Misplaced Pages

I proposed a 6 month topic ban above, and two other admins (Toddst1 and Black Kite) seem down with that, though there's the possibility being floated of a general "political articles" topic ban which I think would probably extend beyond the remit of Obama article probation but is something we could decide here in a more generalized "community" sense.

I said I'd provide some evidence for a topic ban and thus do so directly below, though this is far from exhaustive and just cobbled together in the last hour or so. Final comment at the end of this, and apologies for not being a genius at formatting stuff.

Conversation threads:

Some of these are extended conversations, but they give a sense of some of the issues

• 1 (my first direct contact with the editor, couple of lengthy notes from me there)
• 2 (warning again about a problematic edit)
• 3 (re: the creation of a jokey, and now deleted, redirect)
• 4 (recent article talk page section, indicative of general complaints against other editors as being biased, and reference to "the editors who keep erasing my entries," as though any information that is added with a source should be kept (see also this along those lines)
• 5 (an entire article talk page archive, but trolling through some of the sections gives a sense that Grundle repeatedly tries to add problematic - generally non-NPOV - material about Barack Obama)

Problematic edits:

Just a few examples:

• admin only, but Grundle is removing (per my request, and I'll give him credit for that) content from his "own personal article about Barack Obama" page (now deleted, see below) which said "Obama is a strong supporter of legal marriage for Homo sapiens. In fact, Obama has never tried to hide from the public the fact that he himself is currently involved in a Homo sapiens marriage."
• (complete non-understanding of NPOV, this idea has been expressed repeatedly by Grundle and many editors have tried to explain why it's not accurate, to no avail - again see this recent edit)
• User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama (ultimately deleted, but nothing more than a wildly POV page against Obama - I originally defended Grundle's right to have this page on the good-faith assumption that he would work on content to bring into articles, but it did not go anywhere and the MfD consensus was to delete)

I'd like to give Grundle a chance to weigh in here before imposing a topic ban, and I don't think it hurts to wait awhile to wait for that. If such a topic ban happens only on Obama-related articles, I'm quite willing to be the admin who imposes it per the Obama article probation (which gives admins a bit more power to do that kind of thing) and be the one accountable for that decision. If it's a general ban on political articles it probably needs to be a "community topic ban" which requires a higher level of consensus. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• And who can forget moving Levi Johnston to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter, which I indef-blocked him for? (He was unblocked after a discussion on AN/I.) Grundle doesn't seem to have an off button for political issues (no matter which party is in question); I'd strongly support a topic ban on all politics articles, broadly construed. Horologium (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That distinguishes him from some of the others and certainly suggests a broader-based topic ban could be in order. I say "could be" in order, because I wonder if he could also be drawn into some dialogue on why this kind of editing is not appropriate for wikipedia. It's the kind of funny stuff I get e-mails about, but it doesn't belong in articles unless it's widely covered in the media (I'm thinking of Jimmy Carter and his "killer rabbit" incident as a possible example). Baseball Bugs carrots 08:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• That was an egregious page move (I'd forgotten about it) and I remember thinking that your block was rather valid Horologium (though it was only for 24 hours, not indef, apparently). I'm seeing a pretty strong consensus so far to topic ban Grundle2600 from political articles, and barring objection I think we should implement that in a community sense. But I also still think Grundle deserves a chance to reply here and propose alternatives. It's the dead of night in most of America (as a grad student my hours are all over the place, but rest assured I still have no business being awake!), so let's give that editor a chance to respond. It might not change the consensus to topic ban, but Grundle2600 has made a lot of article contributions and as such I do think allowing for some reply here before taking action is only fair. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, you will see that I have been discussing my ideas for edits before putting them in the article. Don't I get any credit for doing that?

If you look at User_talk:Grundle2600#Wow, you will see that I was praised by another editor for nominating one of my own Obama related articles for speedy deletion, because I realized it was not noteworthy. Since the article has since been deleted, you may have to ask User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper to verify this. User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper gave me credit for that, because he/she wants to help me to be a better editor.

The reason I put stuff in my own userspace as humor is because I have decided to stop creating such "silly" articles in the mainspace, because a consensus of editors had repeatedly decided to delete them. Category:Misplaced Pages humor contains hundreds of other articles, so I figured it was better for me to do that, than to keep wasting editors' time by having deletion discussions in the mainspace. I thought that was a good move on my part.

The reason that I created Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion is because during Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, several people specifically suggested that the material be placed into a new article that covered the broader subject of her influence on fashion and style. So now some of you want to punish me for following the suggestion of many other editors? That seems quite odd.

If you look at my userpage, you will see that I have created dozens of articles that were never considered controversial. But I guess that doesn't matter to some of you people.

The reason that I created User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama was to compile sourced examples of things that I wanted to work on and make better to eventually add them to the mainspace. For some reason, when Obama campaigned to let states make their own decisions on medical marijuana, I was allowed to add it to his political positions article, but then when it was later reported that his administration was still conducting DEA raids against medical marijuana, I was not allowed to add that, because people said it was POV and unbalanced. Likewise, I wasn't allowed to add examples of Obama's environmental hypocrisy to any article, such as when he said people shouldn't drive SUVs, but then he rode in one himself, and when he said you shouldn't keep the thermostat too high, but then he kept the White House thermostat very high. When a politician says that he supports one side on a political position, but then he goes and supports the exact opposite side, why should the article only mention his words, but not his actions? Isn't that unbalanced?

I see that Gerald Walpin firing, which I created, has been deleted. However, many of the people who favored the deletion also favored merging the material into Gerald Walpin. But what none of those people have been willing to admit, despite the fact that I mentioned it in the discussion multiple times, is that I am also the person who created Gerald Walpin, and I did so as a redirect to Gerald Walpin firing. The reason that I created the original article as Gerald Walpin firing instead of as Gerald Walpin is because I was following Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event, which says that in cases like this, the article should be about the event, not the person. And now you people want to punish me for following the rules? That seems odd.

You people keep talking about the Obama related articles that I created that got deleted. But why don't you also talk about Air Force One photo op incident, which was nominated for deletion, and the consensus was keep?

If you ban me from all political topics, you will be doing a great disservice to wikipedia. For example, before I ever made any edits to the Americorps article, 100% of the sources cited in the article were from the Americorps website itself. It was nothing but a giant advertisement. I was the first person to introduce third party sources to that article.

I admit, in fact I am proud of the fact, that I like to Misplaced Pages:Be bold in my edits. If it wasn't for people like me, wikipedia would be a lot more boring.

Grundle2600 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"If it wasn't for people like me, wikipedia would be a lot more boring." - and probably less disrupted too. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grundle, I do very much appreciate what you are saying in your comment above, even if I largely disagree with it. Just a question - how would you feel about a six-month topic ban on Obama related articles, broadly defined (same as ChildofMidnight and Scjessey received in the recent ArbCom case) as opposed to a ban on all political articles? Would that be okay with you? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be OK with me, because as I just said, I have been suggesting changes on the talk page of Obama related articles before making them. That's exactly what the administrators told me to do. Why should I be punished for doing exactly what the administrators told me to do? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be punished for that, nor have you in fact been "doing exactly what the administrators told me to do," nor is that an accurate framing of the issue at hand. I was trying to seek out some compromise with you and that doesn't seem to be something you're interested in at the moment. I'll be offline for a few hours now, but at this point I still endorse a topic ban on politics related articles for Grundle2600. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the political articles that I have created, which have not been deleted. Some of them are Obama related. Why should I be banned from creating articles such as these?

Air Force One photo op incident

Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009

Ricci v. DeStefano

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Misplaced Pages is better off for me having created those articles.

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that you've often added significant content to Misplaced Pages, but a number of editors (and admins with their goddamn fancy-pants) are above calling for you to be temporarily banned from political or Obama-related articles. There seems to be consensus for that and you really need to acknowledge/consider it. Do you have an alternative proposal that also addresses those concerns about your editing? I think this is the point which you need to take on board and/or think about right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already stopped creating "silly" articles in the mainspace, and started discussing my proposed reversions on the talk page of Obama related articles before making those changes. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My moving Levi Johnston to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter was based on the rule Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• ...and as you can see, we have a whole bunch of articles that begin with "Impregnation of..." Maybe you merge the guy's article into one about Sarah Palin's daughter. Is he really only notable for a 37 second single event? Or, is he notable for that 37 second event because it involved the v-p candidate's daughter, and the related months of backlash that has even extended to David Letterman? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps Levi Johnston should be moved to Backlash against the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter? Grundle2600 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I really hope that that was just a bit of sarcasm, and not an actual suggestion.
      • It's a suggestion that I now realize I could never get consensus for. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Even the list of your current articles has issues; 2 are stubs of bills in committee, unlikely to survive if the legislation fails to pass, and could probably be prodded now until/unless they do pass, while Indiana vs. Chrysler is rife with POV issues. 2-3 passable articles doesn't outweigh 1-2 dozen other cases of extremely disruptive material. I was for just an Obama-topic ban, but I'd completely forgotten about the Al Gore III, Levi, etc...stuff, so maybe it should be politics in general. We have been coming to the same problems in the same set of articles for several months now. Tarc (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Indiana v. Chrysler is accurate and factual. It's not my fault that Chrysler doesn't have a legal argument to back up its side. No one had any problem with Al Gore III until I after added well sourced information about how he never had to spend one day in jail, despite being arresed for marijuana possesion on two different occasions, for having five different prescriptuon drugs without having prescriptions for any of them, and for driving over 100 mph. Even though his father, former Vice President Al Gore, is a huge supporter of the "war on drugs," the former Vice President helped his son to avoid spending any time in jail. That was very notable. In fact, I'd say that this hypocrisy is the one thing that Al Gore III has gotten the most media coverage for, and thus, is most notable for. But someone didn't want the readers to see it, so the article was deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all political-related articles. This has gone on long enough. seicer | talk | contribs 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unfortunately the article probation on Obama-related articles is a community probation rather than Arbcom, so we must apparently have a long community discussion. Support a topic ban, either on Obama-related articles, or on all articles related to US political people (BLPs), or all US politics, or even all politics anywhere (given the edit warring at Hugo Chavez. Said topic ban to last 3 months; if and when the review of the Obama article probation is complete, the topic ban may be re-evaluated. Suggest for the time being that the ban be applied to all US-related political articles, with the understanding that it can be extended if he continues to edit war on other articles. Thatcher 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Before even looking at the articles, Grundle's answers here had me pretty convinced that they have no business editing in political areas; I certainly hope this approach doesn't extend to other BLPs. Chalk me up in the support column for all (or all US if that's preferable) articles dealing with political topics. Shell 13:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• The fact that you are still thinking like this — with suggestions like Backlash against the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter and conflations of "newsworthy" with "notable" — is part of what, as an external observer, appears to be the problem here. If you want to write news reports of incidents and events in the political sphere, then come to Wikinews.

