Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:08, 17 March 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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

Fraudulent referencing

User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Misplaced Pages," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Misplaced Pages article. Since Misplaced Pages mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Misplaced Pages mirror, it can't be used to reference a Misplaced Pages article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Misplaced Pages compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Misplaced Pages contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Misplaced Pages is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Misplaced Pages's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Misplaced Pages citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If this thread has become an excuse for Delicious carbuncle to throw insults at me for a third time on ANI, could an admin please hide this discussion? It has become an obvious attempt to defame me without bothering to supply evidence or follow any reasonable dispute resolution process. I would hide it myself but I expect this would be taken as an opportunity for yet more thin claims of malfeasance. Ash (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment is really inappropriate. You asked (implicitly) if anyone besides me doubted the good faith or your sourcing practices; DC responded that he did. And you've teed off on him, once again, without addressing the substantive matters involved. It is flat out untrue for you to say DC was defaming you "without bothering to supply evidence" when he provided a link to a discussion where he supplied such evidence; there is no need to cross-post or repetitively post the same details over and over. And no one who has posted comments with edit summaries like "HW is making me feel ill" is in any position to complain about civility. A primary reason that so much Misplaced Pages content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with, and your pattern of behavior, quite frankly, falls aquarely into that category. How else can one explain your post on my talk page blasting me for not using dispute resolution processes, followed by your post here, only 22 minutes later, insulting me for "bullying" you and other misconduct for invoking those same dispute resolution processes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, how could saying "I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime." possibly be interpreted as "Blasting" you? You have failed to prove I am a fraud or my edits were fraudulent. You have escalated what should have been a collaborative discussion about reliable sourcing into unnecessary threats of admin action. Claiming other editors are frauds is transparently uncivil. Go away and do something productive instead of stirring up drama and taking random pot-shots at me.

As for my edit comment on my own talk page, yes you are making me feel ill with this nonsense, so the comment is perfectly accurate and not an attempt to attack you as, frankly, who would ever notice it unless you pasted it in ANI?

This ANI is titled "Fraudulent referencing", not "Let's rake through every edit Ash has made in the last 3½ years and find something else to grief about". Unless you are prepared to prove that I am a perpetrating fraud, there is nothing here apart from satisfaction for anyone else who wishes to enjoy insulting me by calling me a fraud. Ash (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, in the BLPN discussion that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is impossible to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying stated problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as A primary reason that so much Misplaced Pages content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with... and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them grief when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and dramatic threads to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - BLP sky-is-falling nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to flip the script that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Misplaced Pages Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for User:Ash/analysis which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to WP:Hear that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a BLPN discussion from over three months ago where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for griefing somewhere else. Ash (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I identified five specific sources in that discussion, although I don't know if all of them were added to that particular BLP by you. How much more evidence do you require? I'm sure I can find it if I start looking. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa won no Dave Awards. This can have no bearing on the request for Administrator intervention by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for fraudulent referencing in relation to Dave Awards on the five articles listed at the top of this ANI. A BLPN was raised for Vladimir Correa to discuss sourcing, no changes resulted despite your accusations of "bullshit" and ANI is not a forum to rehash discussion from months ago in an attempt to overturn consensus or a place to discuss possible improvement to sources on Vladimir Correa, as you well know the place for such a discussion would be Talk:Vladimir Correa.

If you want to have an Admin take action against me then supply some evidence relevant to this ANI. Your continued attempts to create unnecessary drama and to defame me with no firm facts to support your claims are a misuse of this forum. This forum is not a discussion group for when you feel bored, lonely or want to pick a fight. Ash (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In an ANI discussion entitled "fraudlent referencing", I can't help but think that the example I cite of your fraudulent referencing may be relevant. Again, I have stated exactly what is wrong with the references, so the facts seem to be quite firm. It would be nice if you could simply respond to the charge here. Although it is great to see Benjboi practising his typing here, it isn't doing anything to put the matter to rest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to examine the Vladimir Correa article will discover that you have raised no current concerns on it, there is nothing to "put to rest". The last time you edited the article was on 29 November 2009 when you raised the article for deletion, this was also the last time you made any comment on the article talk page. The result of that AfD was to keep. I say again, you are off-topic by raising long dead discussion as fake evidence for griefing. You are misusing ANI for harassment. Ash (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, if any admin feels that I am using this thread to harass you, I hope they will speak up, because that is not my intention and I apologise if you feel that that is what I am doing. I'm simply asking you to address the unresolved sourcing issues that came out of the AfD of that article. If my allegations that the sources do not contain the cited information are wrong, it should be very easy for you to show that and would probably take about the same amount of time as avoiding the question has taken thus far. Since this thread was raised about concerns with your sourcing, it seems wholly appropriate to have that discussion here, not on the article's talk page, since the concern is with a pattern of misuse of sources, not with any specific article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a bad faith sockpuppetry claim over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to encourage an abusive sockfarmer and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to characterize my statements as false or "fantasia", they are my opinions are I believe them to be true and accurate. As for the accusation that I am in any way Wikistalking you, that seems contrary to reality and I can assure you is utterly false. I have no interest or inclination to Wikistalk anyone. Of the many editors whose edits I either felt needed to be and were asked to review yours didn't strike me as anything but rather uncivil and quick to assume bad faith. As you seemed to be doing a lot of vandalism patrol I think that goes with that territory. If you are open to advice I encourage you to be much more welcoming to newby and IPs editors, even promotional-ish ones. If we can encourage them to add good sourcing and amend their less than positive interactions and contributions that the project wins. Promotional-ish editors often are experts on the subjects they are trying to edit. If they can instead work to rise to our level of notability, MOS and standards then, again, the project benefits. Time and again on your editing I've encouraged civility and coached much of what I wrote above about better sourcing. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground so i have little interest in engaging as such. I'm sorry you feel I'm in any way stalking you, the likelihood is I question and restore the deletion of content on articles that our paths cross. I have apparently edited thousands of articles so that we intersect from time to time is not that peculiar. As for the sock claim it looks like it was accurate although simply a technical glitch, meanwhile you're faulting me for supporting a sock of some sort, I didn't know they were then and still don't. If they are they still had a valid point that they felt you may have been using socks and this seems to suggest they had a point. If you follow my entire history I continued to push for civility, dispute resolution and even did an overhaul of one of the articles myself so that editor could see you weren't the only one who felt that article needed clean-up. I strike to limit the drama and simply work to improve the articles. Years from now what will count is the quality of the articles not the drama that goes into their creation and maintenance. Now as for blogs as reliable sources, this is an ongoing misperception that more experienced editors have been handling on a regular basis. First off this medium is growing exponentially and replacing in part traditional news media much like the advent of radio and television, and cable channels. Some are perfectly acceptable on BLPs and elsewhere, some are not. A blog written by the subject of a BLP is certainly acceptable for statements about themselves. If in doubt a civil talkpage discussion and possible a visit to the RSN would usually clear up any issues. As for this thread, which presumably you still seem to care about, the content was never disputed by anyone, and still isn't. it was all a matter of sourcing it correctly and that's being resolved. So it would seem this has been another escalation to ANI that was unneeded but has shed some light on the background of those involved. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors regardless if our paths ever cross again. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a fairly skanky response. You pretend to justify you groundless accusations by citing a long-discredited socking charge, one that had already been proved false when your sock buddy tried resurrected it. As was evident at the time, the charge was disproved by CU, and no less than Jimmy Wales had intervened on my behalf, suggesting that I be "thanked for right action . While you pretend you "push for civility," in fact you encouraged conspicuously dubious users, virtually all of whom proved to be SPAs/sockpuppets, to maintain campaigns of personal attacks after extensive talk page discussions and AN/I disputes had consistently rejected their positions. Your comments on the substantive dispute involved are equally shabby: despite what you say here, the policy regarding blog-sourcing of content is quite clear - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - and the stated exception was not involved in the dispute. You can strike this Uriah Heep-ish pose all you want, but it won't suffice to disguise your lack of good faith, your double standards, and our refusal to abide by WP content/reference policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to my response as "skanky" and calling another editor who I really don't know nor work with as "my sock buddy", etc seems a really bad way to maturely discuss who you handled the situation.It's utterly false to suggest I encouraged them to "maintain campaigns of personal attacks". If there was ANI threads, etc were they three-ring circuses such as this? Really, I pushed for them to use better sources and improve content as that was the best response to someone who seemed to be acting tendentiously against this one set of articles. I really didn't know the subject but I did feel your editing was a bit heavy-handed when it didn't need to be. Similar to your hard line stance following the letter and avoiding the spirit our policies you strike me as seeing too much as either black/white extremist positions when human beings aren't quite as easy to push labels onto. I stand by my comments but if you never used socks then my apologies. As for the rest of your baseless accusations I respect that you actually believe them to be true for whatever reasons. They aren't but you can believe whatever you wish. -- Banjeboi 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved with this, and I may already be regretting it, but a quick look at the most recent arguments leads to the obvious call to COOL IT on all sides. DC's use of expletives, and HW's use of the word "skanky" and the general accusative bickering nature of all this is unacceptable to me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool, but I agree - let's deal with the issue below and get this thread wrapped up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of Vladimir Correa questions as raised by user:Delicious carbuncle on BLPN on 11 December 2009

