern his editing and behavior. Mfield (Oi!) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
User:KillerChihuahua, who I’ll call “KC”, blocked me (at 2:35 on 2 April) for one week from editing both the Sarah Palin article and the corresponding talk page. I'd like to appeal, as I stated to KC a few moments ago at my talk page.
My last edit to the Sarah Palin article (at 18:49 on 31 March) reverted a bunch of edits that I had previously made, and that reversion was at the insistence of KC. My last edit to the Sarah Palin talk page (at 19:36 on 1 April) suggested inserting “Knik Arm Bridge” (KAB) into the article.
KC’s stated rationale for blocking me today from both the article and the talk page is that I was "derailing" discussion of the "Knik Arm Bridge" at the article talk page. KC is obviously incorrect, as my edits at the talk page were specifically about the KAB.
On 30 March, KC had stated at the article talk page as follows: "GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge." My suggested article edits were on precisely that topic, by clarifying that the earmark for another bridge (Gravina) was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge (KAB). And I was merely discussing those suggested edits at the article talk page. For that, KC has blocked me, and I appeal the block. Thanks.
Incidentally, because this block is so far out of bounds, I'd like to ask if some action might be appropriate to deter such things in the future.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I noted my dissention on Talk:Sarah Palin previously, but would like to also note here that the reason KillerChihuahua seemingly gave for the ban ("Discussion on the disputed content has stalled completely, and all discussion has been on FL and his edits and so on. Cease. We're done with this for now.") doesn't appear to be valid. As you can see at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Take_two, the discussion about the original dispute continued yesterday, and is still going on. Ferrylodge has been receptive to criticism, and self-reverted some edits a few days ago. He has since come to the talk page and has been constructively contributing to the discussion (both of his intended edits, and the original dispute). He's been a helpful editor on this article (and talk page), and has remained calm (excepting a slight outburst towards KC on his talk page regarding his ban). I support a lift of his ban so discussion can continue will all involved editors. Mahalo. --Ali'i17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This request seems reasonable at face value. What boggles my mind is the paragraph attacking KC that FL posted on his talk page diff with an edit summary of hardly unexpected from the likes of Misplaced Pages's most officious admin. Maybe FL has had time to cool off, and that is why the post above seems reasonable. But I can't fathom why he felt it was necessary to go off ranting at KC. Attacking the blocking admin flies in the face of WP:NOTTHEM. FL, can you address why you felt those comments were necessary, and what purpose they serve?-Andrew c17:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Pehaps that discussion could be held separately from the discussion about the Palin article ban? Or is it an issue that is inherently connected? Either way, FL and KC have had a long history with one another. It's been less than collegial. --Ali'i17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm the one that suggested Ferrylodge appeal his ban, I figure I should comment here. It should also be noted that KillerChihuahua and Ferrylodge have a rather extensive and acrimonious history from their editing of abortion related articles. This includes a request to have Ferrylodge banned by the community on the old Community sanctions noticeboard, which resulted in Ferrylodge getting banned, and an appeal at Arbcom that resulted in the ban being lifted. The arbcom case and it's evidence page has a pretty extensive record of the acrimonious nature of KillerChihuahua's and Ferrylodge's interactions. Regardless of the merits of the banning of Ferrylodge from Sarah Palin, I'm not sure KillerChihuahua qualifies as an uninvolved admin per Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. --Bobblehead17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Andrew c, what I said at my talk page is not part of my appeal here at ANI. I didn't link to it, and I don't want to make this appeal about KC. It's about me, per WP:NOTTHEM.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you can get a free pass to badmouth a blocking admin, and expect everyone to ignore it because it has nothing to do with the Palin article. Incivility and personal attacks are related to ANI, and to think your behaviour shouldn't be scrutinized in relation to how you reacted to the ban is nonsense.-Andrew c17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a free pass. If something I said at my talk page after the block was off base, please feel free to criticize me for it there. What I said at my talk page is not part of this appeal. I'm not trying to excuse anything I did based on what KC may have done, so please let's not mix them together here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't uncommon for an editor to blow off a little steam when they've been blocked/banned. Especially when the admin that is blocking/banning them is an editor that they have had extensive content disputes with. --Bobblehead17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that FL possibly made matters worse for himself by his comments which stem directly from the block which is the subject of this thread. I don't believe incivil comments are ever appropriate. Blowing of steam and past histories are never valid excuses for poor conduct. I would feel a lot better about this whole preceding if FL admits that the comments were inappropriate, striking or redacting them, perhaps even apologizing, and then we can move on. If it was simply a heated, hot headed thing to say to blow off a little steam, surely we can forgive that if there is remorse. But those comments are tied to this block and they need to be discussed in this context. -Andrew c18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We often make matters worse when we get upset and post in frustration or in anger. If an editor is blocked, and they vent about that block on their talk page, I'm not inclined to give that too much weight, or to care much. We don't leave people blocked as a punishment for being mad that they were blocked.
KC will be fine; better if he refrains from blocking people with whom he's had personal conflict. It's not like there's a shortage of admins out there. It's certainly not our place to determine if Ferrylodge feels remorse, or to "forgive" him. I find it presumptuous, the idea that it's our place to "forgive" anyone anytyhing. -GTBacchus15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I support Ferrylodge in this. I found his contributions to be positive indeed. If KC has long-term issues with FL, I would ask at a minimum that this be well taken into account. It might, in fact, be wise for KC to disengage here. Just as Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, so also should all admin actions taken with regard to an editor with whom the admin might be interacting in another contentious arena. I fully respect both, but feel that might be the best solution. Collect (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Disengage with FL, or disengage with the Palin article as a whole? Because if it's the latter, that's not good. Because KC has been at least trying to direct editors towards a common goal, providing quality unofficial "mediation". I just happen to disagree with this specfic ban. Mahalo. --Ali'i17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
With FL. KC is a good person. I would only iterate my suggestion above that admin actions in this case be reviewed. Collect (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
I agree that KC is not an uninvolved admin. It'd be better if he lifted the ban and requested an uninvolved editor to place it instead. Will Bebacktalk17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Admins should never (or hardly ever) block someone they're in a content dispute with. This kind of question came up during my own RfA. The right answer is to turn it over to a neutral admin for a decision. Baseball Bugscarrots17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Not in a content dispute; see my note below and ask anyone on the article: I'm enforcing probation there, have been for months, and don't edit the darn thing. KillerChihuahua01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
KC, even if it's not technically a "content dispute", blocking any editor with whom you've had personal conflict is a terrible idea. It tends to lead to threads like this. What's the rush to block him that can't wait until you find one uninvolved admin to agree? We try to be drama-negative, and de-escalatory. This block has clearly had the opposite effect. Hence, bad idea. -GTBacchus15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Two points; One: any block or topic ban of Ferrylodge has a high probability in resulting in drama. One one-hour block of his resulted in his starting an ANI thread which took up 77856 characters (13412 words) which summed up said Good block, deal with it. Ferrylodge responded by opening a frivolous Rfc on the blocking admin. I was already one of two admins enforcing article probation on Sarah Palin, and Ferrylodge had been editing there with that circumstance, prior to this incident. My "involvement" with Ferrylodge has consisted of two things: content disputes on Abortion repeated articles (where FL is now under ArbCom editing sanctions for his disruptive behavior), and my enforcing policy everywhere else (not counting his harassment of me, which I don't classify as "involvement" on my part at all.) I suspect had I gone and found another admin, the result would have been similar to when Bishonen blocked Ferrylodge for harassing me - continued attacks on the poor admin for weeks if not months. Two: In hindsight, probably would have been much better for me to go find that poor admin, their peace of mind be damned! (joke) but as I did not, we have now this current situation. IMO, not a Bad Ban. One week, for disruption. I am not conceding Wrong Admin; I'm simply not arguing the point. However, if we accept Wrong Admin as a hypothetical given, I see no other reason given by you to rescind the ban, and Ferrylodge is not behaving in a manner which leads me to believe he will reduce the level of disruption. FWIW, he is in correspondence with SB Johnny, my co-"enforcer", and I would prefer at this pint to see what transpires there. KillerChihuahua16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Ferrylodge being blocked likely to lead to less disruption?... hmm. If that's true for a week, what makes it not true for a longer period? Is there some good that's supposed to result from a week block? It makes life more difficult for editors like me, who want to work with him on an article that's unrelated to this dispute. Do you think it will cause him to re-evaluate the way he interacts with others, and come back less disruptive? -GTBacchus16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the solution is to lift the ban, but block Ferrylodge for the attacks on KillerChihuahua. (I'll do neither, since my opinion of Ferrylodge is a matter of record.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL18:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent)I've stricken the comment in question at my personal talk page. It was not part of KC's block rationale, it was not part of my appeal here at ANI, and now it is gone. Most of it is factual, and I hardly think that calling an admin "officious" (at my personal talk page) would be grounds for a block. In any event, can we please focus on the actual block and the appeal?
KC opined at the article talk page: "It appears the primary argument for is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing." My edits at both the talk page and in the article itself were in direct response to KC's opinion about the KAB.
This particular article talk page is for a high-profile political figure, so differences of opinion are inevitable, but I did not do anything more than disagree with the blocking admin about content.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: The block was logged on the Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation page. I have, along with SB Johnny, been the admin enforcing probation there. I have emailed him to inform him and get his view; he has not yet replied. I do not edit that article; I've been enforcing the probation for several months now. Anyone who thinks I'm in a content dispute or involved is mistaken. I do have a history with Ferrylodge; I have given him far more leeway than I would have given any other editor. Please see, for example, Buster7's post on the article talk page yesterday where he states Ferrylodge's sudden move to made considerable edits to a secion under dispute, while every other was refraining from editing and working very hard to find consensus, said edits not about the same subject but entirely different: "Close to resolving via discussion--->make a drastic change--->discussion shifts to the newer edit--->the two discussion intertwine (causing confusion)--->focus shifts further afield by engaging fellow editors in personal rants over completely irrelevant side issues--->newer edit survives via tactics rather than quality or consensus" - and then Ferrylodge ate reams of talk page time and space on said edits, refusing to wait until the larger dispute was resolved, first asking if there were objections - this AFTER I asked him, more or less, to wait his turn - and when there were objections refusing to drop it until the larger issue was resolved and tendentiously arguing and complaining ad nauseum on the talk page. Whatever the fuckheck Ferrylodge is talking about regarding "my opinion" vs "his opinion" is utter bullshitnonsense. I haven't given an opinion, and his edits had nothing to do with the content dispute I'm trying to help the editors resolve. KillerChihuahua01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
KC says, "Whatever the fuck Ferrylogde is talking about regarding 'my opinion' vs 'his opinion' is utter bullshit." So civil, aren't we?