  You'll be challenged on newsworthiness (by people who know a thing or two about it, moreover) so you'll get a harsh reception for silly stuff on non-events if you continue with silly stuff on non-events. But if you take things seriously (as, for example, I did with Six-year-olds trigger emergency response with toy nuclear reactor in Germany — something that in no way warrants an article of its own on Misplaced Pages) and understand that the NPOV (which Wikinews is also subject to) is about not taking sides in what you write in the first place then you shouldn't get into hot water. A focus on recentism, news stories, and individual events covered individually is actually a positive attribute at Wikinews.

  You'll also learn, from what Wikinews wants of Misplaced Pages, what most people here want of Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages, to Wikinews, is one of the biggest news backgrounder services in the world. Wikinews wants backgrounder articles like burqa, Jamejam, radio jamming, Majlis of Iran, Laïcité, BBC Persian Television, Fraud Act 2006, and Iran – United Kingdom relations from Misplaced Pages, so that Wikinews can have articles like Iran and Britain expel diplomats after Iranian presidential election, Sarkozy says burqa is "not welcome" in France, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks about Iranian presidential election protests at prayers, News services and web companies increase Farsi services in light of Iranian political situation, and U.K. MPs' expenses to be investigated by police that cover specific single events individually, down to the details of specific speeches, placing them in their overall context if necessary. Just as Wikinews editors do, Misplaced Pages editors view Misplaced Pages as an encyclopaedia, a reference work, too.

  If you want to rise to the challenge of doing recentism and news story coverage properly, and not in the (frankly) poor way that Misplaced Pages tends to do it (because, of course, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper) and that you yourself have been doing it up until now, you could do worse than start with writing Silvio Berlusconi denies ever having paid women for sex, or getting Obama gives FDA the authority to regulate tobacco industry to publishable status. You could even write South Carolina governor resigns GOP post. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than impregnating Sarah Palin's daughter and the backlash that resulted from it, what else it Levi Johnston notable for? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All I've ever done is add well sourced information to articles. And you people call that "disruption"? That's horrible.

I call any blocks or bans that get placed against me "censorship."

One thing that I find especially interesting is that none of you have actually pointed out any specific factual errors or untruths that I have added to any of the articles.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about truth. Those of you who want to block or ban me ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been suggested in this discussion that I edit the Mark Sanford article, would it be OK if I added this comment from Neal Boortz? "As one of my Twitter followers (14,000+ strong) pointed out (and I love this): If Mark Sanford had cheated on his taxes instead of his wife, he would have been a cabinet member by now." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I suggested that you edit Mark Sanford admits affair and resigns post at RGA, not that article at all. It turns out that Wikinews has had South Carolina governor resigns GOP post in the newsroom for 18 hours already, at this point. This, of course, reinforces the point that Wikinews is on the ball with these things. It also reinforces the point that the project whose remit is to be a free content newspaper is the project that does that well, and is the place to be if one wants to write news articles on incidents and events, and if one has a focus on recentism, news stories, newsworthiness, and individual articles on individual events. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember after Obama raised the cigarette tax, I added an Associated Press citation about that to one of his articles. The article quoted his campaign promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year. The article also said cigarette smokers are disproportionately poor, and that by raising the cigarette tax, Obama was breaking his promise. But when I added that info to the article, including an exact quote of Obama's promise, people said I was being POV and unbalanced, and they erased it. All I did was add the sourced truth. What they did by erasing it was censorship.

Why is it OK for me to quote Obama's campaign promise to stop the DEA raids against medical marijuana, but not OK for me to quote a Democratic member of the House who pointed out to Obama that the drug raids were still going on, and who also asked Obama to clarify his position on the subject?

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since someone else mentioned the Hugo Chavez articles - apparently, even though land redistribution is one of Chavez's biggest policies, I'm not allowed to mention anything about it in any of his articles, even though my source is the Washington Post. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is such a blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (cf Talk:Hugo Chavez and Talk:Economy of Venezuela) that I'm starting to think a topic ban, however broad, isn't enough. Nonetheless, due to my prior history with you my opinion shouldn't be counted, and I will make the suggestion I was going to: if you don't want to be topic banned completely (does that cover talk pages or just editing?), you could suggest alternative remedies for the issues the community has with your behaviour, such as WP:0RR or even a mere topic editing ban (so you can still comment on the talk pages). Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I will never agree to any kind of block or ban, because I don't believe that they are justified. But the whole point of blocks and bans is that it doesn't require my consent anyway. And I always wondered why such blocks and bans apply to talk pages, given that the administrators keep telling me to discuss things on the talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Disembrangler - it was you, not me, who reverted first. I added sourced info, then you erased all of it. I agree with your claims on the talk pages that certain parts of what I added were cases where I had misinterpeted the sources, such as that quote from Chavez, which you explained to me I had taken out of context. But to remove everything about his land reform was not not justified. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

People keep saying that Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler is unbalanced. But it's not my fault that U.S. bankruptcy law is 100% on the side of the plaintiff, and 100% against the side of the defendant. This is the first time ever in U.S. history that a secured creditor is being treated worse than an unsecured creditor, which is completely contrary to U.S. banktupcy law. That's not my fault. The article reflects the facts. If some people are upset by my citing the facts, that's not my fault. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Grundle, you make some good contributions and you make some silly ones, as I think is generally acknowledged above, even by you. To stave off a topic ban, is there something else you think would work, and would improve the encyclopedia? Would you, for example, agree to get advice from an experienced editor before creating or moving articles? Jonathunder (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I no longer move articles without getting consensus, unless it's an article that I just created and I thought of a better name. I have stopped creating "silly" articles in the mainspace. I don't want to ask for permission to create articles, but I also don't want to get banned or blocked, so I am being much more careful. I even nominated one of my own articles for deletion last night, as I mentioned earlier in this discussion. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You people keep criticizing my renaming of the article on Levi Johnston (who is only notable for one event and the resulting backlash), but none of you have suggested a better name for the event. What do you think the article should be called? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• The talk pages of existing articles would have been a good place to raise that issue.

  Part of the problem, too, is that you are assuming an event must immediately have a stand-alone article. Many times it doesn't (fly-swatting, for example).

  And again, what would you suggest as a remedy, Grundle? Or do you not see any problem here at all? Jonathunder (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not going to engage in a point by point rebuttal. While you may have made some good contributions, and some of your edits may have been judged unfairly, this is outweighed by other clearly problematic editing issues, and your general approach. Just one example: if you felt you were making legitimate edits to Hugo Chavez, the answer is to seek outside help through a content RFC, third opinion, or other discussion, rather than edit warring and violating the 3RR. Following discussion, it is now enacted that you are banned from editing any articles related to U.S. politics and politicians, for a period of 3 months. You are permitted to make suggestions and engage in discussion on article talk pages, provided you are civil and respectful of others. The topic ban will be enforced by escalating blocks. If and when the Arbcom review of the Obama article community probation is completed, you can request a review of this topic ban. Thatcher 14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse topic ban enacted by Thatcher above, on American political articles, broadly construed. The issue for me is his lack of acknowledgement that his actions could be understood to be disruptive, especially of the WP:POINT-making variety, considering his rediculous page moves and article creations cited above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked some questions about the topic ban on my talk page. Someone please answer them there. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My questions on my talk page have been answered, so there's no need for anyone else to go there to answer them. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. There are other articles/topics on Misplaced Pages. Take a break from these as it's obvious you need one. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 15:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jameselmo