Source BLPN: (diff)
As Delicious carbuncle is intent of raking through this old BLP/N on ANI here is a detailed response to the five citations mentioned in that BLP/N that resulted in no action, edit or correction at the time:

1. wikiporno.org - fails WP:RS, I have no idea why User:Keraunos added this reference to an open wiki (diff), it puzzles me as to why Delicious carbuncle felt they could not remove it or blames me for it existing in the article. I would delete it myself if I did not expect to be immediately accused by Delicious carbuncle of yet more malfeasance or fraud.
2. The "More Dirty Looks" book demonstrates that Correa was in "Inside Vladimir Correa" (and that video exists). As for the placement of the reference, I don't have strong opinions on the matter. The discussion about his role as a top or bottom could be deleted without damaging the article, I do not believe that text was added by me. Obviously this improvement could be discussed on the article talk page, or just made without having to create drama on ANI.
3. The reference to http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/9/A/683F9A_1.jpg is just a reference to a DVD cover showing Correa. The article does not depend on this supplementary information. I could not care less if it is deleted or not.
4. The reference to Dyer's book seems appropriate as Dyer lists him with other examples of how his film portrays Correa as a superstar. In the current version of the article, the reference is being used to support him existing as a well known porn star. Rather than Delicious carbuncle's description of "the book sources do not appear to have any correspondence with the facts" this source seems quite appropriate.
5. The Advocate interview appears entirely appropriate as there are no other porn videos produced before 1993 that would be anything close to "Inside Vladimir". It is entirely reasonable to conclude this had to be "Inside Vladimir Correa".

• It should be noted that I believe my response here is pointless as this is the wrong forum for Delicious carbuncle to be banging on about a dead discussion in BLP/N when, as an experienced editor, s/he could not be bothered to raise these points on the article talk page, or to raise flags for improvement on the article itself, or continue to pursue the original question on BLP/N last year. Delicious carbuncle appears to be on a fishing expedition in an attempt to find something against me. As this out of date BLP/N discussion has been used to make repeated claims that this somehow demonstrates I am acting fraudulently, I have felt obliged to take time to respond in detail.
• Delicious carbuncle has made no attempt to discuss, delete or improve the references that s/he complained about over 3 months ago.
• I strongly object to these repeated accusations from Delicious carbuncle, and would hope that the fact that s/he has raised two recent ANI requests about me on this forum that amounted to nothing but hot air as additional evidence of repeated misuse of this forum in an attempt to harass or defame a number of other editors in the form of griefing. I hope that this sustained uncivil and passive aggressive behaviour is not tolerated in future. Ash (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, thanks for finally responding directly, and thank you for toning down your earlier remarks. This all came about because I nominated what was a very poorly sourced BLP article for deletion. Although the AfD was closed as "KEEP" and Cirt's closure was upheld at DRV, the article subject clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. It is unlikely once the current sources are properly vetted it would pass WP:GNG (which is not to say better sources could not be found). Ash, you appear to have deliberately inserted fraudulent references in order to improve the chances of this article being kept at AfD.

In order to minimize friction, I stated during the subsequent BLPN discussion that I did not think it would be productive for me to edit the article myself and asked that someone else make the necessary changes (which would presumably include looking over the rest of the sources). I do not know why no one acted on what I pointed out, but outside of the topic starter Cirt, you were the only other participant and you had introduced most of those sources. The question is not why did I not fix the references, it is why did you not fix what you now knew to be incorrect?

Taking your points individually, but not in order:

1 - as I've said here and in the original discussion, I do not know if you were responsible for inserting each of those references, so I'm glad we agree that wikiporno.org is not an appropriate source. Don't let me stop you from removing it.

2 - you added this reference to source a specific fact which is not contained in the reference. It is not a question of demonstrating notability. This is "fraudulent referencing", to use the phrase in the title.