This is a direct quote from KC: "It appears the primary argument for is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing." My edits at both the talk page and in the article itself were in direct response to KC's opinion about the KAB.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Summarizing and confirming people's positions is normal in mediation. I summarized, and asked for confirmation. Then I summarized, and asked if everyone could agree on that one piece of that one view. If there are editors who cannot agree with that, then I proceed to ask why. Its a back-and forth thing. Its important for editors to understand the "other sides" rationale and views before they can find a common ground. KillerChihuahua01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You banned me for not conceding what you asserted was a "valid point" and for daring to discuss at the talk page whether the two bridges were covered by the same earmark or not. Would you please leave this up to an uninvolved admin?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't, and you know it. You cannot seriously think anyone will believe this. After I warned you, gave you another waring, a final warning, and then explained the warnings, you know that you were banned for completely disrupting the (previously) highly focused and productive efforts on the talk page. I've linked the relevant section above; if someone else is unclear I'll be more verbose here but I don't believe for a minute you actually think that's why you were banned. KillerChihuahua01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't link the relevant section above. The section where you banned me is here. I do not understand why you think this talk page comment of mine was disruptive. You really are asserting that it was disruptive? KC, would you please let another admin handle this?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Nope, never said (or thought) that one was disruptive, never commented on that in any way, as you well know. How many red herrings you planning to put here? KillerChihuahua02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You banned me on 2 April at 10:34. It would help if you could give a diff of an edit by me on April 1 or April 2 that you found problematic.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)I would highly recommend everyone taking Ferrylodge's statements with a gigantic grain of salt. His behavior here is typical. I've yet to figure out if it is tactics or his nature - I don't really care to be honest - but he has, and will continue to carry on debate, at a length and degree of rhetoric that exhausts patience of nearly everyone who comes into contact with him. Andrew c for example, is one of the most calm, civil and patient editors I've encountered. I further remind everyone that some administrators appear "involved" only because of repeated administrative involvement - make your own judgment if KC is too involved anyway, but there is not sufficient reason to doubt her good faith.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears that Ferrylodge and KillerChihuaha have had disputes over abortion-related articles going back at least two years. The Sarah Palin talk page looks mostly like a fight between the two of them. Maybe the mediation would go better with a different editor. Will Bebacktalk03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The Palin article had a brief edit war, which immediately ceased when I mentioned it. All editors (except FL) have been exemplary - coming from widely differing views, they are working very hard to resolve the issues. Enter Ferrylodge, who has taken up two sections, and yes it is virtually all between he and I, concerning NOT the dispute which is being discussed by all the other editors, but a manufactured dispute which Ferrylodge has been pursuing, which has eaten up most of the talk page over the last several days. This "fight between the two of them" is Ferylodge being tendentious and derailing the mediation with a trivial side issue, and has nothing to do with the mediation, which has NO fight, between myself and anyone, nor between Ferrylodge and anyone. I begin to doubt whether you have examined this in any detail, Will. KillerChihuahua04:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Roadmap to the talk page:
The mediation/editor discussion to resolve the dispute is occurring in these sections: # 10 Bridges, again; * 10.1 Take two; and # 12 Knik Arm Bridge - include or not.
Ferrylodge's derailment, aka tempest in a teapot, aka Ferrylodge persistently and tendentiously taking up time and bandwidth on some edits which are not part of the mediation/dispute, and discussion surrounding Ferrylodge's behavior, occurs in these sections: * 11.1 Ferrylodge's edits; * 11.2 Further discussion about Ferrylodge's edits. This is not a fight between editors; this is me repeatedly warning Ferrylodge and him repeatedly pursing his agenda. KillerChihuahua04:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what kind of mediation is going on over there - is it under the mediation committee, the mediation cabal, or just freelance? It looks like the latter. Since it's a contentious topic under probation perhaps it should be handled more formally. Will Bebacktalk04:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Freelance, or as I put it "informal" in the hopes that formal could be avoided, per standard DR escalation. As there are zero problems with the mediation/discussion, which is proceeding well, I fail to see why you, who are not involved, are suggesting it be escalated. None of the editors who are involved have expressed any dissatisfaction for the way things are proceeding, and there have been many positive expressions regarding the process so far. There has been only one complaint, and that was about Ferrylodge. For those who are unaware, I am a member of the Mediation Committee. KillerChihuahua05:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I regret having to bring this up, but as Bobblehead and Will have characterized interaction between myself and Ferrylodge on Abortion as undifferentiated "disputes", I draw editors' attention to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge, in which Arbcom found that Ferrylodge "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion", and the remedy of that is that he is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. This is hardly two editors having a dispute; this is one editor being disruptive. I am usually in disagreement with Ferrylodge on his disruptive and tendentious edits. I trust that this lays the entire subject to rest and we do not have to rub Ferrylodge's face in this any more - the problem at hand is on the Palin article, and Abortion has nothing to do with it. Ferrylodge, for what its worth, I am sorry I had to bring this up to clarify things. KillerChihuahua06:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
KC, I see editors from both sides of the dispute saying that they disagree with the topic ban. In fact I don't see anyone agreeing with it as it was performed. Again, I suggest that you lift it and find an another admin to do it. Acting as mediator and as enforcer may be a bad combination. Will Bebacktalk06:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article talk page and as another admin consider the ban both sensible and justified, and am ready to reconfirm or reinstate the ban should KC choose to lift it. KC as an experienced and trusted mediator has put considerable thought and effort into moving towards agreement on essential aspects of the article, and that should be given time to run its course without unnecessary and disruptive diversion. As of the most recent edits at user talk.Ferrylodge, Ferrylodge agreed to Bobblehead's suggestion of this ANI appeal "even though I don't have time", so I'm sure he or she can find useful things to do in the meantime, and can always prepare the case carefully for discussion once the issues currently being discussed on the Sarah Palin article have been resolved. . dave souza, talk08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
While Ferrylodge can become a bit zealous at times, I don't quite see why he was banned here. Were there sections redacted from the talk page that I might be missing here? I'm pretty busy at work this time of year, so haven't been monitoring very closely (well, at all... I didn't even know I had talk page messages until KC emailed me). --SB_Johnny | 10:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me get back to you with some details you may have missed, SB - thanks for coming over, btw! I much appreciate it - but for now allow me to simply say he's displaying the same kind of disruptive tactics which have already resulted in restrictions for him in a previous situation.
Reply to Will Beback: I don't believe you understand or appreciate the problem, Will, and have not phrased your request in any manner which indicates you do, or that you are focusing on what would be best for Misplaced Pages - in this case, the Sarah Palin article ? Please note also that although Ferrylodge was well aware I was watching his talk page, and if he was watching the article talk page was aware I would carefully consider a request from him to reverse myself (my post stated "As Ferrylodge has made no such request, nor has he made such a commitment, and has instead redirected everyone's attention to his edits, disrupting the process, I see no reason to consider this at this time. If Ferrylodge chooses to make such a request, I will consider it. I do watch his talk page."), he responded not by a civil "reaching out" to myself as the blocking admin with a request to reconsider, perhaps combined with either a commitment to cease his disruptive behavior, or a sincere request to more fully understand what was wrong with his behavior there, but rather with a vicious rant against me on his talk page and then a series of misdirects, red herrings, and outright lies here - beginning with the lie that this is in any way a content dispute between myself and him. This does not reassure me that he plans to be more productive and less of a problem on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we split two issues really quick here?