Jameselmo (talk · contribs) has been here since 6 January 2008. Since that time, the user has not been able to function within the parameters of the community. Many users and administrators have tried to help him with the learning curve, but he has been unable to change his poor and disruptive editing habits, including his penchant for repeated insertions of unsourced and erroneous content and edit warring over such content, as well as personal attacks against editors. Currently, User:TheRingess is the latest editor having to deal with his problem, this time on Lysergic acid diethylamide. Jameselmo has had plenty of chances to reform (see his talk page for details and multiple warnings about his behavior) but it is obvious that he is not going to change, so I ask that an indefinite block be considered at this time, with a provision made to lift it once he agrees in writing to follow the rules. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Have you tried WP:RFC? Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, but I will consider it. In the meantime, I am requesting an administrative warning on his talk page for this personal attack on TheRingess in his edit summary. ("are you stupid, or what?") Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Standard incivility issues are thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, the problem is much broader than simple incivility. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Add:he has been warned by User:Islander for that incivility. Of course, I'm a little more concerned by edits such as this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and don't forget the preceding edit. He knows not to do this, but he continues to edit disruptively. And it's been like this for more than a year. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also another previous attack that he made today, harassing TheRingess and insulting her user page description here.("...you also obviously don't have a clue...'I believe in love' what's that vacuous statement supposed to mean?") Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I should note that "administrative warnings" do not carry any more weight at Misplaced Pages than warnings from non-administrators. If a user is behaving outside of behavioral norms, feel free to warn them yourself. You don't need an administrator unless there is an actual administrative action (basically blocking, protection, or deletion) that needs to happen. As has been noted by several administrators, broad civility problems of this level generally need some outside community attempts at resolution, such as WP:WQA or WP:RFC before we block somebody. If you can show diffs of clear evidence that the community has attempted to resolve this in the past, and the user has ignored these attempts at reform, then we may have something to act on. If this is just "hey, I noticed this guy is behaving badly a lot" then, without diffs to show either gross incivility or a past RFC or WQA then we don't have much as admins to do here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the user on his talk page about inserting unsourced and unverfied material into articles, and he has continued to do it for a year, so the warnings have not worked. The community has continually warned him during this time about making personal attacks as well. The user has ignored all attempts to reform, as he continues to make unsourced additions,, vandalize articles,, , and attack users., , Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested

I have indefinitely blocked DesGarçon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for personal attacks. Since the attacks were against me, I am bringing this block here for a review. I have also removed access from email and talk page access due to his final statement to my talk page. This whole thing started with Postoak (talk · contribs) coming to my talk page asking for help with an editor who kept reverting his archiving of a talk page. DesGarcon kept stating that Postoak was a sock of User:RJN, and when told to stop, he just continued to do so. I left an only warning a few days ago on the user talk page of DesGarcon, to which he started a tirade on my talk page which I deliberately stayed out of. While I admit I may have been a bit harsh in issuing an indefinite block, it is clear to me that this user does not intend to productively contribute to this encyclopedia and therefore has no place here. -MBK₀₀₄ 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the block except to say that it's never a good idea to block when you're the subject of the attacks (you're never the most objective person when the comments are made against you). But I am a little confused as to why you blocked access to email and his talk page - the comment you linked to is probably block-worthy, but what evidence is there that he would abuse email or his user page? Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The blocked access to the talk page was because of the prior behavior that he will still continue to accuse other editors of being socks. The email blocking was because of the comment about the email as well as an unsuccessful attempt at off-wiki harassment. In contrast to the statement that I have no life, I've got a few commitments that I have to take care of an won't be available for a few hours. -MBK₀₀₄ 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the block, even though it was made by a semi-involved admin. This user deserved to be blocked, clearly. Its a minor issue as to who actually issued the block. I would have blocked them myself as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, likewise I'd have done the same thing, PAs were way over the top, beyond dodgy civility worries, never mind the other disruptive behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the block; The editor in question was way out of line, and his comments are downright hostile and unnecessarily harsh. If this behavior would have been limited to one day i could have argued that the user was fuming and therefor acting in a way he or she would normally not do. But seeing this spread out over not only several days, but also over the past few months leaves me unable to assume good faith in this case. Excirial 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, editors making PA's are not immune from block just because they make such PA's to the editor most familiar with their shenanigans and best positioned to know when to block them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse and highly appreciative of the outcome since I have been the target of numerous personal attacks from this user. Thank you, Postoak (talk)

Unless it can be proven to be true, the comment on the User's User page should be removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PJHaseldine's community sanction review

I blocked PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) for two weeks after he recreated Alan Feraday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of his community sanction. The article was originally created by a sockpuppet of his Phase1 (talk · contribs) in 2005. It was then deleted in 2008 by JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for BLP violation in response to a OTRS ticket. PJHaseldine then recreated the article in May of this year.

There is now some question over the validity of the community sanction. Is the community sanction valid or should it be nulled? BJ 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was a good block. The community sanction was enacted in good faith; there is no evidence it was ever revoked. The main issue may be the length, but even if I may have blocked him for a shorter time period, if he wants to edit sooner, he can request an unblock and explain himself, so for that reason I see no real problem with the block. I would rather see him explain to all of us via unblock request about his violation of his community sanction rather than simply letting this sort of blatant disregard for said sanction go unnoticed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion that did find consensus among a few neutral editors that a temporary ban was warranted. In that discussion, Ncmvocalist closed with a broad and indef ban declaration, when a narrow, single-article ban was the original suggestion, but I did not notice until now that Ncmvocalist was not an administrator, and that, even if this editor were an admin, he'd have been prohibited from making a close of that nature because he'd suggested the ban himself. The ban discussion should have been closed by a neutral admin, who then becomes the go-to person to administer it, decide when it's not needed any more, etc. Since Bjweeks was the first admin to enforce this ban, with a harsh two-week block for an editor with no recent blocks, I suggested that Bjweeks review the original case and decide whether or not to effectively become the maintaining admin. I can understand why he might not wish to do that.

I do agree that the recreation of a BLP deleted article is a serious matter. I do not recommend that the ban be nulled as much as for some neutral administrator to take responsibility for it, so that issues around it can be addressed with minimal disruption. Whether or not to lift the ban is a complex question, and AN/I isn't particularly good at this. So, please, we should have a neutral admin to review the cause of the ban and its nature, from the original discussion, and not duplicate debate over the ban itself here. That admin can then, at leisure, review subsequent behavior and decide appropriate action, including advising PJH as to future behavior. PJH has not challenged the ban, nor the block, apparently, was clearly and actively cooperating with it, and may not have considered the creation of the deleted article, a month ago, to be covered by it, I do not know yet. My opinion is that Bjweeks bought this here prematurely, but, if we get a neutral admin, no harm. I'll come back with diffs. or links to the original discussion. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For convenience, permanent link to the discussion I began with Bjweeks, which contains links to the original ban discussion. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good block and the community sanction had the communities support at the time and is valid. I don't see any evidence of abuse by an "involved" or biased editor. The length is indeed long, but that's up to the blocking admin. Perhaps it can be reduced if PJ discusses this with BJw. Verbal chat 15:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist proposed a broad, indef ban. Next week he closed and implemented at WP:RESTRICT his own suggestion. That's a classic involved close, no matter how you slice it. Doesn't mean it was wrong, and sometimes involved closes are acceptable, if they are accepted. This one was until now; the problem now is a lack of a maintaining administrator. That's all. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth looking at the date stamps? EdJohnson proposed the ban on the 6th of March, discussion occured, with the last support vote being Abd's on the 9th, although some related comments were made on the 10th. Ncmvocalist took no part in the discussion. On the 10th, Ncmvocalist proposed a wording for the ban, it was supported, and Ncmvocalist closed the discussion. There is no involvement here. I suspect you misread the discussion, as Ncmvocalist's suggested wording was placed just after EdJohnson's request for the ban, even though it came much later chronologically. - Bilby (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A temporary ban, possibly a narrow, single-article ban, had a small community's support. Not an indef, "construed broadly" ban, with a non-admin closing it and taking no continued resposibility. The block has been questioned as possibly over-harsh, but that remains to be seen. Both issues were quite premature for AN/I. All that had happened was that discussion had begun with Bjweeks, suggesting review. No challenge, no disruptive behavior, no unblock template, no nothing but some discussion on talk pages. --Abd (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, admins have special tools with regard to blocking, deletion, and protection of articles, but they are not specifically endowed with the right to enact community bans like this. Such bans can be enacted by a consensus of any editors; admins are not special with regard to this. Secondly, the ban discussion was not begun by the person who closed it; it was started by EdJohnston and closed by Ncmvocalist, who are seperate people as far as I can tell. Thirdly, the text of the community ban does not include a single article, it clearly states "any articles related to Pan Am 103" and looking at the editors that supported the ban, see , I do not see any evidence that they objected to or modified this initial wording. Fourthly, Alan Feraday is clearly related to the Lockerbie disaster, which would violate the terms of the ban. Fifthly, while you yourself used the word temporary in your support of the ban, no one else did, AND you yourself did not set terms on the temporary nature of your support. The ban was enacted in March. It's only 3 1/2 months later. This seems to meet the spirit of "temporary", even if left open ended as to when the temporary would last. So, I see no reasonable objections to this block based on the nature of the community ban. If the ban itself needs to be ammended or revisted, that may be a discussion for another day (or even today; feel free to start such discussion), however this block seems to be clearly within the purview of that ban. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, nobody has directly challenged either the ban or the block, so you are beating a dead horse. See above. You are correct, anyone can close, but it's irregular to participate in a discussion, suggest a sanction, then close, choosing that sanction over other suggestions, and when enforcing a close may involve admin tools, it's tricky and deprecated for a non-admin to close. Not impossible, though. What's been done on User talk:Bjweeks and now here is to simply suggest that a neutral admin review the original ban discussion, and determine a close, and then be responsible for it. Minimum disruption, now and for the future. --Abd (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If a block is questioned then it is quite normal for the blocking admin to bring it here to solicit the opinions of others. This is normal procedure. You initiated the process that lead to this discussion, by complaining. It isn't premature, it is dealing with your complaint quickly. Verbal chat 15:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Quickly, perhaps, but not with minimal disruption. I was planning on waiting for bjweeks to respond, and was surprised that he brought this here. There was no rush. If the matter wasn't resolved with bjweeks, then there would be a solicitation of a neutral admin by PJHaseldine, presumably, with an unblock template. I don't know why it seems to be so difficult for some to understand what avoiding disruption means. Look at all the time wasted here! --Abd (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I just provided that review above. Isn't that exactly what you were looking for? I wouldn't call it wasted time; you had legitimate concerns, and asked for others to review it. Others have done just that. No waste of time at all! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The sequence of events:

1. Bjweeks blocked PJH for violating the ban
2. Abd responded on Bjweeks' talk, questioning the validity of the ban
3. Bjweeks brought the question here of ban validity here

We are now responding to BJWeeks on the validity of the ban, and we are discussing whether two weeks was too long. We are also seeing some general comment by Abd about the nature of community bans, who owns them, who maintains them, which I do not wish to address here. I suggest he raise those questions at the Village Pump.