3 - You added an image of a DVD cover is simply not a suitable reference and should not have been added. It appears to be "padding" the references to avoid deletion at AfD.

4 - The Dyer article is the same article as in #2, but contained in a different book. It has only passing references to Correa. I read it months ago, but as I recall, it does not establish any of the information for which it is being used as a reference.

5 - Neither the Advocate interview with Amy Poehler (in which Poehler refers to a gay porn movie in passing) nor the Gay Porn Times blog post summary which you also used as a reference -- more reference padding -- identify the movie as "Inside Vladimir Correa". In fact, the Gay Porn Times editor states "Ms. Poehler might be referring to 1991’s ... INSIDE VLADIMIR CORREA" (emphasis mine). Deciding that this is close enough isn't quite what WP:VERIFY says. Your comment here is indicative of the larger problem.

Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply some PROOF that I deliberately inserted fraudulent references as you are repeatedly stating or stop defaming me. Point #2 above makes my opinion on the placement of "More Dirty Looks" clear, nothing you have provided as evidence demonstrates deliberate fraud on my part. You are assuming the worst possible bad faith.

All the evidence above shows is potential improvement to sources or potential better placement of sources. Nothing here requires administrator action and it seems plainly obvious it never did. This is the wrong forum for a detailed discussion of article improvement and your absolute insistence on holding this detailed discussion here rather than in any other more suitable forum is blatant forum shopping. You are misusing this forum to unnecessarily grief other editors.

ANI should not and does not operate on a principle of assuming guilty until proved innocent. Ash (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, unless you accidentally inserted those references, you did it "deliberately". I speculated that you did it in order to influence the AfD discussion that had been started immediately before you began adding these references. I could be wrong about that, but there is no question that you inserted "fraudulent references" as I have shown above, with diffs. Your nonsensical sputtering about "placement" and your misplaced charges of "forum shopping" are yet more misdirection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you believed that the AFD (from 3 months ago) was manipulated, why did you not go to DRV at the time? Raising this on the wrong forum such a long time later is an obvious fishing expedition taking advantage of an ANI in order to create drama and make hurtful inflammatory accusations.
• ANI is a forum for requests for Administrator intervention. So far you have not identified anything that requires admin intervention and instead appear to be using this forum to endlessly repeat defamatory accusations against me based on your speculations as to my motivation. I have explained my contributions to the Correa article last year above, and you have failed to identify evidence that I have been deliberately perpetrating fraud as opposed to adding relevant citations that could have been better placed.
• Article improvement does not require admin intervention. Hopefully you are satisfied with provoking a reaction from me and creating lots of drama, why don't you now go and do something constructive, like, say, improve an article rather than banging on about edits from 3 months ago that you could have fixed last year had you chosen to get your finger out.
• Just to be clear - stop misusing ANI and stop defaming me.
• Do not expect replies responding to your accusations, I have explained my edits were in good faith and I would be delighted for any experienced admin to investigate. Hopefully you will shortly fall into that big hole you have been digging for yourself and then be unable to grief other editors. Ash (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to me to be a matter for ANI. We don't check every reference (we should, but we can't), so we end up taking a lot on trust, particularly when supplied by regular editors. Therefore the charge of "false sourcing", whether deliberate or accidental, is a very serious charge indeed, particularly on a BLP. If such a charge were to be sustained (and I've no investigated closely here - so I'm not saying it is), then the only appropriate response would be to ban the offender, and certainly ban them from BLPs. To that degree, this isn't a simple content dispute for a talk page, or a simple deletion dispute for DRV, this is very, very, serious indeed. (Indeed a spurious change of false sourcing should also result in serious repercussion for the one asserting it.) Perhaps a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than ANI, but in either case the evidence needs examined, and if it holds up, I'd have no hesitation to indefinitely block any offender (if I didn't, I'd be confident arbcom would). I suggest further investigation by neutral parties into Ash's actions, and form here is appropriate - it is essential that we find out where truth lies, or whether indeed we can clear his name.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However Delicious carbuncle's problems with sources were raised on BLP/N in December 2009 (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa). Anyone was free to comment, nobody took any action, nobody else supported Delicious carbuncle's claims of "bullshit" and I see little benefit in raising the same concerns in another forum over 3 months on. I would suggest a ban against me would have to be for a unambiguous pattern of repeatedly adding misleading sources to articles. If anyone cares to supply evidence I would be interested to see it. I'm sure that in my 22,000+ edits on Misplaced Pages, there are many examples of poorly judged edits to be found but I doubt that this would constitute a pattern of false sourcing. Any reviewer would find my contributions to be constructive and with genuine intent. You will note that back in February I opened an Editor review welcoming critical feedback, not normally an action associated with an editor acting in bad faith.

You make a good point about the repercussions on those who may bring false charges. Apart from it being a bit of a waste of time and effort, I would have no particular objections to an independent investigation by an administrator into my edit history if it were in conjunction with equally detailed examination of the nature of the accusations against various other editors made by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) over the last 12 months. It may be more straightforward to raise an RFC/U on Delicious carbuncle as per my earlier MfD rationale in preparing User:Ash/analysis - the start of a summary of Delicious carbuncle's disruptive behaviour. As this predates Delicious carbuncle's accusations against me here, this could hardly be seen as a tit-for-tat exercise on my part.

Note that Delicious carbuncle previously rejected an offer of mediation in the last no-action ANI s/he raised against me, as far as I am concerned, that offer is still on the table as it was made in good faith. Ash (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone investigate the allegations 3 months ago, or did it suffer from tl;dr? I wouldn't say a pattern would be required here - evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of sources would be serious even if not a pattern. Careless sourcing might be overlooked if it were just once or twice over hundreds of good sources. We need to take sourcing extremely seriously, and since we need to trust a lot of the time, any breach of trust is not to be passed over. I'd strongly suggest that you and Carbuncle both need to get this resolved. It is serious either way. I may have time to look closely myself later, but I've doubts as to whether you'd see me as sufficiently neutral. The issue does now need resolved by a serious, BLP experienced editor.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100)

IP 174.3.110.108 (talk · contribs) is engaging in deliberate wikihounding of myself. I first encountered this editor, when he was 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) and later as 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs), when he made massive changes to Misplaced Pages:Tables (formerly Misplaced Pages:When to use tables), Misplaced Pages:Embedded list, Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists, and Misplaced Pages:Lists without any discussion nor consensus. As he continued these edits, despite warnings from myself and others, he was reported here and was blocked for 3 hours. During this event, he also filed a false 3RR report that resulted in his being warned again. After his block was lifted, he was again admonished by several admins, but continued on and the report went stale. Administrator User:Father Goose apparently deciding to adopt the editor and helped him make the changes he wanted. He was reported here again on March 3rd by another IP, but no response was given to that report.