K.C's topic banning of Ferrylodge as an administrator
K.C operating as a mediator (which is dispute resolution which is the best kind administrative work as it actually can improve content)
I've read some objections to K.C being the person doing the ban but not the ban itself, and some disagreement whether the ban itself is justified, some notions that regardless of the ban itself, Ferrylodge being blocked for his behavior. I have not read anything significant that suggests that we have any business criticizing K.C for intervening as a mediator - and absolutely nothing that justifies asking her to back of. In the hypothetical situation we find that K.C's mediation is less than ideal, who here is going to stand up and take over for her? Until someone is willing, able, and has the community trust to actively help out instead of critique from the sidelines, I firmly suggest that we end that line of discussion immediately.--Tznkai (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I asked to make the discussions separate back on 17:21, 2 April 2009 (above). I fully disagree with the ban, but honestly have no real problem with KC being the one "mediating" (I noted that the relationship between the two was less than collegial above, but don't take any of that into account regarding my view of the ban). I think KC is doing a good job of trying to get editors on the Sarah Palin article to work towards a common goal, and have no problem with her remaining and doing so. I just disagreed that FL was being disruptive to the point a ban was required. Discussion is still taking place, and FL has been comporting himself well after asked to self-revert his disputed edits, taking part in the discussions working towards a settlement of the disputes at hand. Mahalo. --Ali'i15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is true - FL did self revert, at my request (he mentions this above, calling it 'insistance') and has made a few edits to the content discussion for resolving the core KAB/GIB/B2N dispute. He unfortunately would not stop making his main effort towards an off-topic set of disputed edits which were taking time and attention from teh main discussion, effectively derailing it. This is to the tune of 22252 characters or 3595 words on his side issue, which no one else was discussing and which he introduced by editing the section where all other editors were observing a "good conduct" editing ban. In contrast, he has spent a mere 310 words on the core issue. KillerChihuahua15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this and see no worries with what KC has done. Ferrylodge, you'd get much further with KC and other editors by being civil about all this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I try. The accusations against me are so inflammatory that it's difficult. Accused here at this page of "fucking bullshit", of "lying", "smearing", and the like is not something that I remotely enjoy or understand. I ask for a diff of something I did wrong, and instead I get cursed?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to edit one of the highest traffic and PoV-ridden articles on en.Misplaced Pages, about a politician no less, then find yourself banned from it for a week, you may want to think about settling down and skirting any and all posts which might be taken as attacks or claims of having been done wrong but rather, steadfastly and in a civil way, stick to sources you'd like to have echoed in the text. You'll get nowhere on this project page trying to get through KC diff by diff. Start afresh, I'm only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
KC has explicitly banned me for discussing sources I'd like to have echoed in the text. That's what I was doing, and got banned for it. Please show me one diff on April 1 or April 2 where I was doing anything other than exactly what you recommend.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Forget the diffs. My understanding is, she banned you for more than bringing up sources. However, if you want me to look at this, hie to my talk page and list the sources. If you throw in a lot of text my eyes will likely glaze over. This is a political topic, so most sources from any outlook you can think of will be mostly worthless spin and lies to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If I was banned for more than bringing up and discussing sources, then why can't anyone show me a diff from April 1 or April 2 where I was doing anything but discussing sources, and discussing how to edit the article so that the article tracks the sources? I have no idea what I've done wrong, and am simply asking for a diff. Do diffs not matter? Does it not matter what I was actually doing? On April 1 and April 2, I was discussing sources and how to edit the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So far as this thread goes I don't care about anything but sources. List them on my talk page or forget it. All the best to you, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that FL has been rather civil about this (excepting, of course, the slight outburst on his talk page directly after being informed of the ban, since struck). --Ali'i15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Re to Tzn: thanks for your kind words, but I really must give most of the credit to why the mediation/content discussion is going so well to the editors involved. This is a Hot Topic; its why the article was placed on probation to being with - and an edit war had just gotten underway, and I merely gave a couple of reminders to discuss and find consensus, and to focus on content not contributor, and they have been exemplary and admirable in their restraint and focus and willingness to work to find a solution. The editors of the article, namely GreekParadise, Kelly, Threeafterthree , Buster7, Fcreid, Collect. and Ali, Zaereth, and JamesMLane (I hope I haven't missed anyone, if I have I am sorry!). While I appreciate the vote of confidence, no one can mediate if the editors are not willing and able, and these editors have been amazing. KillerChihuahua15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
KC/FL: check your emails, and back down please. It's pretty clear that neither of you trusts the other, and this is getting a bit unseemly (on both of your parts). You're both here to improve the encyclopedia, not make drama, right? This is not a conversation, and if you can't have a conversation with each other, just talk to me, and I'll try to figure out why you can't just talk to each other. --SB_Johnny | 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Close, please: Email recieved, so I'm going to try some imformal mediation here between KC and Fl. I think we've gone over the edge into "schoolyard debate" at this point, so good taste suggests closure of this thread. --SB_Johnny | 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Russavia and Offliner inserting neo-Nazi material into Kaitsepolitseiamet
In concert with the previous report, look at how Offliner inserts material lifted from the personal blog of Risto Teinonen, a man known for his love for Nazi armbands, into a Wikipedi article. After removal of this unnotable opinion, he restores it, then Russavia restores it. Clearly, what's going on is some sort of neo-Nazi trolling. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος!19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that people look at Talk:Kaitsepolitseiamet#Removed_from_article_for_time_being. I removed this oblivious to this report, and removed it only after editing the material and coming to my own conclusion that the accusation is WP:UNDUE in its current form, in that it is too much huff. However, as this person has been investigated by the KaPo and was charged (and convicted ??) with "Neo-Nazi" "activities", then his opinion does have some weight, but not in the form it was in. As to whether he is notable, well the President of Estonia withdrew state decorations from the individual as noted here. I would also like to point out that Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned states that editors are warned in insinuating others are Neo-Nazi or harbour Neo-Nazi sympathies, and I have asked Digwuren to refactor this, as I hate them as much as the next person, and reject such childish things as that. And as I write this, I noticed that Digwuren has reinforced this with this further solidifying of his opinion. --Russavia19:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Martintg, blogs are not generally reliable sources, and yes I know this, but I was also somewhat confused by the URL of said blog as well. But even then, he is borderline notable in my opninion, and hence his blog may be allowable as a reliable source for HIS comments in a very defined number of occasions. But anyway, how about http://www.ekspress.ee/2009/03/19/eesti-uudised/40473-teinonen-kapo-ahvardas-mind-surmaga-kapo-kommentaar as a source for the accusations? I've just run that through Google translate, and it reports the accusations. I am not about to label someone a Neo-Nazi, because to be honest I have no idea, however, the photo in that article is somewhat telling, and as much as I hate everything Neo-Nazism stands for, Misplaced Pages is not censored, and as he does seem to be a notable person (blame the press for making such people notable in the first place), this is valid for inclusion on the article. Now take that in addition to this, and work on getting it included in the article in some way. --Russavia20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank God this has been removed by now. This section was outrageous: clearly violating WP:FRINGE,WP:TEDIOUS and just every major wiki policy. Numerous ludicrous claims by a certain Finnish activist would at best make up one sentence, if other, more reliable critics were included, too. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it has been removed, temporarily. Of course, the lack of an ounce of good faith on the part of the other editors (not Miacek) is amazing. And the thing that is Digwuren is going to have some questions to answer in relation to his re-inforced vile, disgusting accusations that I and Offliner are Neo-Nazis. One would think that an editor with their own Wiki shortcut (what an honour that must be! his mum must be so proud) would know better (Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned). --Russavia19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I nominated the article shahzada for deletion and based on the policy of the pages that are nominated for deletion, during the time that a page is nominated, no one should blank, redirect it or hide the content of it, so other users can look at the actual content of the article and vote accordingly. However, right now, with the changes that this user (the user:Geo Swan) has made to this page, the page does not look like before at all. As you can see, what the article looked before and during the nomination is different with now which is a disambiguation page! The change that this user has made to this page has violated the AFD policy as it states:
"You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."
Although the user's change is "disambiguation page" and simillar to "redirect" but it has violated this policy the same way by hiding the content of the original article. As I mentioned earlier, now users are unaware of the original content of this article to vote.
Actually no, a redirect is entirely different from a disambiguation page. Turning (or reverting) it into a disambiguation page is entirely appropriate IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a redirect is a technical feature that hides content, a disambiguation is just a normal edit, looks fine to me. MBisanz22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at this article? All the contents, the picture, everything was deleted to make this disambiguation page. my nomination was based on that original article. Any change that hides the content, or deletes the content should count as violation, shouldn't? my question is, what about those deleted contents? no one cares about them? Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This policy also states that you should be carefull about what you add. I am wonder, the things that are deleted is not important? the whole article was deleted. Can someone explain me how this is NOT a violation please? forget about the redirect, that was my example of violation. Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Had you looked at the history, you would have seen this version prior to its hijacking by anon edits - a disambiguation page - so alas, rather than delete it, other editors boldly put it to rights. No violation of any kind seems to have happened other than by those anon's who repurposed a disambiguation page to their preferred meaning. May I suggest that you check the history of articles before nominating them for deletion - the version you are criticizing may well be the result of vandalism or good faith errors (the latter applying here). I suggest you withdraw your Afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am sure you have looked at all the history for this article, as well as this one. Of course I have looked at the history and I would continue on for the AFD nomination, simply because I do not thin that article should be there. I really appreciate administrator: Ukexpat for linking shahzada to where it belongs. Kind regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I just edited that link a little, I didn't add it. N.B. I am not an admin, just an editor dealing with stuff that does not need admin intervention so that admins can be freed up to deal with the stuff that does. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
COI edits by user:Jokestress putting WP at potential legal risk
User:Jokestress has an off-wiki website interlinked with that of a group called OII, including comments she and the owner of the other site make of each other's off-wiki actions.
User:Jokestress violates WP:COI (at the least) by editing the page without disclosing her relationship to its content. Because real-world lawyers have become involved with allegations of libel for that site's content, this situation is problematic, even egregiously problematic, for WP.
Because I myself have an indirect association with the subject matter (I know some of the people involved), I've refrained from editing the page (other than to tag it for notability and lack of references), and I disclosed my association nonetheless .
Although the substance of user:Jokestress’ edits are not objectionable in themselves, to fail to disclose on WP an off-wiki association with the website of an organization undergoing libel accusations for the content of that website, all while editing the WP page about the organization that created the site is a serious lapse in judgment, one potentially putting WP at legal exposure. (I therefore brought it here for input rather than to COIN.)
Although user:Jokestress contributes to a wide variety of topics on WP, her involvement in pages related to her off-wiki activism (she openly acknowledges her real-world identity as a professional activist) have long been disruptive, and now may be dangerous to WP. I do not believe she should be editing either the mainpages or the talkpages related to her off-wiki activism. — James Cantor (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Has she actually made any problematic edits on Misplaced Pages? What people do on other websites is something we've no control over, even if you're certain they're the same person. – iridescent23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
These are her edits of the page on which she has a COI: . As I said, it is not the edits that are objectionable, it is the failure to handle her COI when off-wiki legal action underway.— James Cantor (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Maybe it's just me, but the above approaches WP:TLDR, and I'm not sure what the problem actually is. James, what, concisely, is/are the incident(s) on the en Misplaced Pages you are bringing for admin action to AN/I? Do you have any diffs that show harm or against-policy edits? Can you précis, please? Tonywalton23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly possible that I am over-interpreting WP's willingness to tolerate liability issues. In the present situation, an editor is content of a page with which she has an off-wiki relationship. That's straight-forward COI and can typically be handled by disclosing the relationship. However, when there are real-world legal actions about libel, then the failure to disclose is much more dangerous to WP. Better?— James Cantor (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has a zero-tolerance approach to legal threats on the Wiki. If there is libellous content you can contact the foundation or provide specific diffs here. Mentioning libel repeatedly without specific edits or content listed is operating right on the edge of our no legal threats policy. Please stop this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This user is a WP:SPA here to promote his sexology coworkers and their ideologies, and to denigrate their critics, including Organisation Intersex International (OII). The OII article was tagged by James Cantor as needing sources, so I added a couple. I have no professional connection with OII, though I do report some of their news items as I do with all major trans and intersex groups. James Cantor, on the other hand, is a coworker with Kenneth Zucker, who has some sort of legal feud going on with OII right now. That's why James Cantor tagged this as non-notable, even though he knows this is the largest intersex organization in the world. I added a citation from renowned intersex scholar Milton Diamond to keep this article from being deleted. I suggest ignoring this editor's behavior and focus on the article's content. He wikilawyers like this all the time. Jokestress (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The diffs he provided above as evidence of "objectionable" edits look like the addition of well-sourced references to me. I'm also a little confused about James' use of the term "objectionable", which, unless translated into "specifically against WP policy" appears to be a mere point of view. Tonywalton23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I said her edits themselves were not objectionable. Her failure to disclose her COI with the topic is. For example, in the above, she says she has not professional connection with the group and only reports news; however, here she explicitly endorses the group as a speaker.— James Cantor (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
'How, exactly and concisely, is her behaviour "putting WP at potential legal risk" (as your section header claims). Please be specific. Please also list what administrator action, specifically you are requesting to stop this "legal risk". If you are unable to specify what immediate admin intervention is required I suggest you take this dispute to the dispute resolution process. Tonywalton23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a non-issue. The off-wiki link listed above does not endorse OII for anything. It merely reports that they have published a list of speakers. This editor's incessant on-Wiki attacks on me are really disruptive and have gotten quite old. I've been here since 2004, and most editors who have been this bothersome have typically been blocked indefinitely. He even has a personal attack about me on his user page. Does anyone have thoughts on how to proceed? Jokestress (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A couple of things. The fact that the folks editing the list of articles on Cantor's userpage have a conflict of interest has been well established for a long time, and has led to multiple edit wars and enormous amounts of discussion. On the other hand, Jokestress has never been a source of disruption directly and nothing listed above would seem to change that. While discussing this we should keep in mind that Cantor edits under his real name and Jokestress' name is easily connected to her Misplaced Pages account. I would suggest, though, that Cantor not connect the two (her name and her account) on his userpage unless he has permission. Anyway, unless there is more of a problem than has been established so far, I think this report can be archived with no action needed. Avruch01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Jokestress has never been a source of disruption? Since when is a discussion even a heated one a disruption? Remember it takes two to tango.