Since the closer of the ban discussion, User:Ncmvocalist, has not been very active lately, and since I'm the editor who originally proposed the topic ban on User:PJHaseldine, I'm willing to speak up to answer any questions about the original ban rationale. I did vote in the ban discussion. The nature of community bans is that they are collectively owned, so I don't agree with Abd that there has to be such as role as the'maintaining admin'. If the ban needs to be revised or rethought, let's discuss that. PJH's improper actions go way back and I don't think there will be too much controversy about those facts, nor about the policies and guidelines that he violated. Over time, many editors at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard became very familiar with Haseldine issues. I don't believe that Haseldine sees any problem at all with his actions, and am not sure he ever admitted that he had a conflict of interest.

At present, the only difference of opinion I can see (except for Abd's general questions about bans) is whether the two week block was too long. Any admin who wants to pursue an unblock discussion with PJH on his talk page is welcome to do so, but I will predict you will not get any admission at all of improper behavior. In the past, he has been 100% convinced he is right about all these matters. Abd has requested that PJH apologize for unintended disruption; if he acknowledges that, then a shortening of the block should be considered. I take note of the fact that PJH has not even opened an unblock request template, perhaps because a person who is 100% right shouldn't have to do those things. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of worrying aspects to this which would certainly militate towards a lengthy block. The fact that Alan Fereday is very much covered by WP:BLP, that the article (I am judging from the Google cache) was about as one-sided an attack as it could possibly have been, that the creator had previously been enjoined to avoid articles in this area generally, and specifically not this one, all combine. That would be so even if there were no Conflict of Interest involved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related issue, can we have some review of User:Ncmvocalist's actions here?

I take no position on whether PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) should be banned or not. I do, however, object to how this was carried out procedurally. Ncmvocalist appears to make a habit of interjecting himself into matters for which he has no particular authority.

By way of full disclosure and to provide a second example I am familiar with, I first became aware of Ncmvocalist in the discussion that led to my own topic ban, see for where he began to interject himself. Had this been the limits of his involvement that would have been fine, but after Wizardman closed the discuss and declared community consensus for my topic ban Ncmvocalist took it upon himself to close an RfC on me that was completely unrelated to the ban discussion. I still contend that his closing summary is misleading and biased, something that he refused to let me address on the record. He then altered the voted on language while creating a Community Sanction page in my user space, something that Wizardman had to correct after the fact. I take no position on whether this was intentional, or not.

Subsequent to all of this, we basically went on about our respective business. I only recently became aware of this case through my interactions with Abd.

In this current case we see Ncmvocalist again changing the wording in such a way that it expands the scope of what was actually !voted on (again I take not position on whether such change was intentional, or not). He did this at 10:54, 10 March 2009, and then took it upon himself to close the discussion at 03:46, 11 March 2009 which is only 15 hours later. Note that ALL of the !votes were made prior to his having even crafted the wording that he used in the close and when he added the notation at WP:RESTRICT.

Have we come to the point where ordinary users (i.e. non-admins) such as Ncmvocalist can take it upon themselves to assess community consensus, unilaterally close discussions, and impose community sanctions using their own wording without regard to what was actually !voted upon? Is this really how things are supposed to be operating here? --GoRight (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When I went to his talk page to inform him of this discussion topic, I found this at the top of his page. So it seems that I am not the only one to have complained of such behavior, and that this has been going on for quite some time.

Look, I have no doubt that he actually means well. Honestly. But I find his behavior unacceptable as, apparently, do others. --GoRight (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Review, as requested. Looking at the PJHaseldine ban discussion as a whole, rather than individual diffs, I see several things that need to be made clear:-

• The "alterations" made by Ncmvocalist look to me like a good faith neutral summary of the proposal, which was supported by amost everyone who contributed to the discussion. The only user who wanted an alteration was Abd.
• Ncmvocalist did not vote in the discussion.
• Ncmvocalist was asked to close the discussion and notify PJH ("do the honors") by admin Georgewilliamherbert.

In other words, this discussion was closed fairly, by an uninvolved editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into it. But with all due respect, "prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed" is not a fair summarization of what was actually !voted on. The original text enumerates 5 specific pages and requests a topic ban to "include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash", and "people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as Hugh Miles (journalist)."

The summarization may have been made in good faith, as I said I take no position on intent, but it clearly expands the scope of the original wording. In addition, I question the propriety have having non-administrators injecting themselves in this manner, especially when they seem to be doing an inaccurate job. --GoRight (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins aren't anything special, so the fact it was done by a "normal" editor doesn't seem relevant, especially as an admin instructed them to. Those 5 articles covered Flight 103, broadly, and the wording, inadvertently or not, stops the banned editor from introducing new articles on the topic or adding the topic to other articles. Seems fair and in line with common practice. Verbal chat 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Admins aren't anything special ..." - I can certainly accept that they aren't special in that they are human, but they are special in that they have been given a vote of confidence by the community at large when they received their adminship. That is clearly a distinction from "normal" editors who have received no such vote of confidence.

"Those 5 articles covered Flight 103, broadly, and the wording, inadvertently or not, stops the banned editor from introducing new articles on the topic or adding the topic to other articles." - As I said above, I am not debating the validity of the PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) case either way. But the fact remains that his wording did, in fact, expand the scope of what was voted on. I merely want some sort of statement regarding what constitutes acceptable procedure when banning users. --GoRight (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The ban language which was most specifically proposed (by Ncmvocalist) was widely discussed, everyone participating was aware that was what we were proposing to specifically implement, and it had wide discussion and overwhelming, near unanimous support (other than PJ). There's no issue here. There's no requirement that an admin be the person to close one of these or put the community ban notice in the edit restrictions page. Most of the commenters were admins, and I was the person who "called it" and recommended NCM close and enact, so if you feel there had to be admins involved there clearly were.

This was an attempt to see if PJ Hasseldine could contribute in other ways without the clearly disruptive involvement he's had in Pan Am 103 issues. There's widespread visibility of the problem among the admins and senior users communities. There's obvious near unanimity that his contributions on that topic have been disruptive. And he apparently is failing to stop involving himself with it.

Challenging the topic ban is not an appropriate response here and now. The question is, whether this needs to be escalated to a complete community ban or not. His responses to the block seem to indicate that he really does not "get it". He is a single-purpose account focused on a topic which the community has come to a consensus he cannot edit here without causing problems.

Is there any belief that he can contribute positively going forwards, in other areas, without continuing to find himself drawn back to the area we have prohibited him from editing in? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I thought I had made clear above, I am not challenging the outcome related to PJ Hasseldine nor your involvement in that matter. My point was purely procedural as it pertained to Ncmvocalist's repeated attempts to intervene in a variety of cases, apparently including ArbCom cases, and not just PJ Hasseldine's.

Given the lack of concern among the community here today over the matter, I shall agree to let it drop. Thanks for your time. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable image substitution

(Note: this was closed prematurely by a non-neutral admin. I'd appreciate some actual input from neutral editors)

"uploaded a new version of "File:Spock-B Stacey.jpg": This version shows Spock's face better and since STPII is getting a nod within the article, this modified Vulcan salute definitely shows off a new interpretation of Spock"

I'd point out that this particular user has voiced at every point possible point in the past an irreconcilable dislike of any fan-film content; this is him voicing his displeasure by vandalizing by substitution the Spock. Add that to the fact that he replaced an image that I uploaded, he is likely thinking that the 'fuck you' depicted in the image is rather meant for me/
Lest someone think I am being paranoid, this user has a rather long and tendentious history of using images to insult folk he is in dispute with, and was in fact the source of a prior AN/I discussion. This image on his user page was to inform us that assholes "were everwhere". Then, the user changed it to barely clever edits that called his detractors ass-holes, some odd enhancement of the aforementioned edit, and this one, wherin the user invited those he was in dispute to

Ben Franklin: History - One of Philadelphia's finest!
Dover: Geography - The capital of Delaware.
Hand: Science - More bones than any other part of the body, amazing.
Kiss: Music - Who's that calling Dr. Love?
Maya Angelou: Poetry and literature - Words are what make humans different as a species.
Ash

- essentially, "bend over and kiss my ass". After it was pointed out that this was an unacceptable use of a user page, he blanked the images out (2). We all thought the user had turned a corner in tehir behavior. As is indicated clearly by this image, such is clearly not the case.
When asked fr the reasoning for the substitution, Erikeltic replied (3) "that it is one of the Phase II people portraying Spock & other than the "salute," it's no different than what you had uploaded", and acknowledges that it is "borderline WP:POINT" That the image is in fact not of the actor listed further disrupts the article
I don't know how to undo the image vandalism, and I think I need an admin to do so. Additionally, I am thinking that this sort of tendentious editing nd lashing out at his detractors needs to be addressed and discouraged in the strongest possible terms, and the Trek articles need some protection from this person's behavior.
Thoughts? - Arcayne () 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This didn't need to go to ANI and we certainly don't need to rehash things from months ago. If we were to review all of your issues over the past few months, we'd be here for a year & a half. It's uncessary and not worthy of discussion. Furthermore, I have bent over backwards since April to accommodate you. I have tried many times to build peace between us and find some common ground. Personally, I think your disruptive behavior and the way you ignore consensus to promote fan films should earn you a topic ban from Star Trek for a while, but I have not once filed the complaint. I have even asked other editors to take an easy approach with you, for fear of conversation degenerating into a flame war. It's a bummer that you took a tongue-in-cheek edit and turned it into this complaint. I hope that the progress we have made to work together hasn't been lost over it.