On March 10, he pretty much straight down the list of articles on my user page, and making random bad edits to Meerkat Manor, Tokyo Mew Mew, U-Drop Inn, and White Dog. All of his edits were reverted and I requested that Father Goose intervene, as he had clearly decided to "nuture" this IP and had assigned himself as the IPs "advocate". While Father Goose agreed that the edits were not improvements, he also asserted there were in good faith and felt no action was needed. Further discussion followed on both Father Goose's talk page and the IPs, including some back and forth between the IP and myself where I reiterated that I wished him to stop hounding me and bothering me, primarily through the Meerkat Manor talk page, despite FG also objecting to his change. He continued to do so and Father Goose finally asked the IP to back off and again noted that the edits were not an improvement.

The IP has continued to ignore Father Goose's notes and my own requests to leave him alone, quickly losing my temper with his continued aggrevating actions and Father Goose's seeming approval by his lack of action. Father Goose even went back to U-Drop Inn, and made similar edits as the IP, to which the IP responded to by giving him "getting changes implemented". The IP tried to call my reverts of his edits WP:OWN and began using that as a pipped link every time he used the phrase "your articles". He admitted that he'd specifically gone to my user page to "came to audit your articles" to see if they met his idea of what they should be, and then as they had no tables, he just made random changes to "improve" them. He clearly stated: "If you are wondering what my motivation for editing your 4 articles, it is because considering you were the only person who objected to the changes to wp:table, and then you did not explain your objections, considering that you made no contribution the current version of wp:table, I did not think you had invoked the changes to "your" articles." though none of those articles have even one table. These remarks were made after Father had told him to back off, and despite the IP's stating "I won't post any comments on any of your articles' talk pages" he continued to do so.

After I posted to Misplaced Pages talk:Ownership of articles suggesting the guideline be clarified to note what is not ownership, he followed me in his very first edit, after being offline, to opposed it.. He had never edited that talk page before, nor WP:OWN itself, so it is clear he came behind me. The IP went on to claim he'd done this before, editing Gossip Girl, however no edit was found with his IP range, unless he deliberately changed ranges. He also clearly recognizes that his behavior is disturbing and annoying, seeming to find it amusing and has indicate that he fully intends to continue doing so deliberately and claiming that any objection I make is displaying "ownership".

Father Goose said he would speak to the IP, but nearly 24 hours, has not done so though he has been online. The IP's newest remarks have been to make his expression of his full intention to continue his harassment and random "auditing" of his articles. I am also concerned about the appropriateness of Father Goose's actions in this situation, after learning that the IP is actually 100110100 (talk · contribs). This user was blocked in 2007 for serious incivility, disruptive, and even making death threats. Apparently, he admitted at some point to Father Goose that he was this indef blocked user, and rather than reminding the IP that he was evading his ban, Father Goose decided to lift the block all together, stating "Assuming good faith; has displayed an imperfect but much more even-tempered manner as an IP since this account was blocked." Father Goose also seems very quick to jump to this IPs defense against any criticism and after his earlier block as an IP, went on to do the IP's edits for him and explained why he could "get away" with.

It should also be noted that the IP is in an on-going edit war with User:Paul 012 at Misplaced Pages:Lists, and has been warned for doing various template changes without consensus (even being mistakenly blocked as a bot for how quickly he was doing certain changes. Also, as I was typing this, the IP filed a Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts against me.

At this point, it seems prudent to have some outside administrative reviewing of both the IPs actions, and the quite unblock of what appears to have been a very disruptive editor who has been evading his block with IP socks for weeks, if not longer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC); Modified 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is continuing his actions, going on to deliberately make edits to other articles, despite the those same edits being rejected by both myself and Father Goose as being incorrect and not an improvement to any of the articles., and two more done under his user account I find this person's continued deliberate targeting extremely disturbing. Father Goose purportedly contacted him OFF wiki, but obviously it had no results only to prompt this editor to continue this sort of stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot defend 174's continued editing of Collectonian's pages at this point. I've counseled him against it, but he has persisted. Being his effective mentor, I am reluctant to block him myself, as it would compromise our ability to continue to deal with him diplomatically through me. But while I have been offering him advice and assistance, he is not under my aegis, and if another admin feels his actions call for a block or any other administrative action, I will not interfere.

I'll continue trying to suggest to him what actions he could be taking that would be more constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you tend to be a very AGFing editor/admin, but I am curious as to why you choose to unblock his named account, rather than enforcing his indef blocked, considering the history and circumstances (particular the death threat which, as far as I could see, he never retracted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The broad principle here is that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. His behavior is still not perfect (and his choosing to tangle with you in this manner deserves a rolled up wiki-newspaper to the nose), but I've seen him make positive contributions to the encyclopedia and his behavior has been far more communicative and cooperative than what caused him to get banned three years ago.

People are allowed to "come back" if they clean up their act. At the time that I unblocked him, his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed. Clearly we can't claim that he's a model citizen quite yet, and if he decides that hounding you is all that he wants to do on Misplaced Pages, then the cover should go back on the sarcophagus.

However, as pointed out by several people in the current Wikiquette alert (), the intensity of your reaction here has not helped the issue. I'm not saying you should suffer a fool, but it makes it difficult for me to tell him to stop fighting with you when you're swinging back so hard. So far, this hasn't been going well for either of you.

I'd like to be able to stop this fight, but I'd need two calm people first.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fight would stop if he would stop the hounding. Why he decided to start it in the first place is beyond me. And I am calm(er) now than I was the first day. I have little patience for that sort of behavior, particularly when I have it coming at me from three sides at the moment, thanks to this guy, User:Bambifan101 finding yet another range to get past the 4-5 rangeblocks on him, and User:ItsLassieTime making socks and doing their darnedest to try to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, including harassing a bunch of folks who supported or commented positively on it. And, quite honestly, your lack of response only made my frustration far worse, as you seemed to be condoning his behavior and at times I felt you were even encouraging it. I acknowledged in my original report that I had not been as clean-languaged as I could have been, but the issue was still on-going and as we have now both no doubt seen, he fully intends to keep it up. I don't think my being stressed and annoyed at his hounding and using more colorful language than I would normally would (which was far toned down from what I was thinking, believe me) should somehow excuse his behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an update, IP is continuing to push an issue at Talk:Meerkat Manor despite the notes above, it being rejected by multiple people, and folks in the Wikiquette alert that agreed he is acting inappropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Outside Tangentially related opinion

Collectonian, his behavior could be called into question. However, I'm still not seeing behavior rising to the level of hounding. He has made changes, but they appear to be good faith changes done IAW policy. While I concur that WP:IAR definitely applies at ] and "The" is appropriate unless someone can come up with a better header. I have 4 articles to which I contributed that became FAs (as you are probably well-aware), but others still add a lot to those articles and change things, as they have a right to do.