The substance of this report is that Jokestress did not reveal her COI with respect to OII. Ok. I think if anything somewhere there should be a discussion of weather or not cross linking things on webpages constitutes enough of a relationship to cause a COI. But not here. However there are such cross links, it can give an appearance of impropriety. As for legal threats. JamesCantor is just mentioing the fact that OII has been threatend more than once, as have websites that link to it. (IMHO a link does not have to imply agreement, context matters.) That said I can think of one place where she has cross linked something from OII and given it her agreement Click my name. Her relationship to them is not innocent. But I am not impartial in my judgement of this matter. However I think sensible advice would be to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Not everyone will shrug off what that website says. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case avoiding an appearance of impropriety would mean instead of just adding the ref's she could add them to the talk page, and notify someone really neutral at the COI notice board. As a matter of fact that may have been a beetter place for this thread.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It does not always take two to tango. One may throw a punch while the punching bag is innocent of wrongdoing. Do you then accuse the punchee if he attempts to defend himself? This platitude is accurate fairly often; however it is inaccurate at least as often and I for one would prefer people would think this through and stop using it.
But that's not the case here. As a matter of fact I can think of plenty of cases where Jokestress has insulted or personaly attacked people. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly being blanked by Darko Trifunovic (talk·contribs), who claims to be the subject of the article. It's been the target of a lot of disruptive editing by Serbian and Bosnian editors over the years, as the individual in question appears to be fairly controversial. In the last few months a series of anonymous IPs have attempted to replace the article with a poorly written curriculum vitae. The problems appear to be reaching a new stage now, so input from an uninvolved administrator would be appreciated.
Just to add a bit more background info, over the last eight months or so, a series of IP and new editors has repeatedly sought to replace the article with an unsourced curriculum vitae or to add this text to the article. I strongly suspect that this is the same individual, probably Darko Trifunovic (talk·contribs), as the style of writing appears to be the same and there are some very distinctive common elements (look for the use of "ref" followed by a hyperlink). The geographical range of the IP addresses used may indicate some degree of open proxy abuse.
Informational background - the article is a fairly critical BLP of a ethnically Serbian Bosnian (now Serb) citizen and former minor Bosnian diplomat, who wrote some material widely believed to be genocide revisionism / denialism over the Bosnian civil war.
We believe that the user account is the subject of the article.
This has come up before - with different accounts, people claiming to be Mr Trifunovic complained about having the article at all, specific content, etc. I believe this flew up to OTRS at one point - I think that's where I saw it first. Complaints have been rejected in general as attempts to whitewash the subject's reputation and remove well sourced negative materials.
In my opinion, the sourcing, while somewhat biased, has consistently met WP:RS and WP:V, and though some Bosnian extremists have violated WP:BLP on the article on and off it has generally met the policy as written and normally enforced.
However, now is as good a time as any for more previously uninvolved admin review, if he's up and zapping content again. I am tempted to just indef the account, as he's been blocked under other account names before, but independent review before action would be great. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There was no blanking, Trifunovic is a NPF and Georgewilliamherbert and ChrisO have blocked anyone's effort to point out the article has no merit and violates Misplaced Pages policy on Non public Figures. Futher they shout vandalism but ignore all discussion that challenges their neutrality and qualifications by claiming all critics are Trifunovic. I am not Trifunovic but an American PhD who specializes in Balkan matters and I can tell you the article is biased, not relevant, over hyped and all the rest and appears to be an attempt to incite hatred against Trifunovic who is simply a colleague of mine. The article puts Trifunovic at risk of being assasinated by Bosnian extremists and it's a bad article as pointed out repeatedly in the discussions. Dr. Levy Resistk (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please use the "History" tab on articles to review before making claims like that. We make edit histories available just to avoid any question of who did what when.
Regarding the non-public figure claim - Trifunovic and Levy (Resistk) have both asserted that, but the reliable sources stand as evidence that he is one. If one is covered in the media for multiple notable events, and Trifunovic is and continues to be, one is notable and a public figure. One might argue that if all the coverage was purely from Bosnian sources it might not be generally notable, but he's appeared in other media as well.
Dr Levy - How is Dr Trifunovic a colleague of yours?
We both teach counter terror courses, have academic affiliations etc. Both of us are involved with the Jasenovac Research Institute. Resistk (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You are really stretching things when you say he is notable and mentioned in non Balkan articles - exactly one I count - an Italian new service reporting threats on his life for exactly the same sort of stuff recklessly put out in the Misplaced Pages article. In my opinion Misplaced Pages is getting as bad as Blogspot and Blogger which never remove anything no matter how violative of their own terms of service. This is why universities generally mark down students who attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a source. Resistk (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Dr Trifunovic's publications denying mass murder at Srebrenica were noticed outside Bosnian media circles. Time magazine noticed (referenced on the article). There are more, if you go back further and deeper - we have not bothered, as notability was previously established.
There are two possible venues for removal of the information - one, Dr Trifunovic is judged to be truly not a public person, or two, the claims are shown to be false.
The claim that he's not a public person fails due to the media coverage - mostly in Bosnian and related Balkans publications, but it's wider than that. Neither Dr Trifunovic nor you are arguing that the information is not true.
Is it true that most professors in the Balkans have no Misplaced Pages page? Sure. However, Dr Trifunovic has become a public figure due to his controversial viewpoints and assertions.
Further - on the article talk page, you (Resistk) just suggested that the Italian article on his uninvitation to an academic conference was somehow not reliable or inaccurate, because it had been in a less well known Italian news source.
I would like to know if either you or Dr Trifunovic assert that the Italian article under discussion is false. Further - do you or Dr Trifunovic assert that anything else in the Misplaced Pages article is false?
An editor named User:Johnnymurda is causing some disruption in the article over the rapper's past sex offenses. See Johnnymurda's contributions and Talk:Tupac Shakur#Tupac Hater Sesshomaru. (S)he asked for a source, I provided two reliable ones, and yet this user is still acting quite uncivil and is reverting my edits (for no reason really). I am now thinking that this isn't a good faith editor anymore, but purely a disrupter. Some administrative action would make a difference here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Try NYT "Tupac Shakur, the wounded rap performer who was convicted of felony sex-abuse charges last week." which rather seems to state that he was convicted of a felony sex crime. Dozens more cites for the NYT on this. "He served nine months on a sexual-abuse conviction, accused of raping a fan in Manhattan. " He was on bail pending appeal of the felony when he died. Collect (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor who goes by the name Sesshomaru has been making falsehood claims about rapper Tupac Shakur of being a sex offender. he/she has not shown any solid prove that the rapper is a sex offender, no documents, no web sites,no nothing. the so called source that Sesshomaru provided were not reliable Enough to Categorized Tupac has a sex offender. Sesshomaru didn't even get this so called source from any web site, it was fake. It's funny how Sesshomaru had a talk with other editor named Wakamusha who has since retired had a discussion back in August 2008 about Tupac being Categorized has a sex offender.see Talk:Tupac_Shakur#Category:American_sex_offenders. Wakamusha and Sesshomaru agreed that tupac should be in the Category:American criminals instead of Category:American sex offenders. now for some reason he/she had a change of heart and decided to put tupac back in the Category:American sex offenders list for whatever reason I don't know. this person is WAY TO OBSESSED CATEGORIZED TUPAC HAS A SEX OFFENDER and it is getting very annoying.Johnnymurda (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You are both guilty of edit warring over a content dispute. Article edit protected for 3 days; I'm not blocking either of you for your WP:3RR violations, but be aware next time it might be different, depending on circumstances and which admin takes a look. You two need to discuss this ont eh article talk page and work things out. KillerChihuahua05:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand Johnnymurda's issue. How do those two links fail WP:RELY and how are they "fake"? The reason (I believe) why Shakur wasn't categorized as a convicted sex offender before was that there was no source explicitly stating it. Now that a few have been added, Johnnymurda is still against the cited facts and reverts for inexplicable reasons. Could someone solve this madness? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please list the page(s) on which this privacy violation occurred, preferably with the history diff between versions that the administrator did?
We can't investigate anything if you won't say what this is about.