For the record, here was my exact response to you, Arcayne:

For starters, the modified Vulcan salute was pretty funny. C'mon, you know it was.  :) Second, it is one of the Phase II people portraying Spock & other than the "salute," it's no different than what you had uploaded. The Wired article you keep referencing features the "salute" picture... so I have to wonder if the article warrants inclusion, then what is wrong with the picture? I concede that this is borderline WP:Point, but it does further demonstrate the difference between studio work and fan films.

Please don't pick and choose portions to further your complaint. That's not very honest and it's not very fair.

I will restore the picture, but your reaction is very interesting. The picture of Spock flipping the bird is featured on the very Wired article you keep using to defend your position. I can see that you want to pick & choose which is appropriate from the Wired article, but the very existence of Spock giving the one-fingered Vulcan salute further demonstrates why fan films and fiction should not be given the same weight as studio productions. Erikeltic (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Lest someone think I am being paranoid"... Well, between this and the above section ("When is it appropriate to pursue this?"), you do seem to have a loose grasp of WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I am understanding this right. Two different users come to the defense of unacceptable behavior by claiming that its all my fault. And KC - who has been somewhat less than pleasant in the past, (calling me a liar, yet unable to prove it when pressed) - preemptively closes it with no further discussion, except to call it spam on my talk page? Come on now, that's not even int he zip code of neutral.

This is not a content dispute. If it had been, anything other than a 'fuck you' to me, I'd have just simply uploaded the image yet again. And there isn't the slightest confusion that it was indeed a fuck you, as evidenced by the exact same pattern before with this user. And then DreamGuy makes an appearance? Yeah, neutral input it wasn't.

The image was indeed reverted, but only - as the last time- when this image nonsense was brought to AN/I. KC acknowledges in Erikeltic's page that it was bullshit, and asked if Erikeltic was done, who acknowledged it for the nonsense it was. If I were to call anyone an asshole or say fuck you to anyone here, i'd be blocked, and deservedly so. Why on earth does Erikeltic get a pass because KC doesn't want to play nicely? Additionally, why does Erikeltic get to sub a picture that he acknowledges was a pointy behavior?

I'

I have stated my case to you and the admins. It was not a fuck you, despite what you may believe. Trust me when I tell you with all due respect that if I was to actually say fuck you, I would be as explicit as possible and leave it on your talk page or just redirect your page to douche. I suggest you calm down, get some tea, and read this page. We are talking about Star Trek, not the Holocaust. Erikeltic (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It's all my fault for misinterpreting your self-admitted POINTy behavior, especially since you've never, ever done anything like that before. I am calm, thanks. And please, do not pretend tht you did it for any other reason than to get my hackles up; you've clearly expressed less than good faith.

Allow me to illustrate what I saw happening. Erikeltic alters the picture to something that clearly wouldn't be allowed in the article, or in Misplaced Pages (I think inflammatory was word that R. Baley used). The image gets speedily deleted by someone else (likley not even knowing what was occurring), making reinstating the image a lot more difficult, and gives you time, via DRV, to argue against its reinstatement. Now, lest I be called paranoid again, note that immediately after this complaint was filed, Erikeltic admitted trying to revert the image back and instead quickly it for deletion. I don't mind content disputes, as those are at least honest disagreements. This was underhanded crap. When one method didn't work, he went the plainer route of nominating the image himself.Granted, I am not the most polite feller in the world, and I do sometimes assume less than good faith, but this stream of piss is clearly unacceptable. - Arcayne () 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I say this with no offense intended, but you are being paranoid. The picture was a tongue-in-cheek edit to a picture that is featured on the citation you keep using to support your position. If you find the picture offensive, then you should use another citation because both originate from the same Wired article. As for nominating the other picture to FFD, I did that to tie it to the discussion on the CawleyasKirk picture. You see, we already went through all of this sort of thing in March when the consensus was that fan portrayals do not get the same weight that studio portrayals. But because everyone involved was not explicit down to the last period, comma, colon, and semicolon (leaving it to common sense), we knew then that we were going to have to go through the process over and over again. This happens repeatedly because you're either unsatisfied and unwilling to work with the community unless your will is met, as shown here when you write, "Anything that removes or marginalizes Cawley is a non-starter for me." That is not a neutral position.

I don't mean any of this as an insult, it's just how you deal with others from where I'm sitting. It's why I told Mike that the key to dealing with you is to "never disagree." I hope that explains why I nominated the file, following EEMIV's lead in nominating CawleyasKirk. Erikeltic (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Erikeltic acted disruptively yesterday by uploading an inappropriate image over an existing one, then nominating for deletion. In the context of recent disruption, a pattern of previous disruptive behavior may be discussed. Although Arcayne does not present the matter clearly or well (commentary such as "this stream of piss" is distracting and unbecoming), Arcayne's underlying message appears to be meritorious. Erikeltic, "it's just how you deal with others from where I'm sitting" is not an acceptable response. Editors who make a habit of dealing with others in that manner do find themselves sitting on timeouts if the behavior continues. One hopes that dialog makes further action unnecessary: let's raise the level of discourse and interaction. Durova 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous stuff he is mentioning was on my talk page. I invite you to review the entire situation before you condemn me as "disruptive." Also, my comments to Arcayne were based on discussions that did not talk place here and were well within context. I don't believe pointing out Arcayne's eccentricities, when it comes to the best way to approach him, is an unacceptable response when I've been accused of being part of some grand conspiracy. I hope as you contemplate timeouts you are thinking about everyone that repeatedly makes inappropriate remarks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I've reviewed the full situation. It would be more productive to raise one's standards than to engage in what gives the impression of a creative endeavor to snark at the margins of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. Eventually, as the pattern turns habitual, blocks do fallow. And Wikipedians who review the entire situation surely know those blocks will not originate from me. Please accept this as a friendly caution, so the matter can wrap up and (with a little patience and luck) need not return to this board. Durova 22:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I have a temper like everyone else, and I've felt a little pushed over the past several days (its one of the reasons I was away most of the day, seeking to blow off some steam instead of getting more uncivil that I readily admit I was). I pointed out behavior that was perceptibly unsuitable, and complained about it, as the editor in question had proven unwilling to accept my say-so that it was unacceptable, When DR fails - as it had - this is the next step in resolving the problem. Maybe a warning instead of a block is called for - I've cooled down considerably since discovering the image substitution this morning. I am not encouraged by the responses from Erikeltic, but as you said, Durova, if a pattern continues to emerge, then appropriate action will take place whether I point it out or not.

Thank you for taking the time to fully evaluate the situation, Durova; I will take your criticisms to heart. Seriously. - Arcayne () 23:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This was corrected some time ago; Erikaltic has stated he is done with such nonsense and the only thing left is the back-and-forth insulting. Why, precisely, was this unclosed and the drama allowed to continue? I'm missing where anything productive is left to do here. KillerChihuahua 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply Respectfully, let's not rewrite history, please; this was not corrected until after the AN/I complaint was filed here, and after you asked him if the "inappropriate" nonsense was done. Recall that the usertalk pages were seen to be just as inappropriate, and were only reverted after repeated attempts inter-talk failed to accomplish that task; AN/I was required then, As this was more than just little witticisms at one's page but actual disruption of the article, I felt less than willing to wait the several days to file the same complaint I did this morning. I'm upset over the underhanded method by which a discussion was forced, and the jab it appeared to be. No drama was intended. Had you not been so quick to close it after a proven unfriendly editor and the respondent , it would never have had to be reopened. As you and I have gone round and round, you weren't the best person to be evaluating the complaint, calling it spam or a content dispute - both of which were just plain inaccurate. I hope that answers your question, KC. - Arcayne () 23:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He stated he was done before you re-opened this in order to continue your personal attacks and drama. and oddly, ] which includes both a very civil post to Durova, and an accusation (with no rationale) that I'm rewriting history. KillerChihuahua 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not an article for speedy deletion

The article James P. Barker is an established years old article. It has been submitted to AfD but was speedy deleted just hours later and the article, history and discussion has been blanked. This is by no means an article for speedy deletion. The Afd process needs to be continued and the page should be restored until the Afd has been finished. Iqinn (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Deletion review is thataway. Feel free to start a discussion there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  For deletion review i need access to the article so i can get the information to argue against A7. It has been a long time article. There was not even a warning time with a speedy deletion tag on the article page before it was blanked. How can i get access to the necessary information? Iqinn (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the project page to talk about this. However, email me (or drop me a note on my talk page) and I'll email the text to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not do this by email. Could an administrator please restore at least the history of the article. That should be enough for me to get the information to start the deletion review. Iqinn (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the problem with email is. Is there a specific reason that Gwen emailing you the content is insufficient? Ale_Jrb 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the history, and I'd advise you not to bother pursuing this. While the speedy on the grounds that notability was not asserted may not have been accurate, there's no way that article would have survived AfD - I'm 99% certain that it would have be closed as delete and/or redirect to the crime he was convicted of, thanks to the WP:BLP1E policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember redirecting this article to the killings article a couple weeks ago. Can an admin confirm or deny this? Was the redirect undone or something? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Iqinn reversed the redirect and contested the PROD at the same time. It was then taken to AfD, and speedily deleted per the rationale there. Ale_Jrb 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this article would have survived AFD or not, Iqinn is correct that the article was incorrectly speedy deleted. A7 cannot be applied to an article that clearly covers someone who has sources and notability. BLP1E is after all for people that are notable "for one thing" - but BLP1E is not a reason for speedy deletion nor should it be and admins should not delete articles for these reasons. It's not really encouraging to see admins ignore policy without any pressing need to do so. The article existed for 3 years - we should allow the community 7 days to decide the issue, not some admin for reasons unsupported by current policy. Regards SoWhy 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not entirely obvious that you are correct. See for example Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs,