However, even if someone else finds his behavior to be hounding, this doesn't excuse your behavior, which has been atrocious: from claiming ownership over articles, to excessive profanity, to inappropriate demands, etc:

In short, I find your behavior to be worse and severely over-reacting. You should have simply brought your concerns here or to another board instead of reacting the way you did. — BQZip01 —  17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your personal point view. As already pointed out in the Wikiquette alert, your are completely non-neutral in this discussion considering our disagreements over the A&M articles and my opposing one of your many failed RfAs. This is not the first time you have popped into a discussion that clearly showed inappropriate action by another editor to try to claim I was the one acting wrongly, despite no one agreeing with you. Again, whether or not I used profanity is irrelevant. I'm an adult and can use whatever language I choose. Further, it has already been noted above that this is NOT the first instance of this type of stuff. There is NOTHING inappropriate about telling someone hounding you to leave you alone, anymore than it would be wrong for me to tell you to get over the previous history and leave me alone. I walked away from almost every A&M article because of you. Be happy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your language and hostility are a problem (the IP's behavior notwithstanding) and is not only relevant, but central to the problems we're facing here. You indeed can choose any language you want, but on Misplaced Pages, communication should be civil; it currently is not. At least 4 other people agreed with me on the Wikiquette board that your reactions are out of line. Our "history" (which near as I can tell we haven't interacted for over a year) or your history with anyone else is irrelevant. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. — BQZip01 —  18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior" - you mean like you are doing now to excuse away this editors edits? And of the people who agreed with you regarding my language, I notice you don't bother to mention that they also agreed with me that he IS wikihounding (and that the last you one yourself noted was lying and had not actually interacted with me, just decided to pop in and make a a negative remark because they disagreed with my replacing the tags on an article they had removed). Honesty is just as important as civility, and using profanity, in and of itself is not uncivil. My behavior here was appropriate, even if you disagree with my language in the discussions. And your view is not neutral (it is amusing you are lecturing me on my behavior when your four RfAs have failed, in part because of your own personality issues....but such is life, eh?)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behavior, though I've seen no specific diffs that you've provided with any problems. They seem like editorial concerns; ones that should be discussed on talk pages. One of your changes even goes against WP:HEADING, but I certainly concede that WP:IAR applies, no alternative really works, and you both discussed it on the talk page. Labeling a change vandalism when it is merely a difference of opinion is also uncivil (). I don't see any diffs for the alleged tag removals. Profanity in discussions is not acceptable and explicitly mentioned in policy. Taunting me (or anyone else) is also uncivil.

If he's done something wrong, I'm just not seeing it in the diffs you've provided. I'm not excusing any behavior by saying his actions are justified because of yours. I'm saying I don't see that any inappropriate behavior exists at all." — BQZip01 —  00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree that some of Collectonian's reverts that are identified as "vandalism" are far cries from it. For example, the change that is undone by either or , the addition of a pop culture section, is nowhere near vandalism - it is a good faith addition that is unsourced or unnecessary, but not vandalism; I'd still likely undo the change by under a AGF revert. Same with a change that adds a bad EL (but not a copyvio EL). If these were repeat offenses (people pushing 3RR or a wise IP that's avoiding 3RR with slow edit warring), ok, vandalism starts to come into play, but not here. I would strongly recommend Collection to avoid the "revert (vandalism)" (which bypasses the edit summary entry) and instead use the other two revert tools that provide a quick edit summary so that it is clear why the reverts are being done. And this is not to question the need to revert - I think Collectonian is right that these aren't appropriate additions, but they are not vandalism. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The first two are the same edit, made a bit of time apart, by the same person. Isn't that a repeat offense? I do consider the addition of unsourced, random content into a FA to be vandalism, however it others feel it is not, then I'm happy to start just using the regular RV for that sort of thing. I realize I tend to have a far harder view of vandalism than most others. However, I am curious. You do not feel the addition of spam is vandalism? That was not just a random site, but someone's personal "petition". To me, the last is a spam link, not any kind of legitimate link. That, to me, is vandalism, but again if it is not can you explain further to me what constitutes spam versus just a bad link? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the first two edits are not the same edit. They look similar but they are two different facets of pop culture. And because the IP addys are far apart, there's no evidence it is the same person (it could be, granted). I think the stance that "the addition of unsourced, random content into an FA is vandalism" is very much against AGF. (Yes, mind you, I'd love flagged revisions, which would deal with much of this, but...) All of this starts from AGF. If an editor (particularly an IP) makes a first-time edit that is not blatantly wrong but otherwise not appropriate, we need to take good faith that they may not be familiar with all policy and guideline - we can revert, just, we can't assume the person is vandalizing the article. Again, vandalism is deliberate; a new editor adding a bad (non-copy vio) EL is likely not trying to degrade the quality of the article deliberately, and that's why I wouldn't call any of those three examples vandalism. If the same IPs appeared later and make the same changes, then that becomes deliberate and thus vandalism. Again, the reverts in-of-themselves are not wrong, just the choice of using vandalsim rollback. That's why I suggest you should use AGF rollback to at least explain the edits - that will, in part, deal with the supposed attitude issue that BQZip is describing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense (and so agree on flagged revisions). I suspect it is not always evident, but I have actually been working on improving my method of dealing with reverts and on trying to do more AGFing, per some remarks left on my talk age. I do not always successfu, but I don't think anyone can expect one to change overnight? To confirm, these are more appropriate AGFing rollbacks, yes?. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem better to me. Again, my only caution here (which is in part what seems to have led to this case) is to avoid pressing the vandalism revert button too fast, as doing a revert with more of an explanation that "vandalism" is much more helpful to new editors and those reviewing such cases. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To the admins, I welcome any opinions, but Collectonian seems to have no desire/will to change her behavior. I recommend a 24 hour block (1st block for such a violation) for multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and an inability/unwillingness to alter such behavior which is explicitly in contradiction with the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. I also recommend a review of the IP's actions; while I don't see anything wrong, I'm willing to admit I could have missed something. The same goes for the unblocking admin. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know on my talk page or here and I will correct it (if it is something worthy of a block, please block me IAW WP:PG). — BQZip01 —  00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block nearly 2 days after the incident? Blocks are not punitative (supposedly), and it seems you are just trying to find some reason to get me blocked. What is your stake in this? Why are you so determined to get me blocked while continuing to see nothing wrong with the hounding on both a logged in account and multiple IPs (which at least four editors have agreed occurred, despite your own personal denial of events). Hounding and pointy edits are vandalism. Thank you for at least admitting you really haven't reviewed anything and are pretty much just coming here to make negative remarks because its me. Were this any other editor, I doubt you would be calling for a block. And, FYI, Father Goose, whose talk page the exchange occurred on, IS AN ADMIN. Had he felt my language was inappropriate or worthy of blocking, don't you think he would have left me a warning (which I have not received a single one for) and blocked me himself had I continued. You really are not adding any value to this discussion, but instead only causing a lot of noisy distractions from the real issues. As such, it seems unlikely any actual admin discussion will occur here because of this pointless back and forth on a non-issue. Despite what you may like, you cannot have me blocked just because you dislike me.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Blocks are not punitive (and I wasn't suggesting otherwise), but are designed to change behavior. You have indicated that you not only have no desire to change your behavior, but that you believe it is acceptable. "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." "A user may be blocked...when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to...persistent gross incivility."
2. Hounding and pointy edits are explicitly mentioned as things that are not vandalism: NOTVAND. These fall under disruptive editing.
3. For an admin to initiate a block in a situation he was involved would be inappropriate: "Administrators should not use their tools...in a content dispute where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."
4. Plenty of users and admins have warned you over the past 2 days that your conduct was inappropriate. Complaining that "I didn't get a warning is disingenuous".
5. I am not asking for you to be blocked because I dislike you personally (which, in fact, I don't). I am asking for your to be blocked so your behavior will fall in line with our policies and guidelines on appropriate behavior.