Has been engaging in extreme article ownership at Robert Hunnicutt, personal attacks, and vandalism as shown in the edit history. I think a block is in order to prevent further disruption. MuZemike07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
He used to be Gaghostsociety (talk·contribs) but requested a name change after being advised to. Check his talk. he probably momentarily forgot about the change while logging in. He's very upset now and has asked for the article on him to be deleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've received legal threats from this user (on my talk page) about this edit. I left a warning and a note on the user's talk page. I feel slightly biased in this so I'll leave an admin to come to their own conclusion. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Promises to continually blank an article, then makes a legal threat bundled into a generally incivil comment...blocked for 48 hours. Of course, I would have blocked indef, except that I have no idea when the IP will change. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the IP's complaint is on the level, he's saying there are only 2 houses on that street, that he owns both of them, and this article might draw undue attention to that street. I don't know if that's a reasonable complaint or not. But if it's true, then someone took a photo of one of his houses and posted it here, so if I were him I might be ticked also. I'd like to hear how that tiny street qualifies for an article. The thrust of the article seems to be complaints about the way the street was dealt with, given the subtle editorial-like verbiage. I'm guessing the article subject is highly personal to whoever wrote it. That part is understandable too. But this is just a small side street in a Cleveland suburb. What are the notability rules for individual streets? For example, Lombard Street is certainly notable - a well-known tourist attraction in a large city. But this little street? I can't see it. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion, but I'm not a deletionist. Baseball Bugscarrots08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking into that. I suppose the argument would center on the unusual decoration of the houses and the activist campaign to save it from redevelopment. But then, the only real source given is a local news story. There's also a few sentences in this book about it. Every other mention of the street on the whole of the internet is either part of a real estate pitch or a mention of utmost triviality. But I don't think there's any credibility to the "invasion of privacy" claim; I am actually sympathetic to such claims with regard to articles of extremely questionable notability, but that doesn't forgive the incivility and the legal threat (actually in the same edit) when we're not dealing with threats related to a serious BLP issue. But anyway, I'm reasonably certain the article would be deleted at AFD, after going through the 46 unique ghits. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't question the block. You make a legal threat, you're history. His proper course of action would have been to file an AFD. But are IP's allowed to file AFD's? And obviously he can't right now, but he could in 48 hourse - if IP's can file AFD's. Baseball Bugscarrots08:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Another observation is that if someone things it's notable because of that "mural" - well, the average third-grader could do better than that. Baseball Bugscarrots09:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
To go straight to the point, I believe that the user has a skewed idea of what they are allowed to do on their talk page. And they feel that it is appropriate to remove part of a discussion thread, part of someone's comments.
I think it's inappropriate.
I did not post here immediately in the hopes that this would change, but I don't see a change in sight.
I'd like both:
a.) either all of the comments restored (I'll just speak for mine, though others' were as well), per WP:TALK, or all of the comments removed, per WP:USER
b.) and (more importantly) someone to explain to the user that this is simply inappropriate.
If this is how they continually treat other editors when they disagree with them, then I have sincere concerns.
I realise that this can seem a minor concern, but the editing of others' comments to remove context, or to in any way misrepresent what someone may have said is in my estimation at least, a very "bad thing".
Last I checked, only blocks and the like were not to be removed by a user. Other than "formal stuff" like that, it is their page. And you control your own page. If you wish to make comments on your own page, then that user does not control your page. Collect (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that people are not allowed to refactor other peoples' comments, except in cases of PA, etc. //roux10:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There was no refactoring or editing of jc37's comments as can easily be determined. I am allowed to close threads on my own talk page, am I not? I made it clear further comments on the matter were unwelcome. After previous harassment from a friend of jc37 (despite jc37's claims of being an "uninvolved" party, it seems evident they are in fact close associates), I made it clear they should not continue to post on my talk page. They insisted on doing so. That is all. And it's a sad thing that jc37 just can't let this go. He has to get in the last word somehow, even if that includes coming here to harass me indirectly. The bot has archived my talk page, as it does to anything after 7 days. This is my last comment on this matter. I do not intend to watch this very busy page, and I would appreciate someone closing this section as it is nothing more than the continuation of a minor grudge. --C S (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was responding to Collect, not commenting on the specific situation. The lack of diffs makes that--ahem--difficult. My feeling is that if you have told jc37 explicitly to stay away, s/he should stay away, period. //roux11:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I had looked at all the diffs (a bunch to be sure) and there was no case of putting words in anyone's mouth - it was "removal" precisely, though I ought to have made that clear. I am pretty sure that everyone knows that making it appear that someone said what they did not say is clearly wrong. Collect (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, first, the reason I was there is because the user was brought up at a DRV discussion as recreating something (prior even to the DRV notice - which incidentally resulted in the restoration anyway), with rather "interesting" edit summaries. I seem to recall that they were discussing what to do about him, and I thought that perhaps a friendly notice to their talk page might be helpful. I got there, and it was just animosity from the user.
I posted what I thought to be an informative post, and they made accusations (among other things), I respond, civilly, I believe (though I welcome WP:3PO on this), and received rather uncivil edit summaries, and threats of blocking, coupled with the removal of anything that apparently they felt didn't support their view of the world.
This was discussed at David Eppstein's talk page (the admin C S went to for assistance), and even he tried to remove, and was balked at, with CS calling it harrassment, and suggesting that people would be blocked for removing their own comments. (And posted a notice to that effect on their talk page)
Fascinating opinion of policy, even if it's not true.
As for not having diffs, check the link above called "history".
And this isn't a "grudge", this is about unrepentant inappropriate behavior.
Three editors, all who also happen to be admins, seem to find issues with the editor's behavior. And even now, the editor seems to think that this is correct.
For now, I'd advise every other editor involved to refrain from editing User talk: C S. In future, it clearly is not reasonable to expect C S to respond well to admins raising concerns about their actions - even deliberate and disruptive actions such as performing an end run around deletion. It seems to me that, in the event of any future disruption, such as attempts to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies or processes, a short block would be the best way to protect the encyclopaedia. Any other approach is likely to lead to unnecessary drama. SHEFFIELDSTEEL18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I regret that I may have violated 3RR on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory; the question is complex because counting "reverts" is tricky in the particular case. When I realized that I may have crossed the line, I stopped editing the page immediately. I do believe that his edits to the text of Brotherhood of Saint Gregory are not in good faith.
He has accused me of WP:HOUNDING, and it would be useful to explain. I noticed in my recent changes that he had posted the spurious CFD on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory, and added a "holdon" tag, and set to work tracking down some references. Further references will await some newspaper research, so I stopped that work. I then noticed that he also edited many pages which are on my regular watch list, most notably, by creating some new templates with virtually identical content to other templates in use by the Anglicanism project, and with confusingly similar names. He started putting these templates in many pages edited by the project, and removing the previous templates. In all these edits, he did not provide any edit summaries. Because such changes are destabilizing and the project normally discusses them rather than simply charging ahead, I reverted some of the changes, and looked at his contributions log as a guide to which changes should be reverted. I was careful to examine each change carefully, considering case-by-case, and many of them I did not revert. In addition, there was a discussion a while back about the separate pages for the various seminaries of the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the consensus was that the different seminaries did not need separate pages, but that the section in the REC article should include the relevant info in a merge/redirect scheme. Because some of these pages are on my regular watchlist, I noticed the changes when they occured, and restored the previous consensus, with a request to open a discussion if the consensus needed to be changed.
I am confident that his edits in both the templates question and the REC seminaries question were in good faith, but still, they were contrary to the consensus, and I believe my edits were justified.
When I realized that he was not interested in discussing either of these content disputes with me, I stopped editing the pages in question, and got back to work on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. An admin denied the CFD (of course), with some useful comments about notability should a VFD be opened.
He then begins an old pattern of personal comments about me on his own userspace and . Of course, the notes I made are not anything of the kind, nor did I delete the pages in question (nor could I, not being an administrator).
In the course of the content dispute, he has, as I mentioned above, violated 3RR in my user space, published my name in user comments (once after he knew I objected to this), accused me of sockpuppetry three times, and labelled every single one of my good-faith edits as vandalism. Tb (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Leave me alone.
Stop reverting all my edits.
Stop mass deleting of articles and templates with sneaky redirects, etc.
Stop following me around Misplaced Pages.
Stop filing complaints that you lose.
Stop ignoring the outcome of Noticeboard Incidents.
I'm not willing to stop editing pages on Anglicanism, and if you are also not willing to stop editing them, we're going to have to work together.
I don't "revert all your edits", and indeed, I explained exactly what I did earlier today.
I don't mass delete articles (that isn't even possible) nor is there such a thing as a "sneaky redirect". The community agreed to the redirect/merge, and you reverted it without discussion, and I simply tried to restore the community's consensus.
I don't "follow you around".
You have been asked twice now to document those complaints that I "lose".
You have been asked twice now to document what outcome you think I am ignoring.
I will happily leave you alone if you don't edit pages that interest me. But I suspect that's not something you're willing to agree to, so we will have to find a way to work together. Tb (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Where you say "Reverted a page of notes in my user space (User:Tb/Foo) seven times," can you provide a link? I look over there, but don't see that. Dream Focus11:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Sorry, I counted wrong. The seventh was not a blanking, but was this (incorrect, unsigned) comment: . Tb (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ongoing and persistent harassment and WP:Hounding, meaning that he follows my substantive edits all over Misplaced Pages and deletes them. Then he files spurious Noticeboard Incidences, which he loses, but which disrupt Misplaced Pages significantly.
He does little else but hound people.
When someone complains about his harassment, he says it is a "personal attack" justifying him to hound the editor some more and file more spurious Noticeboard Incidents. He ignores the outcome and the cycle goes on and on.
He has been doing this to me for about a year now. He loses the disputes, but ignores them and continues harassing me.
Deletion of tags on the article which is about himself and a group in which he claims membership. It is a WP:Conflict of Interest to edit it and it is disruptive to constantly revert several editors attempt to put up tags. The article Gregorians has no WP:Notability.
Frequent (about 200 times) deletion of content on my user pages.
Deletion of five different articles and numerous templates, which he lists, promising to delete them. Here is his list of the articles he keeps deleting and promises to delete again, which is extremely non-productive and indeed disruptive: Ad.minster (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This was opened after the User:Ad.minster entry was filed by me recently. I would be happy to respond.
As I indicate in my entry above, I have not been monitoring User:Ad.minster's contributions log, except when I was attempting to track down the recent creation of templates which I believed was a good faith, but destabilizing, change to the Anglicanism project. As for the generic claim about filing spurious noticeboard incedents, and "losing" them, I would appreciate some actual evidence. I challenge this as being factually untrue.
As for the claim that "he does little else but hound people", a look at my edit log will show this is untrue. Most of my wikipedia activity consists of monitoring a large set of pages, and reviewing other editors' work, often fixing up style, or resolving inconsistencies in articles, and the like.