Then see Misplaced Pages:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event,

Speedy deletion is not obviously wrong in this case. Thatcher 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• And, since the relevant info is at Mahmudiyah killings, it is easy enough to list James P. Barker at deletion review without restoring the article itself, and I suggest that it should not be restored, or emailed, or userfied in any way, until the deletion review is finished. Thatcher 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Thatcher here. I will say though that it's a bit odd for us to keep this article while deleting the one on Barker. It's currently at AfD and has two keep votes. Basically the difference is that Green plead not guilty and had a trial which received coverage, while his co-defendants did not apparently. That probably technically makes him more notable than the others who don't have articles (e.g. Jesse Spielman). But BLP1E arguably applies as much to Green as it does to the other soldiers, and notability guidelines to the side it's difficult to explain in the real world why we keep one article simply because the man went to trial and plead not-guilty. This can probably be debated at the AfD, but it also might be worthy of a larger conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I (obviously) don't think the article should exist, but I do think it is wrong for an admin to speedy delete it as failing BLP1E. That is not a valid speedy deletion criteria and there was no compelling reason to ignore all rules and delete the page without community discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the offending admin in this case. For starters this was done very late at night and may not have been my "best decision ever". Having said that I will stand behind my reasoning to an extent. The article I deleted contained three lines which were largely identical to the three lines in the Mahmudiyah killings article and gave no information beyond the involvement in the crime and plea bargain. A search found no information for the individual beyond what was at the latter article. Hence we had a case of what I regarded as A7 - a person who is not demonstrably notable. The debate here could be stated as "is BLP1E related to A7?", and there is precedent to agree with this notion. Does participation in a notable event make a person notable?. I have always thought not and I of the opinion that BLP1E supports me. BLP1E says being involved in a single event is not enough to achieve notability, so this is effectively a subcategory of A7. And to quote Arbcom: "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy."

Had I been less tired I might have considered WP:SNOW because a small BLP1E article that was essentially a cut and paste from Mahmudiyah killings will never pass AFD. Alternatively a redirect could have been used.

As far as Steven Dale Green, I read the article and related information and it *appeared* that there was considerable information beyond the Mahmudiyah killings article. It is more difficult to interpret a "crime plus an associated lengthy trial" as only a single event (or 1E). Not impossible, just more difficult. Hence I did not apply the same A7 reasoning, even though it could possibly still apply. But debate seemed far more warranted. Manning (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion invoking BLP as the reason forces the issue into deletion review. It is probably not a good idea to invoke this drastic solution when reasonable people can disagree, especially when there is no real possibility of doing additional harm. It would have been better to try to establish consensus in the regular way. DGG (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Mcmanus1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Would a more experienced administrator please review this block please. I've blocked User:Mcmanus1992 for violation of WP:NPA (see this diff), I also noted this vandalism which followed. Any admin. that feels the block is improper is welcome to change it, as I am very new to this - and to be honest, I'm not particularly fond of blocking people if another solution is available. (I'll notify the user of this thread next) Thanks. — Ched :  ?  16:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Yeah, we don't need that stuff around here. I don't even think a person should be warned for personal attacks like that; warnings imply there is a reason one should not know that they had broken any rules. No person should ever talk to another person like that; being a human being is enough warning... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good block. I'd have a pretty low threshold for making it indefinite if similar issues continue. MastCell  17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Good block. That kind of vitriol is utterly unacceptable, and we really don't need another POV-pusher on Ireland-related articles. In fact, 24 hours is probably lenient, and I'd support indef if there's a next time. EyeSerene 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, over the line. KillerChihuahua 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, good block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - vandalism; NPA violation; POV-pushing that even a republican (Irish sense) like myself finds offensive. No worries! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you all for the feedback. — Ched :  ?  18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• 24 hrs is modest. – Quadell 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good block, though I'd have blocked them indefinitely if I'd made the block. This edit made after the block leads me to believe that, once the block expires, they'll just go back to vandalizing and they'll end up with an indef-block. Acalamari 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• and ... with this little post, User:Cobaltbluetony has done the honors, and we have an indef. indeed. — Ched :  ?  21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the admin corps :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter log

On my abuse filter log I have two accounts for changing on two separate articles "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" due to the article been moved. I think this is grossly unfair because I did these two edits because the name of the article was moved, so I changed the links to avoid redirect. Is there anything which can be done? Ijanderson (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too, on the same issue. I was editing the list of sister cities of Jagodina which had false information and removed some city in Macedonia, Slovenia and Czechia but I got on this abuse net which makes no sense. Can this be fixed? --Avala (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On occasion, the abuse filter will trigger on harmless or good-faith edits. This is known, and the reason they are logged is so that administrators can go through and determine the cause of any false alarms so that the filters may be improved. If you made a good-faith edit, there is no need to worry about being logged in the abuse filter - several administrators have tripped filters as well. If you do notice that you've tripped a filter and you believe the filter made a mistake, you can report the false positive at Misplaced Pages:Abuse filter/False positives. Hersfold 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why it would be a good idea for use to change the name to something other than "abuse filter", since not everything it will tag is necessarily abuse. Dragons flight (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I did change the wording to simply "filter log" when looking at editor contribs. –xeno 19:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive editor on Benzodiazepine page

Editor Literaturegeek | T@1k? has shown a consistent pattern of abusive behavior attacking everyone who dare to disagree with him. See the following diffs.

Stop intentionally faking data , which you grossly worsened by adding fake facts which you grossly worsened by adding fake facts , refs being faked , someone who does not understand the medical literature has formed an opinion using original research and are fighting systemic reviews with weak reviews and taking refs out of context , faking refs , falsifying of the refs , Faking refs, making them say the opposite of what they say or distorting them , fake data , he got caught faking refs... He really is a carbon copy of Mwalla and scuro. WP:DISRUPT is what is going on , totally hypocritical , bought into your nonsense...Mattisse was bombarding me with original research ...This disruption must stop you got your education in addiction medicine from the newspapers , I am under attack by medically illiterate people... Mattissa is attacking me with her original research...this gibberish , These disruptive editors engage in character assassination , There is NO DEFENSE for your disruptive trolling on talk pages and vandalism ,SEVERE trolling from Sceptical Chymist...OWNERSHIP trolling Sceptical Chymist...his VANDALISING editing , obsessive distorting the evidence , Sceptical ... an obsessive guy , Sceptical abuses policies like NPOV , got trolled ... original research by Sceptical Chymist , weeks of trolling by Sceptical Chymist , smears of this troll...a battle with a troll , fighting faked references , Matisse ... faking refs , faking , faking refs , he was trolling, intentionally faking refs , faking of refs , mattissee ...seemed to buy into medical nonsense sceptical was saying , it was absolute hypocracy , faked refs...disruptive with the intent on wrecking the FA...sceptical's fake refs...he who was faking refs...I got totally trolled for no reason other than I think kicks , this trolling , trolled , this is all more trolling what sceptical is claiming , disruptive editor who was faking or misrepresenting . Mattissee's ... original research which was attacking my edits...the disruption she caused was temporary , you were trying to sabotage the FA from the start... for kicks perhaps

The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To whom are you referring? "Stop faking..." "You did XYZ..." ?? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