— BQZip01 —  01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Collectonian, the degree of unchivalry pointed out by BQZip01 with those vandal revert edits is not minor. Four edits, each one possibly worthy of a block in themself. It seems to me that despite conversation encouraging your calmness, you are far from editing in the calmest possible way. In doing your false vandal reverts it bring into question your ability to assume good faith and the objectivity of your comments here and elsewhere. I would prefer you are not blocked but what would you suggest instead? How is that you behaviour can be improved? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point out how I am not calmly editing now. Not two days ago, but now. Also, please note that in my initial report, and in replies to Father Goose above, I DID acknowledge that I lost my temper in my initial responses to this situation. I see no reason to block me now. It is not going to change my general nature, which is not evidenced by that response at the start of this (which is what all of those diffs are from). I am annoyed by BQZip01's responses in the etiquette report and here, but again do you see any evidence I have been uncivil in my responses or repeated the response I had to 100110100/the IP? Also, can you or BQZip01 point to any other time I have had such a response anywhere in my 5+ year editing history? Even when another User:ItsLassieTime sock tried, for the second time, to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, I believe my revert was fully civil, I requested the page be protected, and made the appropriate reports. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response is one of challenge. It would be nice if it was one of co-operation. You will notice that when tables are turned your view is to propose a long block. Such blocks are not something I would agree with. Let's move forward and assume good faith. I have every reason to believe that in a spirit of co-operation and a helping hand from Father Goose that your issues with the IP can be resolved or at least not brought into flare up or 'fight' again. For now, I'm outta this conversation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Suncreator, thank you for your kind words and assistance.

Collectonian, ask and ye shall receive: In every edit summary there is profanity. This isn't an isolated incident. Moreover, the last one was for MQS, an editor in which you opined recently in his WP:RfA. — BQZip01 —  05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One profane word in an editsummary, some of which you had to go back TWO years to find, is not the same. Thanks. And what does the RfA have to do with anything? I am allowed to oppose any RfA same as you (an RfA you yourself opposed). And if anyone is going to tell me that Bambifan101's socks don't provoke cussing, you'll also have to block several of the administrators, who have also used "profane" language in dealing with him. And let's see....you had to seriously hunt for those, to go back two years...out of 100,000 edits, thats all and the best you could do? A few minor edit summaries? *sigh* And I'm supposed to assume good faith that you aren't here with an agenda? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, you try to paint a broad brush as this being a one-time incident, when in fact, it is something you seem prone to do. I just did a quick search on your edit summaries checking for a few choice words. Some were recent; others were further back. And of course I looked back into your past (you said to look in your "5+ years", so I did. To belittle me when it is shown that you are wrong and your behavior remains consistent (sparks of incivility throughout your Misplaced Pages career), is inappropriate as well).

To paraphrase:

Me: Your recent actions are problematic

You: I'm sorry man. I had a bad day.

Me: This has always been a problem

You: Aside from this, I have a clear 5+ year history

Me: Well, these diffs show you have problems both recent and in the past

You: OMG, you had to go back 2 YEARS?!?

Me: No, you said you had a clear past. You don't.

Ok, so you are discounting recent actions, actions in the past, denying there are any problems, and making excuses as "it was deserved". That basically excuses any/all inappropriate actions indefinitely. Do you take responsibility for any of your edits? If you just said "I'm sorry", taken it back/struck your comments, etc, this wouldn't be an issue.

In any case, I didn't have to search very hard to find them.

The only agenda I have here is to get you to stop being so hostile (The thing about the RfA was simply a note that the two were tangentially related, not implying any sinister action on your part. You, of course, are free to do as you wish at any RfA.). — BQZip01 —  05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

YOU asked I be blocked for RECENT actions claiming I was consistently something or another. I said look at my five year history as a whole, not just pick and choose a few bits of extremely minor issues (which NO ONE took issue with at the time). Almost every editor here, including YOU have "sparks of incivility" through out their career, particularly when they have been here any length of time. If we are going to sit here and nitpick five years and claim that because I made a very minor remark two years ago, I should be blocked today, then this is an entirely ridiculous discussion, unless we are also going to block you, and I'd expect at least 50% of the Misplaced Pages registered user base. I NEVER claimed to have "clear" history, so do not make false paraphrases. I specifically asked that someone point a single instance LIKE this in my five years. None of those are even close to comparing, not in any way shape or form. If you can't tell the difference, that is your issues, not mine. And I've already noted multiple times in this thread that I agree my responses IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE were overly vitrolic, but you, again, continue to ignore them. This, and your continued harping on this and demanding what, I do not know, just seems like someone with an agenda or some other reason for being here other than any legitimate concern. As is, I'm very tired of this back and forth with you and it obviously is not going to get us anywhere. From this, you will not find any fault here in 100110100's edits and instead support and condone it. From that, I shall refrain from answering you again in this matter, as it is completely unproductive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is your choice. In the diffs you linked, I saw nothing other than editorial changes on format. If I am missing anything someone please post them because I clearly am missing something. I am willing to put forth a support for a block, but I need to see some concrete evidence.