Regular readers of this page will remember that when I edited User:Ad.minster's user page, it was specifically to remove comments I had made and no longer wished to have published there, and to remove personal attacks of me in his pages by link or by name. Finally, User:Xeno stepped in and "courtesy blanked" the offending material in User:Ad.minster's pages, though I was content with simply having all reference to me removed.
I have not deleted any articles (I am not an administrator), nor have I blanked articles. I believe that User:Ad.minster is referring to articles such as Reformed Episcopal Seminary, which was part of a merge/redirect a while ago--which I did not execute or have a strong opinion about--and in which User:Ad.minster reverted the consensus. I have not "promised" to delete anything, and he is quite incorrect about the purpose of my notes. Tb (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop reverting all my edits.
Stop mass deleting of articles and templates with sneaky redirects, etc.
Stop following me around Misplaced Pages.
Stop filing complaints that you lose.
Stop ignoring the outcome of Noticeboard Incidents.
Did I say to just leave me alone and stop following me? Ad.minster (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"(about 200 times) deletion of content on my user pages." Can you provide a link to an example of this? And the other claims as well. You two shouldn't be posting on each other user's page, if the other party asks you not to. Dream Focus11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The history has been removed. But you know what it doesn't matter, just get him to stop following me and reverting all my edits. Is that really so hard to understand? He won't listen to you. Do something! Ad.minster (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dream Focus on that score! Indeed, the previous dispute arose because I wanted to remove what I had posted on User:Ad.minster's page, and he kept re-adding it, along with commentary amounting to a personal attack on me. I read WP:3RR carefully, and it said that edits of one's own comments were an exception; alas--edits of one's own user space are also an exception, and we were neither of us willing to back down. Then User:Ad.minster went away, and User:Xeno courtesy blanked the page. Then a fair bit later, a different admin (IIRC) came along and removed the history, since they were personal attacks. (I was surprised when that happened; I had nothing to do with it.) As for the content dispute, there is no right not to be reverted. I would like User:Ad.minster to engage in some basic courtesies: don't make large numbers of changes without edit histories; when he is reverted with a request to discuss in talk, I would like him to discuss in talk; when he is reverted with a reference to previous community discussion, I would like him to discuss. Indeed, if you look at his edit history, you'll see jillions of changes without edit histories, and essentially no posts to talk pages except to criticize me in recent months. But that's all a content dispute and a how-to-handle-content-disputes question. So, the fact is that the content I wanted removed from User:Ad.minster's pages was a personal attack on me, and which ultimately User:Xeno removed, and a different (IIRC) admin purged the edit logs in accord with the policy on personal attacks. Indeed, if this were not true, there would be no reason for the removal of the history, and User:Ad.minster would be able to substantiate his claim. Tb (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment to both parties
I've taken the liberty of merging both threads into one; apologies if anyone objects and please do feel free to revert me (ideally retaining this comment but I'm thick skinned so no worries if it disappears ;-)
I notice you've both been awarded a half-barn star of cooperation by Xeno recently; have either of you contacted Xeno very recently to discuss this? It looks to me like Xeno is a very able diplomat, and would be able to assist both of you in handling this matter privately.
Regardless, I'd like to hear from Xeno before commenting further.
Listen, I hate to be dragged into these meaningless disputes.
Could you just get Tb to stop following me everywhere and reverting everything I do.
Get it? Get him to stop following me! He doesn't take any of your people seriously, or he would have stopped a year ago. Could one of you please do something? Thanks! Ad.minster (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I can't do much that you two can't do yourself (I suppose the one exception is be uninvolved ;-)
In any event, since Xeno has been mediating between you two, I'd like to hear what Xeno thinks before jumping in and assuming that you're right and Tb is wrong. Once I've heard from Xeno I'm prepared to offer any support I can.
I suspect administrators will want more detail - e.g. information from Xeno, or more detail from both you and Tb - before taking any action against Tb, you or both of you. I note that Dream Focus has already requested more detail, for example.
I would be happy to hear from User:Xeno. I'll say that I don't believe I have somehow failed to follow appropriate procedures or policies, and I would readily apologize (and do!) if such is pointed out to me. I urge though that I have been as clear as possible both about my motives in the content dispute, clearly explaining my actions, and documenting and substantiating my claims about User:Ad.minster's behavior when requested, while he has simply repeated them same generic, vague, and unsubstantiated claims. Alas, I think that Xeno's efforts were not quite what did the trick before. Instead, User:Ad.minster has a pattern of popping up once every month or so in much the same fashion (by making a huge number of tendentious edits) and then vanishing in a day or so. When he vanished last time, Xeno did his "courtesy blank" and advised us to both steer clear of each other. Then, nothing happened for a while, and the half-stars were posted. But this was simply the side-effect of User:Ad.minster's every-month-or-so editing cycle, and the very next time he popped up, one of the things he decided to do was a spurious speedy-delete request on an article about a group close to my heart. And, simply "steer clear" works fine if the dispute were only about the personal attacks User:Ad.minster was posting against me, but we also have these content disputes. If User:Ad.minster would adopt a pattern of discussion in talk pages, filling in edit summaries, explaining the purpose of changes, not re-reverting if his change is reverted by another editor, and so forth, the result would be much happier. Tb (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing one user whose name looks like an abbreviation for a serious lung illness, and the other whose name looks like it could turn up if I ran a Norton scan. Eek. And this bad blood between them contrasts with the fact that they both make a thing out of being Christian. Maybe they could both do with a bit of a timeout, and review some of their scriptures about loving their enemies and stuff like that there. Baseball Bugscarrots12:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think either of these comments is helpful; they sound like an attempt to ridicule people in a serious dispute--by making fun of their names, to boot. Tb (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked Ad.minster for 72 hours due to the edit warring at User:Tb/Foo. Tb is exempt from 3RR as its his own userspace and as far as I can tell, the material was not contentious in the least (just a bookmark page of internal wiki links). I'll be looking at this situation in a little more detail, but would like some opinions from others. Ad.minster seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Tb (see, in particular, Ad.minster's deleted edits - sorry, admin only); Tb has done his best to stay away as far as I can tell. –xeno (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
We can't see that, since the list you link to as for administrators only. Odd they don't let everyone view it.
Unauthorized
Jump to: navigation, search
The action you have requested is limited to Administrators.
I'm a mere-motal too, but I've seen some WP:Outing going on, after Tb requested it stop. I won't link to it, but I dare say Xeno can confirm it. I'm tempted to suggest that Ad.minster simply didn't realise that it wasn't Tb who blanked part of Ad.minster's userpage, but Xeno has made this clear on Ad.minster's talk page so it's more likely a case of selective hearing. Despite the claim that Tb is on some sort of deletionist crusade, Ad.minster has nominated at least one article for deletion. I'd be interested to hear more from Ad.minster, but right now I wouldn't argue against a topic ban of articles Tb frequents (and also Tb's user pages, and possibly talk page). I'd also be interested to know exactly what User:Tb/Foo is a list of - though I've seen no evidence that it's a list of articles that Tb intends to "delete" (I believe that Ad.minster means that Tb intends to redirect these articles, rather than physically delete them). Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, since you asked. The list of pages is a (partial) list of pages which I want to go back and check over once things die down. The only one on that list that should probably get redirected is Reformed Episcopal Seminary, but that's the merging discussion, and maybe should get reopened for group discussion. Tb (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Tb - that makes sense. As I mentioned above, I've seen no evidence that the list was what Ad.minster believed it to be. It might be worth adding some explanatory text... though I don't know if it will convince Ad.minster. Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Going forward, the best solution may be for both editors to always follow the bold-revert-discuss principle when dealing with one another's edits. I realise that it's more common to impose 1RR or 0RR restrictions in this sort of situtation, but I think this approach may be more productive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. In the past, what has happened has been similar to this incident (though with less virulence): User:Ad.minster appears, makes a large number of changes, and I and others then carefully go through them and keep some and revert others. That's steps one and two. The change from what has happened in the past would then need to be User:Ad.minster's willingness to begin a discussion, rather than simply re-reverting. In addition, I believe that he should be requested to provide edit summaries for his changes and to offer explanations when he makes them. Tb (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
this has been brought to my user page as well, as I originally declined the speedy on the Brotherhood article. I have warned Ad there about a matter that was mentioned above: he saw fit to place the personal name of another editor on that page; I have of course redacted it. It seems probable to me that the two parrties know each other, and I very strongly suggest they not carry off-wiki matters onto Misplaced Pages. They would do very well to avoid each other altogether, though this may be difficult because of topic overlap. At the least they show avoid making comments on each others' talk pages. DGG (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It started with the deletion of Redboy back in 2007 as patent nonsense, and has gone on for a year and some change under numerous screen names and IP addresses (sockpuppets of User:Johnjoecavanagh). Lately, since I semi-protected my user page, it's involved insulting messages on my talk page on an almost daily basis for months. When I looked at my block log today, I noticed that all of the IPs I've blocked as Johnjoecavanagh socks are 86.40.x.x and 86.45.x.x. Would this be appropriate to range-block for this long-term abuse? SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a very busy ISP and I would not recommend blocking 130,000 IP addresses on this network. You'll block most of Ireland. You'd be better off semi'ing your talk page. On a seperate point, it's completely useless to block dynamic IPs for one year each, when they are changed daily. The odds of the blocks affecting the target user after 24 hours are virtually zero, while the odds of affecting innocent users are almost 100%. -- zzuuzz15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I would have done that long ago, but (A) I didn't think it was appropriate to semi-protect a user talk page, especially in the long run, and (B) there are legitimate IP-user uses for the user talk page that I'm not sure I want to block out, most recently with User talk:SchuminWeb#Vandalism. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection of an admin's talk page is obviously not a good thing, but in this case would be better than the range block. Some admins have, or should have, a subpage like User talk:SchuminWeb/unprotected talk page with a big link to it at the top of the real talk page. This allows noobs to contact you, while at the same time taking away the bright orange message bar from you, as well as most of the fun from the vandals. Just copy the noob comments to your talk page, and ignore the ones from the vandal. It's a variant of RBI and may help reduce any disruption. It's up to you whether you think the disruption is worth it, but it's a better option than the range block. -- zzuuzz17:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I found User:Bastique doing exactly that, so I've seen it in practice, and who knows - it might just work. I'll see what happens, since the orange bar is perhaps the most annoying part of the trolling. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Iran2 failing to respond to copyvio notices, was blocked and still continues