These are excerpts from the posts by LiteratureGeek referring, mostly, to me and Matisse. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• The two of you are Cruisin' for a bruisin', and you are not the only one with a grudge list. I'd suggest you seek formal or informal mediation by a third party, and use the other mechanisms of dispute resolution (content RFC, third opinion) as needed. If you both don't alter your present behavior, it will not end well. Thatcher 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c, I type slowly) Looking thru LiteratureGeek's recent contributions, I note that User:MastCell has, on his talk page, said he would look into the underlying conflict between these two editors in the next few days. Probably the best thing at this stage is to ask both users to dial things back a notch, to make it easier for MastCell, and others reviewing the situation, to try to put out the fire without being blinded by all the smoke. I'll leave such a reminder on LiteratureGeek's talk page, and notify him of this thread while I'm there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are currently admins reviewing this case. I have updated evidence for admin "MastCell" to review. Sceptical is trying to escalate this by drawing other admins into this, admins who aren't familar with the background. Those quotes are all recent quotes, quoted in such a way that it is essentially propaganda, totally taking those quotes out of their context. I have updated my evidence on this page.User:Literaturegeek/Sceptical_Chymist_evidence I would prefer if this matter was left to the admins already dealing with it rather than Sceptical trying to find an admin to side with him on what he did.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'd welcome additional eyes, because I get tired of these sorts of disputes very quickly these days. I protected the page temporarily to help get the content issue sorted out. I don't really want to be a one-person arbitrator of this dispute, but I did promise to look into any egregiously abusive behavior. Parallel dialogues with Literaturegeek and The Sceptical Chymist are here and here, for the curious, and I'd welcome any additional input. MastCell  19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the interaction between these two for a while. As far as I can tell, TSC has torn apart various sections of the article and audited the sources rather extensively. LG gets frustrated with this and sees it as an attempt to sink his nomination. He uses rather strong language at times regarding TSC, as evidenced above. LG is also frustrated by TSC's communication style. For his part, TSC seems to be acting in good faith but unwilling or unable to communicate in the way LG is requesting. They're not seeing eye-to-eye on anything, really, and as a result, nothing constructive is getting done. I think it would be best for both of them to stop editing the article until they can agree on a communication method to work out dispute on content and sourcing. The page protection was a good move, and I would even be inclined to leave it locked until they agree on said communication method. --Laser brain (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As some background on this, there has been a long-term problem with several of the benzodiazepine articles of editors misusing sources, misquoting sources and twisting facts. I think those responsible for most of the disruption have now left, but this has left a very tense and antagonistic atmosphere. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As a longtime lurker and occasional contributor to psychiatric articles, I can confirm Tim's impression of the situation, but I think the problems with editing are still ongoing. In particular, LG has engaged in long-term and subtle POV pushing across a range of articles with the intent of minimizing and denigrating mainstream psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. I have not once seen him argue for anything other than the most negative interpretation of sources, and I have observed that he often cherry-picks and misinterprets medical references. I think Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance is a close parallel in the area of source misrepresentation. I invite anyone to review Talk:Benzodiazepine and especially the featured article review for benzos, where this behavior is on full display. Additionally, LG has become increasingly incivil when challenged on these grounds, characterizing his opponents as sockpuppets, vandals, or outright liars, and is prone to edit war. He is involved in the ADHD arbitration which mirrors much of this thread. This does not excuse TSC's edit warring, but hopefully provides some context. More eyes are certainly needed, especially from editors with the means to access and review medical sources. Skinwalker (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I work in addictions and my knowledge is based in addictions primarily with a special interest in sedative-hypnotics. I am not opposed to psychiatry and support the use of evidence-based psychiatric drugs in the treatment of the mentally ill. The only articles I have edited extensively are alcohol related articles, long-term effects of alcohol, alcohol withdrawal syndrome and prescription sedative hypnotics. I did spend a few weeks reading pubmed secondary sources on amphetamines and ADHD and contributed to the article, I have finished these contributions. The use of amphetamines in children is controversial even in mainstream academia and don't feel editing this controversy makes me opposed to psychiatry. I use reliable sources for my edits. Most of the benzo articles were start class until I worked on them. I don't feel skinwalker's criticisms is accurate. I have nothing against Skinwalker and know he is a constructive contributer to wikipedia but I feel he has the wrong impression of me. I can when I feel wronged be uncivil and I agree with skinwalker on this. It is a fault which I need to work on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One other point is that Skinwalker is an email contact of Sceptical Chymist, if you look on his talk page they exchanged emails.User_talk:The_Sceptical_Chymist I feel it is important to put this into context so just mentioning it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

without going into details, and not as an expert, I think it's probably that LG's edits are generally sound. However sound they may be, it is not good practice to insult other editors. The wording you have been using in reverting them is not conducive to discussion. An expert should be able to have their correct view of thing prevail by the quality of their arguments. Even when one think one's opponent ignorant, it is rarely helpful to say so. Even when they misquote, it is better to just quote correctly. If the argument makes sense, others will support it. For most of these subjects, there are however expert views on any possible side of the question. In fact, the various relevant specialties tend to have expert consensus positions that are not identical with each other. Certainly the matter of amphetamine use in children is one that has previously here provoked extremely heated discussions between people both of whom could find perfectly reliable sources. NPOV requires fair statement of all positions, but we do not attempt to reach a conclusion about which one is right. DGG (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson heart attack / reported death

Per the reports in the UK regarding Michael Jackson being found "not breathing" and taken to hospital I have protected the article for 6 hours, so we can make sure we get proper sourced comment and no rumours. Feel free to unprotect/vary as required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reuters has just reported believed (my emphasis) dead. Fully support full-protection until it's clear what's going on. – iridescent 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I expect Talk:Michael Jackson to get busy. Will watch, but will only be online for a while. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ reporting he's dead, but they've missed before. No reputable news source reporting it yet. Watching is a must, and protection probably a good idea. Dayewalker (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a situation where I favour pre-emptive protection. We'll know quickly what has happened, at which point it can be opened back up to the masses for ...tasteful... editing. Resolute 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald reporting that Michael Jackson is dead. seicer | talk | contribs 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Miami Herald is citing TMZ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems everyone is picking up the TMZ report. CTV.ca is reporting it as well, again as a "report". Resolute 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They have now sourced TMZ; it was omitted when I first clicked on it. seicer | talk | contribs 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting the talkpage as well, before it becomes a BLP nightmare (if the allegations aren't true). Any admin who disagrees has my explicit consent to revert. – iridescent 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added an invisible note to Deaths in 2009 as well; I remember several past cases where horrible revert wars broke out there over celebrities taken suddenly ill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Both LHvU and Iridescent's protections were a good idea. I'm sure we'll have more info in the very near future and can proceed accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse both protections, obviously. See what happens in the news. Ale_Jrb 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a note, USAToday got a confirmation he was taken to UCLA MC in cardiac arrest, before they stopped talking. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to register my disagreement. Pre-emptive full protection is going to far. There were a total of 5 (FIVE) reverts today. This is not a lot. Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, "Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism." Full protection is overkill. --Elliskev 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There were 5 reverts before the story broke, but when there are sufficient editors to patrol it we can drop the level down a bit - I am a veteran of the Sarah / Bristol Palin news frenzy, and this has even more potential of swamping. If it was the wrong decision I am making it for what I consider the best of reasons and I will accept the consequences. Also, I have enacted the same protections at Michael Jackson's health and appearance (following a request). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. WP:NO-PREEMPT is no substitute for long-ingrained experience. Nobody could sensibly argue that any of these articles would not be the target of editors unaware of our various policies here. And that's aside from the "anti"-factions who would use the opportunity to add all sorts of other nonsense. Can't argue with LHvU's actions here, except that I might have tried semi first; but then, perhaps I am unusually optimistic. Rodhullandemu 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When there is a bit more clarity in news accounts, we can lower the protection level. I'm sure there will be lots of eyes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think avoiding a potential B(L)P crisis before there's a little more information is the correct course of action. Ale_Jrb 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LA Times called it independent of TMZ, I'd say that's it. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the protections are absolutely in accordance with policy. The problem here is not with likely vandalism of the articles, but of almost certain revert wars and disputes over how exactly to describe his state of health and prolonged issues over whether an 'unconfirmed report' appearing in a normally reliable source is admissible etc etc. No-one is going to suffer if, by insisting on reliability, we are 'last with the news'. There are people who may suffer if unreliable information is stated as fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone protect Michael Jackson (writer) as well? It's getting damaged by misfires.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's now been protected, and I had to protect Michael Jackson (disambiguation) for the same reasons. Acalamari 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this particular article falls under IAR, I'm fine with that. But I will ask that full protection rules are followed - meaning absolutely no edits by admins without talk page discussion. --Elliskev 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bad precedent if it's going to apply more widely to other reported deaths and emerging news generally. But if you guys think it's best and do it under IAR, fine. Misplaced Pages follows the sources, it doesn't need to be ahead of them. Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree with that. Things like this are not helpful. – iridescent 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I fully support and endorse the actions taken to fully protect the article (and semi-protect the talk page). Michael Jackson is a huge public figure, and news like this is sure to attract all sorts of vandalism. Especially given the problems with WP:BLP recently, this is a very, very good idea. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with preemptive full protection in this case. Wait until it's confirmed in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. — Becksguy (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LA times? Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Already got that, NBC has as well. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree - a *lot* of people are going to be coming here looking for information - do we want people's first view to be "lol! he's dead!". Protection at this time is in the best interests of the project. We aren't a news source, slow and steady confirmation of sources is the way to go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (multiple e/cs) Declined unprotection on the Michael Jackson article and fully protected 2009 for six hours. All proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page until this settles down. Enigma 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the block, even if it is a technical violation of PREEMPT, this would be a clear case where IAR applies... also, I wonder if this might be reason why I am having trouble with my Misplaced Pages account. keep getting timed out, too many people looking at MJ? ;-)---Balloonman 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing you fully protect it to stop WP:BLP problems yet you have admins using blogs as sources for his death.--Otterathome (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed

Confirmed dead. I still support leaving the article protected per Cameron Scott's arguments above. – iridescent 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson - Please protect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That page should be salted. Unitanode 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Salted for 24 hours. By then it should be clearer what exactly has happened. Until then, Michael Jackson is possibly going to be the single most viewed page on the entire internet and we need to be careful exactly what it does and doesn't say. – iridescent 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) salted it indef. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, did it at the same moment as Iridescent. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be salted indefinitely. There's absolutely no need for a new page to discuss his death Corpx (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it as "confirmed", as we still have information second hand with no-one speaking formally and on the record about it. But it's sound more and more likely: The LA Times and the Associated Press are both running stories to that effect, and NBC News has joined in as well. Tabercil (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC is as well, and they're the most cautious of them all. I think we can call it confirmed. – iridescent 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC's live reporter in LA just said they rely on reputable sources such as AP so it's no more confirmed because they say so. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont get why this article is fully protected. I can understand semi-protection since IPs and new accounts would probably vandalize this, but I dont agree with locking it down so that only admins can edit it. If established registered users vandalize the article, then warn/block accordingly, instead of preemptively locking down the article so that only a select few can edit it. I dont foresee a large attack by established/registered users, so I dont see a need for full protection Corpx (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Anyone can edit, unless the admins want to edit it first.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Our actions are being noted