You are absolutely correct that I have made inappropriate edits in the past. I've apologized for it, acknowledge it was poor behavior, and vow to do my best not to have that happen again.

By contrast, you attempt to excuse them "Everybody does it". Even if there are problems with his edits or my edits in the past, that doesn't excuse your behavior. You have clearly made hostile edits and make no apologies for it. You claim you've never made other such edits, but I've shown that assertion to be false. I agree your general edit history is clear, but that doesn't make these actions ok.

Lastly, I do not condone or support his actions, but they are not prohibited either. I find it inappropriate to chastise or vilify someone for behavior that WP has deemed acceptable. — BQZip01 —  05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Collectonian should be blocked -- not over this incident, at any rate. 100110100's behavior was at least to some degree provocative, and while Collectonian's response has been disproportionate (in my opinion), that's still nowhere near a block.

I do agree however with the criticism leveled at her here and at the Wikiquette alert. She has a tendency to bare the claws early and often. But I'd much rather address that problem through peaceful means -- i.e., talking to her about it. I don't think I'm the right person to do that, as she no doubt sees me right now as the ally of one of her enemies. But if Collectonian found a way to be calmer and more willing to assume good faith in general, I've got to think she would find Misplaced Pages to be a much more amicable place than it has been toward her to date.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite this issue of wikihounding, I haven't had any problem with finding Misplaced Pages an amicable place. Yes, with my lengthy history and visibility in the fictional areas, I've made enemies. So has any other active editor. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to make people like me or make friends. So long as it doesn't bring harm to the articles, its neither here nor there. I do, however, take issue with being harassed and wikihounded. I ask this of you, and my other critics. Had I been the one who had followed 100110100 and his IPs edits and just randomly began changing things around that did not improve the article at all (and in some cases were not even valid per the MoS), and I clearly was following him, not just happening to interact with him, would the response be the same? I doubt it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 156 ANI incidents involving Collectonian as an interested party. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• That search you link to doesn't mean anything. It just means Collectonian has posted in or been mentioned in 156 ANI threads, not necessarily as an interested party. My name is found in 28 threads: , and this current thread is the first time to my knowledge that my behavior has been called into question (although given that I unblocked a user who is not without his faults, I accept the scrutiny).--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Well, okay, some of the threads within that search do contain complaints about Collectonian. But I think she's been adequately informed that she could be less sharp-elbowed, and given that no action will be taken against her as regards this incident, it'd probably be best to let the issue settle for now.--Father Goose (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Had you done the same to him, I would have assumed good faith with the initial four edits, and had you persisted, criticized you for it and asked you to discontinue. In other words, I believe my response would have been largely the same toward you as it has been toward him. Despite being his mentor, I haven't defended his behavior when it has been unambiguously problematic.

As for the "random non-improvements", I've found that about half of the time I see the sense in 1000110100's edits, and half of the time I don't. The primary reason I've been willing to be his advocate is that often his ideas are quite sound, although his ability to express them (or the specifics of his implementation) is poor. His change to the U-Drop Inn article, for instance, was an instance of poor implementation: "Movie fame" was a poor choice of headings, though "Movie notability" was even worse. That edit brought to my attention some other shortcomings with the section, and I made changes to the section and its heading that you seem to have mostly agreed with.

In the past you opposed his changes to WP:TABLES. It took me a while to understand what he was pitching there, but in the end I came to agree with him fully, and badly needed complete rewrite of that guideline was the result. He's not quite the vandal or bastard you make him out to be, although sometimes he doesn't make himself well understood, and other times he makes some outright bonehead moves -- this hounding case is an example, though I'm happy to see he's now taking a more constructive tack.

I'll do what I can to continue steering him away from unconstructive behavior and trying to help him with his positive contributions. He's probably going to pursue this quote box thing further, and he's entitled to, as long as it doesn't come in the form of a vendetta against you. I don't believe that's his sole aim here, although he did focus on your articles at first, and I won't claim that was an accident.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't butt my nose in here, but after skimming through this and reading "I haven't had any problem with finding Misplaced Pages an amicable place." above, among other things that you've said here Collectonian, I've gotta tell you, I've gone out of my way to avoid running into you for months now. I won't go near the edit button on any article that is media related, for fear of instigating a conflict with you (and, to be fair, a couple of others in that area). Not that I advocate a block here, but I wanted to say that BQZip01 and SunCreator do have a point in their criticism.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review of user:100110100

Per above, I think it would be prudent for an admin to review the unblocking of this editor, who admittedly was violating his indef block under numerous IPs for at least several months. While he was unblocked by Father Goose, who stated "his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed" (fuller explanation above), it seems odd to me to say his record as an IP was clean when he was deliberately evading his indef block. He made no apparent attempt to request unblock under his user name, but choose to edit as a multiple IPs. This, to me, does not show a change in the sorts of behavior that resulted in his indef block, particularly compounded with his massive changes to Misplaced Pages guidelines without discussion, the wikihounding of myself (as detailed above), his ignoring numerous notes on his various IP talk pages about his mass changes to templates, and his continuing to make various edits that meet his personal preferences but directly conflict with the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and consensus in the articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on the assessment of the problem/situation, but what exactly would that do? Apparently, we're dealing w/ somebody who could easily keep using multiple IPs. Re-blocking the account won't actually do much. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the indef block is restored, any active IPs would also be blocked, and, if necessary, new ones would also be blocked for block evasion. Depending on whether he were to continue to evade the block as he did in this instance, a range block could also be implemented. They can have some success, though of course they can also be evaded (as we have some very very long term indef blocked folks who have some 400+ socks can show). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true. So, in that case, it would seem only fair to re-block for block-evasion, as is usually done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent for unblocking someone on the basis of reformed behavior. This is for a very basic reason: blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If the block-worthy behavior stops, the block itself should stop.

The indefinite block of 100110100 was appropriate at the time that it was imposed: he had made death threats following a long history of disruptive behavior. Although 100110100/ip174's behavior hasn't been exemplary during the time that I've known him (about two months), I have seen nothing approaching the level that warrants continued indefinite blocking. For the most part, he has been a constructive editor, willing to resolve his disputes through appropriate means.