Iran2 (talk·contribs) has continued uploading the same copyvios after over 20 warnings and already after having being blocked. I would usually take this to AIV, but this needs more serious action and scrutiny. The user has continued to upload copyvios after warnings, failed to respond to any warnings, and continued uploading the same copyvios immediately after having being blocked. There is no evidence that he intends to stop with his uploads. — neuro14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody did take it to AIV, and i've just blocked them for a couple of days. If the consensus here is to extend that, then i've no issue with it. --GedUK15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Took a look at one image uploaded today randomly (File:Milad tower new04.jpg) and it took all of 15 seconds to verify it was a copyvio. I'd say that if he's already been warned and blocked, and continues uploading copyvio images to just indef and forget about him. Resolute15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Are you sure they're copyvios? Take this case for example. Mr. Rattansi (for I am guessing it is he) claims to be copyright holder of the work, and the version you found on the internet has a watermark with his name on it, that is not present on our version. Only the photographer would have the original copy. Why wouldn't he be legit? All the images are from in and around Tehran, presumably where he lives. Just because he has previously posted them elsewhere (or sold them), doesn't mean he's stealing them. yandman15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
But his uploads currently listed at PUI seem to have watermarks from different websites and naming different copyright owners (e.g. File:Milad_tower_new07.jpg names one "Arash Hamidi", while File:Milad tower new01.jpg has "amirpix.ir"), so it's unlikely he's the same person as any one of them. Also, isn't this the same user as ااممییرر (talk·contribs), who was blocked for the same kind of mass bad uploads? Fut.Perf.☼16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic, but Iran2 has also been inserting images at inappropriate places in the Flag article. I've not discussed the matter with them (except through edit summaries) because I'm a gutless coward whose linguistic skills can be summed up as "speeks inglish badly, rites inglish badly. Other languages? Don't make me laugh!" The images tend to exhibit a degree of national pride, which is understandable (why shouldn't the Iranian flag feature in the article?), but I've reverted because they're typically in the wrong place - the modern flag or Iran in a section about historic flags, or an image claiming to be the world's largest Iranian flag which is "supported" by references to a campaign trying to create the world's largest Palestinian flag (in Palestine). Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
They really don't seem to be responsive to any kind of feedback. If this second block fails to change their behavior, I suggest a much longer block to get their attention; say 1 week. If that has no effect, and they continue to post copyvios when it expires, we might as well move on to an indefblock. -- The Anome (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
@yandman - That is just from a preliminary search. With his record, and evidence that the image existed elsewhere on the internet pre-upload, and no response, I am presuming that it is indeed a copyvio as suspected. — neuro00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone keep an eye on this user? He's already made two personal attacks against me, which I've warned him about. Dollars to donuts, he's gonna make another, but I'm stepping away for a bit, and since I'm involved, I can't do much than warn him, anyway. Thanks. Jauerback/dude.16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This - "You display qualities that pretty much show you shouldn't be an admin (immaturity, avoidance of policy) ... Grow up, pal" - seems pretty attacky. The edit summary for this ("they'll let anyone be an admin these days, wont they?") might also be seen as a personal attack. Mind you, I'm only bitter because they won't let Bugs be an admin. Cheers, This flag once was reddeeds17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ironic, ain't it? Also ironic is that I think I would have to recuse myself from issuing a block because I think (though I'm not absolutely sure) that he and I have had words in the past, or at the very least that I took someone else's side against his side in a dispute. Baseball Bugscarrots17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For documentation of the history see here. Chrisjnelson is a prolific and hardworking editor who can also be difficult to work with. Not sure what the best response would be in this case, but yes it did go as far as arbitration with a civility probation. Durova17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he was put on civility probation at one time. His path and mine rarely cross, as he is mostly concerned with football articles. He also runs his own website. Maybe the problem is that he's like Jim Rome only more so. Which is fine on a personal website or a radio show, but not so fine on wikipedia. Baseball Bugscarrots17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It was one of Misplaced Pages's oddest arbitration cases and he was on the way to sitebanning, during the proposed decision. Then checkuser revealed two surprising things: the other main party to the case was a returning sock of a banned user, and a second abusive IP editor had tried to frame Chrisjnelson for an impersonation attack. Both of those got sitebanned properly and the Committee decided to give Chris a chance, since it was unclear what his conduct would be without two trolls baiting him. Overall it's been a pleasant surprise: he's racked up a very high edit count, and not-too-frequent noticeboard complaints. Of course the other editors on the receiving end of the nastygrams may feel differently. Consistent sub-blockable sniping may go the direction of wikiquette alert or conduct RfC: have either been tried lately? Durova17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple other diffs that at the very least are very rude, such as here where he says "use your head" "you should be smart enough." Landon1980 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Basically, if I think I'm being uncivil, I can look at a guy like Nelson and see how much worse it could be. Basically, it's all just way-over-reacting, wise-guy stuff that he does. Baseball Bugscarrots17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've interacted once or twice with Chris, and moreso saw his interactions with others. They don't look to good, like the diffs already provided. His actions seem to indicate some WP:OWN issues. Grsz18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a general comment: I love how whenever an ANI gets started about Chris (and it's been awhile now), you can count on someone showing up to comment on Chris' history, so that the entire discussion and investigation deals with Chris' history, and so that the "punishment" often ends up being a function of Chris' history as well. All I ask in this case is that the situation at hand - Cutler - is looked at, and judged on its own merits. This is just an outside comment; it seems that whenever something like this comes up there's always a user with historical grievances who jumps in and pulls the discussion off what it should really be about. Pats1/C20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's intended toward me, I have never been in a content dispute with Chris and actually urged the Committee to downgrade his proposed siteban to a lesser sanction, once it became clear what was going on. It is reasonable to mention in an admin board thread when that sort of conduct history exists, because it is equally reasonable for admins to weigh the difference between "good editor, bad week" and "good editor, two year history of incivility". It's very good to see things toned down from what they used to be, but habitual sub-blockable sniping may drive away other contributors. This was why I asked about WP:WQA and WP:RFC. Durova20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC)I apologize, as I said in the beginning, I was away, but I see this got more complicated than I thought it would be. Some of these differences are already supplied above, but I thought I'd piece them together in one place. As far as I can recall, this is my first and only interaction with this user.
Please explain - without personal attacks, needless to say. What grounds for concern are there? Can you provide diffs of questionable use of the admin tools, disruptive editing, or other policy violations? SHEFFIELDSTEEL20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Taking the liberty of sectioning this off as a subthread, since a discussion of an admin is really separate from concerns about Chris's civility. Durova20:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that, and the fact that he's too immature to just admit he was wrong about his edits and be an adult about it. Someone like that shouldn't have admin privileges.►Chris Nelson20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, my comment was only half-serious. I don't care about him being an admin and I certainly don't care enough to pursue it. It's just my personal opinion that he's too immature to be an admin, not to mention his lack of understanding and/or disregard for WP policy.►Chris Nelson20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah he told me about it. It doesn't matter anyway, I have little interest in this. I didn't do anything to warrant any punishment so I trust I won't receive any.►Chris Nelson21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as you start keeping your personal opinions about editors to yourself, you hopefully should be fine. Tom(talk)03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Just bringing this here for future reference, FireFoxUser2343 (talk·contribs) is a new user who appears to just be commenting on people's pages (in alphabetical order, no less). I've welcomed them, but since we see so many examples of users who come and post to get confirmed, I figured I'd bring it here just in case someone else wants to keep an eye on them. Dayewalker (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Strange indeed, saying Hi to every admin. By my calculations it'll take well over a day to reach my talk page :P It just seems like a waste of a day, rather than an immediate problem. On the other hand this doesn't look promising, so it's probably worth watching, slowly. I can't help wondering if they'll make it. -- zzuuzz18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The previous thread just barely slipped into the archives Unresolved, and it only took a day or two for Ejnogarb to return from his block and begin making non-neutral edits right away again. I just reverted his newest edit in which he claimed a sentence was unsourced, when in fact the footnote immediately before that sentence gave verifiable sources with explicit confirmation.