See here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Real good article, but it says that the article was protected for six hours, yet we just learned about all of this about two hours ago.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume it meant 2009, which has been protected for six hours: that's how I interpreted it anyway. I see the article also picked up on the technical issues that interfered with editing earlier and at the moment. Acalamari 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson article was fully protected for one hour and 17 minutes (77 minutes); talk page different. Now it's semi-protected. — Becksguy (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all that bad

Some sites are having the biggest flame war ever about it. PXK /_C 23:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin edits

OK. This is crap. Why is there a flurry of undiscussed admin edits to a fully protected article? WP:PROTECT says, "Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them." There is no discussion. Admins are not super-editors. There aren't two classes of editors on Misplaced Pages. This is totally inappropriate. --Elliskev 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I posted pretty much the same thing below. But TerriersFan has unprotected. Mike R (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — Aitias // discussion 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree also. Preemptively moving the article to full protection was a bad decision. Corpx (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I understand the thought behind the protection, I completely agree here. Either the admins need to start discussing edits to be made at the talkpage, or the protection level should be changed from full to semi. Unitanode 23:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's at semi now, but it's no doubt true that admins should not have made significant changes without discussing, but I think we should just move on at this point. Not a huge deal. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your fellow admins abusing their positions IS a big deal. How is it not? Auntie E (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Actually it is a huge deal. It shows that a helluva lot of admins don't have a clue about the nature of full protection, or of the nature of their status as admins. This isn't the first time I've seen this recently. The same thing happened with the David Carradine article when he died. Preemptive full protection, admins editing without discussion... However, I'm not really up to pursuing it now. I'm just a little disappointed. --Elliskev 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You really should not be disappointed. Going through an RfA these days involves not just an appreciation of policy, but also of article creation within those policies. I would be unhappy about Admins editing content through protection, particularly those they have applied themselves, and I have done that myself, in the best interests of this encyclopedia; but only to revert vandalism, or apply core policies. Sorry, I don't make any apology for that, since at the back of my mind, I retain some consideration for our readers (remember them?). We owe it to our readers, rather than ourselves, to present unbiased and reliably-sourced facts. That is what an encyclopedia IS. If that means preventing people from adding half-assed nonsense, then I, for one, am perfectly happy with that. We're an encylopedia, not a free-for-all. Please rememeber that. Rodhullandemu 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? What the hell are you talking about? That sounds very....creepy. I did it for the common good. God grant the common folk the wisdom to accept what they do not understand.??? --Elliskev 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How refreshingly naive. What's wrong with the "common good"? Is it not what we are ALL here for? And if Admins fuck up, they lose the bit. Meanwhile, we work silently behind the scenes, minimising the damage, with little kudos but much responsibility. If you've a problem with that, change it. As for my Admin decisions, from protections to blocks, I'm fully prepared to defend them all, and to the hilt. That's how seriously I take my role here. Would that others would do the same. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I still don't know what you're on about. Do you have no problem with admins making major content edits to a fully-protected article without discussion on the talk page? --Elliskev 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we ago again. I like how the admin proceeds to edit the article right after fully protecting it. As mentioned before, admins are NOT super editors! I also fail to see any "content dispute" There were no real edit warring prior to this lock down Corpx (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

23:36, 25 June 2009 Wadester16 (talk | contribs | block) m (120,713 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Michael Jackson": Edit warring / Content dispute: need time to update the death facts. will lower protection when done ( (expires 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)) (indefinit) ... Sorry, but what? — Aitias // discussion 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's back to semi. — Satori Son 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Today's Featured Article, vandal fighters are going to be busy. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Huggle Brigade™ should be able to handle the vandalism; admins should keep an eye on AIV if not on vandal-patrol already. —Animum (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected once more

I'm tired of this roller coaster ride. This time for excessive vandalism, even though I see just two instances of vandalism in the first page of the edit log. On top of that, these vandals were not warned for their edits, because I guess its easier to just lock down the whole page? Corpx (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IP request to unprotect talk page

Please resolve. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've obliged. If needed, revert me. —Animum (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference: 00:47, 26 June 2009 Animum (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Talk:Michael Jackson" (indefinite) ‎ (Preemptive protection only goes so far. Until we have an idea of the degree to which this page may be vandalized, IPs should be allowed to comment; revert me immediately if necessary. BLP-violating IPs can be blocked.) —Animum (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAPboxing at Talk:David Letterman

I removed a 12,000+ character post from the above page, and was reverted] by User:Mantion, who first posted it. First, was I wrong to remove the initial post? Second, is this type of posting acceptable at an article talkpage? I'm not going to remove it again, unless an administrator advises me it's acceptable -- as I assumed it was, per WP:SOAP. Unitanode 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was clearly inappropriate. It has been undone by another editor. Mantion has been told about this thread. Until and unless Mantion does something further, this issue has been resolved.... but I'm not going to mark it such. We need to keep an eye on it to ensure that Mantion doesn't restore it. If he does, then we need to drop him a warning and proceed from there.---Balloonman 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make certain that I was in the right on the issue, and getting extra eyes on the situation. Unitanode 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You were. The next move is up to Mantion. At this point, I am not going to issue a warning. He made a post, it was reverted, he reverted that, and it was subsequently reverted by a second party. If he keeps it up, then we can issue him a formal warning. But right now, I'm of a mind to let the issue die (if possible.)---Balloonman 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The length was due to me copping and pasting the section from Don Imus's page to show of when he made an insulting remark. It was put on his page not the page of his show. In contrast when David Letterman made what is arguably a more insulting remark, no mention is allowed on his page. If you were upset about the length, I can delete the portion of Don Imus's page and put a link. Would that be better? I reverted because I was under the impression it was improper to delete content from a discussion page. It is nice to know I can simple delete "WP:SOAP".Mantion (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Make a link to the section in question and it should be ok... as long as it isn't a gazillion bytes in size. This is a subject that can be talked about, but Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox.---Balloonman 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick note relating to Michael Jackson

(ec X infinity) Since I edit-conflicted non-stop in the main thread, I'm posting this in a new section; apparently the news is being spread to completely unrelated pages as well; see this edit to WP:PERM/R by Texas Ty (talk · contribs). → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls Unprotect Michael Jackson

It would be one thing if the article were fully protected and the only edits being made were after extensive discussion on the talk page, but what's happening is that admins are editing away willy-nilly, while everyone else is locked out. That creates a divide between admins and non-admins that has heretofore not existed. Admins are chosen to be janitors, not elite editors. Mike R (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TerriersFan has unprotected. Mike R (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kruško Mortale

I don't know what to do with this guy... he reverts because of completely imagined POV, he just clicks undo and reverts everything because he doesn't agree with a few parts of an edit (even paragraph organization edits), and he reverts "out of principle" if he happens to think the other person is somehow promoting a "POV". All this and he barely discusses the issues, if he even lists his objections. The articles are Bosnian language and Template:Infobox Bosnian War. This may sound "corny", but I did venture to honestly improve the factual accuracy of the articles in question. In the process I've apparently had the misfortune of being labeled as an "enemy" by a Bosniak nationalist and now everything I do simply gets reverted because the guy assumes it must somehow be POV... This is why none of these articles can get brought up to a legible standard. There's always some guy out there who'll imagine its "POV" and edit-war the other guy to death. Could someone with a little authority intervene in this mess? --DIREKTOR 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

changes needed

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

In regards to the Michael Jackson article, I see a huge discrepancy in policy and performance. WP policy dictates that a page may not be protected to prevent disruptive changes. Personally, I believe this needs to be changed, because it has not been followed. In any case, the page was protected, and sources reported his death. many of the first reports were from unusable sources, then possible verifiable sources, administrators did not wait for a consensus before editing the article, resulting in the current report of a death that has not been confirmed by official sources. Changes are needed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all over TV news, well-confirmed. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to make a mountain out of a mole hill on this, but I agree that it was bad form to fully protect the page, yet continue to edit the article as an admin. There is no policy nor precident to use preemptive protection. Although I do agree that the admins heart was in the right place. I haven't seen any abuse since the protection level was lowered, but its still too early.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, it was not confirmed, it was a bunch of news that was taken from other sources, look over the talk page, TMZ reported death, state and local news reported the TMZ piece, AP reported, CNN reported the reports of death, and yet we have experienced editors soliciting admins to make changes to the article! As for the article's current state, the death section is not written correctly, and is still fully protected. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As outlined clearly in policy here, "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Misplaced Pages. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article." No autoconfirmed account, or IP has vandalized the page. This is unnecessary and is "against the nature of Misplaced Pages." I would somewhat go as far as to say that it is an abuse of administrative power. A semi-protect, per policy, would be helpful. If the problem escalates, as everyone fears, then we can do something. Otherwise, you're only fearing a problem that doesn't exist. --Blurpeace (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was confirmed at least an hour and a half ago, and the known facts are already in the article. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That gives reason for why it goes against policy? I think not. Things can be edited and expanded upon. What I'm really trying to get across is that it was wrong to fully protect on first sight from the news. Sorry if I come on a bit agitated. I'm never known to edit while annoyed or agitated. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't wrong. And it's moot anyway, as it's no longer fully protected. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it probably was wrong to fully protect the article so quickly, but BB is correct that the issue is now moot. We should move on. — Satori Son 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't wrong until admins decided they could edit as they pleased without consensus on the talk page. Auntie E (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

AuntiE, let's not make drama. The problem has been resolved; discussion is no longer needed. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)