Ejnogarb indicates on his userpage that he belongs to the church which is being described in that edit. Last week his edits were mainly to insert his church's non-neutral viewpoint into articles about homosexuality and promiscuity and LGBT issues. He was blocked for edit-warring on articles about gay sex, and although i don't have a problem with him editing those articles if he did so neutrally, i do have a problem with him making these kinds of obvious non-neutral edits. Numerous editors tried to explain to him repeatedly about the need for consensus to avoid edit-warring and to avoid wrongful insertion of his viewpoint into articles. If he is so interested in gay sex and promiscuity, that's his business, but i think it's improper to allow this ongoing sort of propagandizing which he is trying to achieve. Misplaced Pages is not his soapbox, and he has been asked nicely repeatedly to avoid standing on the soapbox when editing in the article mainspace. His soapbox viewpoints are perfectly welcome on talkpages and i believe his viewpoint deserves to be respected and included in discussions. I don't think his viewpoint deserves to be insinuated into neutral articles. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~~4-1-1~ 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Great: another spurious attempt to block me. Those involved in this dispute have personally attacked me numerous times, and I doubt this will be the last. The most recent edit in the Proposition 8 article was by an anonymous editor (probably a sock) who inserted inflammatory statements with no source into this and another article. I did my Misplaced Pages duty and deleted them. The above user has shown very little of the respect he keeps referring to. EJNOGARB21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
He says the source was in the previous paragraph. The solution probably is to also cite that standalone statement about the LDS still being under investigation. Ejnogarb himself is a Mormon who presumably wants the Mormons cast in the best possible light. However, if he honestly thought the statement was uncited, then Teledildo needs to cite that line specifically, to resolve any question about it. Baseball Bugscarrots21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, Ejnogarb, i really have been using every bit of effort i can humanly muster to find the tact and civility and calmness to discuss anything with you. I don't dare to presume what your "wikipedia duty" is, but i think the way you are fascinatingly drawn to the articles about Men Having Sex With Men, Promiscuity, "Ex-gays" Pseudoscience, Same-sex Marriage, and Homosexuality is perhaps indicative? I came to your talkpage and thought of every possible way to try to encourage you to edit, while asking you (as nicely as i know how) to perhaps do that editing with some help from people who would be able to coach you on Neutrality. You deleted this and called it "my rant" which indicates to me that you have absolutely no intention of giving it serious consideration. Maybe you would be more inclined to give this some consideration if i were not the person making the suggestion? If one of your friends made the suggestion, perhaps then you would think about it? If some administrators-- perhaps even some administrators who go to your church!-- make the same suggestion to you, would you maybe consider it? It's only a suggestion to seek neutrality in your mainspace edits, i even went to your UnBlocking admin and presented the situation, because i thought the UnBlocking admin would be more sympathetic to you, given their willingness to listen to your side and give you an UnBlock already this week. If there is more respect that you would like to receive from me, please tell me what that form that respect would take, and how i could give it to you, and i will try. Really, i prefer having conversations about good things on wikipedia, rather than discussions about conflicts and interpersonal value clashes. ConflictJunkies make me uncomfortable, i hate to even have to put this ANI page on my watchlist just because it saddens me to see all this negativity scrolling by. ~Teledildonix314~~4-1-1~ 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You're not going to change his mind on anything. The best you can do is make sure everything about the LDS Church is explicitly and reliably sourced, and if he still deletes it, then he's being disruptive and something can be done. Baseball Bugscarrots21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please could somebody with admin skills and civility skills and neutrality skills, take a look at the edit history for the User:Ejnogarb and please note that i have now had to bring the Mop over to the Hate crime article. This is making me sad. I just had to undo/revert more of his POV pushing which seems to be in blatant disregard for the readily available Reliable Sources. All i had to do was read the footnotes on those articles and their associated topics, and presto i had Verifiable references. If Ejnogarb won't listen to the simple WP:ADVOCACY suggestions, what should be done? It's one thing to go pushing an anti-homo anti-sexual freedom and anti-mansex agenda into the articles.... but then to start spilling that POV into Hate crime and LGBT Civil Rights pages, well, it's just depressing. Scapegoating queers and propagandizing a sex-negative religiosity is not really a very admirable "wikipedia duty", and this could be defused if some admins would just emphasize the importance of avoiding POV Advocacy (preferably admins who are friendly toward evangelical or LDS viewpoints, for the sake of doing this in the most constructive and neutral way? Ejnogarb won't take my word on this, but perhaps if a LDS editor were to give him the same suggestions, he might be more receptive to the notions?) Due to my self-awareness of the limitations of my own Civility skills, i don't think i should be the one making direct comments to Ejnogarb any more, i think comments should come from experts of Civility and Neutrality and not from muddling people like me. Thank you, ~Teledildonix314~~4-1-1~ 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have left messages for both Ejnogarb and Teledildonix314 on their respective talk pages.
In my opinion, Ejnogarb has (other than the edit warring for which he was blocked) been pointing out legitimate NPOV and RS/V issues with some specific points in articles. He has not used the most collaborative and collegial method of dealing with many of those - {{fact}} is better than deleting something which you aren't sure about, and a talk page discussion is better much of the time than a fact tag. I have asked him to start with the least controversial way of pointing out issues of concern and progress to deletion only if nobody helps fix / clarify / re-source questionable or controversial points.
Teledildonix314 needs to remember WP:AGF. Ejnogarb has a clear personal viewpoint in these issues, but is generally respecting Misplaced Pages policy and process.
I think you are quite correct, i will try to improve my AGF efforts, and to attempt better dialogue by using more Zero 0RR style of editing with everybody. I'm gladly removing ANI from my watchlist now, i will use my most absolutely open-minded attempts to ever avoid needing a visit here again. Thank you for reminding me of where my efforts are best directed; it seems this issue is Resolved, thank you kindly. ~Teledildonix314~~4-1-1~ 08:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I've tagged the article in question with blpdispute and started a discussion. I expect some ips will respond. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for clarification. Is contacting the legal department and saying that you "will hold folks liable" for content a legal threat? Haven't had much experience in this area (fortunately). I did now read WP:LEGAL and it seems against the spirt. Anyways, --Tom(talk)20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If the intention, by posting such comments and using terms like "liable" and "legal department", is to deter the other side of a discussion/dispute rather than using WP policies/guidelines as a means of resolving an issue, then, yes, it is a legal threat. The intent of WP:NLT is to counter the chilling effect of the use of such methods rather than the precise wording of a quasi legal comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack by Bali Ultimate in violation of WP:Civil
Resolved – Complaintant struck much of this thread and apologized twice below. Hopefully we can move on. Tom(talk)03:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In ongoing discussions inre the DRV for the article on Alan Cabal, User:Bali ultimate has been raising the bar of personal attacks in a manner that is escalating. Most recentlly on the talk page of the DRV discussion, he pointedly called me "obtuse" and called my quoting of guideline as "nonsense"diff, and then referred to my own courtesy and civility as "faux" diff. Prior to this latest in his escallation of rudeness, he let me know that he has been stalking my edits diff. I do not believe the many other past examples of his bad faith toward me or others need be brought up, as I do not wish him blocked for his continued and repeated incivility. It is just that I do not wish to be goaded into a return of such, and ask that he be admonished to behave himself. Schmidt,20:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As there were admins taking part in the discussion who obviously saw what Bali Ultimate was doing, what do you expect to accomplish by posting this here? Try WP:WQA. ThemFromSpace20:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but is that a request or a command? What I "expect to acomplish by posting this here" is to seek intercession. That others saw this and did nothing does not mean I have to tolerate it. Thank you. Schmidt,20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest not escalating this dispute to more places than absolutely necessary. DGG (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No admin action is necessary here. I'm sure you'll consider this a personal attack, but this feels like an attempt to gain the upper hand in an editorial dispute under the thinnest of pretenses. AniMate21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
A useful administrator action would be to close the DRV, and to my mind there is a clear outcome - that the AfD should be respected. Verbalchat21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
?? Just so I get this straight.... Is it now being condoned that to call another editor "obtuse", his use of guideline "nonsense", and his courtesy as "faux" in order to denigrate attempts to contribute to the project, as to not be an personal attack? And that this will be allowed to continue impunity? Just how rubbery has WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL become? Schmidt,21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I retract my complaint and ask that any of my personal concerns toward perceived incivility be disregarded, as not worth being brought to the attention of administrators. Bali, you have my sincere apology. Schmidt,21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank Schmidt for failing to notify me of this complaint. I would like to commend him for pointing out that he has been an innocent victim of vicious attacks like "don't be obtuse" (though i do wish i had written "don't be deliberately obtuse" as that, which is different, was more what i intended). And i would like to tell him that all of his speculation about my "personal animus" (which is clearly skewing my judgement as to notability and whatnot) has been spot on. I am clearly acting out of vindictive reasons and obviously don't respect Misplaced Pages's guidelines. In seriousness: I dispute much of the way Schmidt has characterized our exchange here. Anyone care for the details? (I doubt it). If he stops ascribing motives to me (that he couldn't possibly know) and stops claiming i'm making his arguments for him when I'm clearly disagreeing with him , then i won't address him directly at all. Deal? Bali ultimate (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think his snarky response to my suggestion above is relevant as it seems to be an example of what you claim he's been doing to you. ThemFromSpace21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I reinterate, my complaint is withdrawn and an apolgy for my misperception of being ridiculed is again offered. Schmidt,21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that everyone read this particular diff, where the editor in question, as stated, tells a new editor to game the system.— Dædαlus22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(Aside from a completely neutral party) A quick scan of the aforementioned editor's history, is illuminating. There appears to be few actual contributions other than verbal parries and thrusts with other editors; is it a case of someone who dotes on confrontations? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
Bambifan101 Yet Again
Know we just got to deal with this April 1st, however he is back and on another lovely roll again, and I really really think we need some range blocks here. I'm also practically begging for them. Since March 31st, we have had to block at least 14 socks, including IP socks from his usual 3 ranges:
The last five there were all ones from today. Per Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Bambifan101, he now has 67 confirmed socks, and another 85 highly probable ones. He also gave a list of more here that I have not checked and someone else can try to make sense of . (Same category page also has alot of links to the history of all this). Many of his favorite targets, the Disney and Teletubbies articles, are now practically indef semi-protected because of him. He is no longer content to just vandalize these articles and their talk pages, however. He began vandalizing my user talk page, so it is now also back under semi protection. He also now goes through my contributions to randomly vandalize articles I have edited recently. He admitted that he is doing this, I can only guess out of some sick/bizarre desire to get me to start watching for him again and get me "back" on the Disney articles. I do NOT want to deal with this BS anymore. I walked away months ago, and I know he's continued since, but unless someone asked me specifically, I have ignored him. So I guess now he's trying to be unignorable. There is a abuse filter request, but it doesn't seem like that can stop him when he moves outside his range. The abuse report I filed in October to get ISP contact has never been touched. He obviously has some issues and feels a need for attention, and unfortunately he keeps getting it because we can't just ignore his vandalism. So, can we get some range blocks, something, anything to put him back on ice.-- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 00:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't you trace what internet service provider he uses, and then contact them asking who was using that IP address at that specific time? Do they keep records like that, or would they if requested? And is the vandalism? Seems like a real summary of the manga. But yeah, he is certainly stalking you, the Disney thing confirming that. Dream Focus00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a WP:COPYVIO summary he grabbed from a non-mentionable site. He did that with some others to, just Googles to grab something to shove in there to be aggrevating. With the Disney articles, he frequently adds false info, trivia copied from IMDB, and rips clean ups and expansions of sourced content by restoring older even worse versions (not that any of the Disney articles are awesome). On Teletubbies, he's merged and unmerged the character articles so many times himself its like he's arguing with himself. *shakes head* He's actually indef blocked on at least half a dozen Wikis, and has vandalized numerous other language ones because of the lack of notice of his activities and the inability/unwillingness of meta to implement "universal" bans on him.-- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I had to go back 2 days to find more mistakes (, but four in less than 50 edits is not good. Apologies to Martin when you read this... —Ed 1704:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
image at the top of my user page? And the alt-text assigned to it? Motif of harmful sensation. Pixelface & Co. can not abide my presence on this site and are going all-out to thwart my return.
Resolved – further mediations are being carrying on off this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