This episode with Collectonian is regrettable; I personally would be willing to call it low-grade wikihounding, although the edits he has made (and Collectonian has reverted) are defensible if taken individually, even if one might disagree with them. At the same time, Collectonian's response has been so vituperative that it has most likely heightened the conflict.

At this time, 100110100/ip174 seems to have switched to a far more appropriate course of action, namely trying to establish a consensus for the removal of {{quote box}}es, which Collectonian has used in many of her articles. I do not believe this particular initiative is specifically targeted at Collectonian, as he has tangled with me over a similar issue in the past: Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#.7B.7Bquote.7D.7D.

Collectonian's behavior here has not been exemplary either. She almost immediately treated something that ought to have been a minor conflict as a scandalous personal assault, and her actions have served to intensify the conflict. I'd really rather not draw her ire by criticizing her, but frankly, her behavior regarding this fight has not helped to get this thing resolved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If its agreed he is going to remain unblocked, I think it should be mandatory that he identify himself. As it is, I have seen several discussions now where he replies as his IP and then as his username, without making it clear he is one and the same, giving an appearance of one agreeing with the other, which is not appropriate. Of course, neither was his canvassing as he has done in his attempt to get that quotation essay passed to a guideline so he can think claim justification on removing them from any article I've edited (I notice that he did NOT go through and remove them FROM all articles, nor propose the box for deletion...he only removed them from articles I happened to use them on). Talking like I'm not reading is more likely to draw my ire than simply stating what you think. *a lame attempt at humor* And sorry, but I do find wikihounding to be a personal assault, and I think it is frequently mishandled and overly ignored by this site's administration. Of course, that is neither here or there at this point. It seems clear to me now that no one really minds that he was wikihounding because they disliked my reaction to it. Whether it was "overboard" or not, considering it was not the first time he'd done it, is subjective. As he himself has admitted to seeking me out, I think my views are justified, even if I could have used less vitriolic language. It also seems clear that if he continues doing it, no one will really do anything to stop it, which of course gives him a positive reward for his behavior. I have, quite frankly, not seen that he has done any significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Other than his replacements of templates (despite being told to stop), and trying to change article style guides to match his own personal preferences of what an article should "look" like, his only real main space edits seem to be hounding myself and, as you've noted, occasionally just playing with stuff you've edited just to do it. Anyway, it seems there will be no result one way or another from this discussion. I don't think he is going to listen to you, or to anyone else when he has not, in fact, even bothered responding here. If someone decides they want to block me for my remarks, feel free. It isn't going to change anything, but I'm not stupid enough not to know that with 5 years and nearly 100,000 edits under my belt that I don't have enough enemies that would delight in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but using an IP to evade an indefinite block is per se bad faith editing. Avoiding trouble while doing so is socking, and cannot be considered good behavior. Engaging in arguably blockable behavior is even worse - whether the behavior would be blockable in isolation if done by a legitimate editor, the fact that a person who isn't supposed to be editing is doing so in a way that upsets some others only confirms that they shouldn't be editing. It's ongoing rule-breaking, and cannot be anything but intentionally so. We've been through this exact routine a number of times here. Father Goose is a well-seasoned admin, and must know all this - I wonder if there is some boundary pushing going on here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with User:Wikidemon here. This account should not have been unblocked while evading the indef block. I too tend to be and AGF'er but this is a bit much. Father Goose is commended for his desire to help but I think this was an error in judgment. If there are issues with User:Collectonian then deal with them in a separate section. We need to decide if the binary user a problem and how to proceed from this point on. That should be the focus of this portion of the discussion. JodyB _talk 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

100110100 was blocked, not banned. Had he been banned by either the community or arbcom, I would have had no right to individually review his block and choose to lift it.

But the block was imposed three years ago, as a decision apparently made by a single admin, and I am well within my rights to review and lift it if I feel it is no longer needed. The behavior for which 100110100 was indefinitely blocked (which was appropriate at the time) appears to have long since ceased.

I know of many, many cases where a user "evaded a block" (or even an outright ban), reformed their behavior, and been accepted back into the community. Were they then immediately blocked again indefinitely for evading a block? If we had done that, we'd be acting like vindictive fools.

Block evasion is unacceptable in particular when it's done to keep doing the bad behavior that prompted the block. I wouldn't have bothered unblocking 100110100 if I had seen nothing but bad behavior from this user. I'm not saying his behavior has been perfect during the time I've known him, but for the most part he's been acting in good faith, communicating with other users to promote his ideas, and making changes that on the balance improve the encyclopedia. Do we ban users like that? No. Therefore, I lifted the indefinite block.

Misplaced Pages has a culture of offering second chances, when they are deserved. But this being ANI, everyone commenting here is only aware of 100110100's bad behavior -- his block log from a long time ago and the current conflict with User:Collectonian, who has done everything she can to make the case here for getting rid of him.

If you want to evaluate whether 100110100 should be banned, evaluate all of his current behavior (not just Collectonian's depiction of it) and decide whether this is the kind of user who has no place on Misplaced Pages. I happen to believe he is imperfect but by no means the kind of person who deserves to be banned. He is a bit strong-willed at times (aren't we all?), but I've seen his willingness and ability to learn Misplaced Pages's ways, and his ability to apply himself to constructive activities when appropriately counseled.

It is for this reason that I unblocked him. He might deserve to be blocked for some future offense -- he might have even deserved a short-term block for this tangle with Collectonian, although for now he seems to have changed course. If the only reason you think he should be indefinitely blocked now is for the technical reason of evading an indefinite block imposed three years ago, then there's no sound basis for returning him to "banned" status. I gave him a careful and fair evaluation and all of you should too.--Father Goose (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with FG's assessment. — BQZip01 —  05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from Wikipedia_talk:Quotations where user:100110100 and what I am told is an IP sock of user:100110100, have signed statements in an RFC initiated by the IP sock. Using both accounts in a discussion which is also polling on whether a page should be promoted to a guideline is not acceptable. I will go with Father Goose's judgement on unblocking user:100110100, providing user:100110100 agrees only to use that account and does not edit using an IP address or any other user account. If (s)he does so by accident then she must agree to revert and redo it if it is on an article page (or similar where signatures are not user) or to re-sign a talk page comment with a user:100110100 signature. Failure to comply with this request should lead to an indefinite block until such time as user:100110100 agrees to abide by the request. If user:100110100 uses IP addresses, or any other user account, while blocked then user:100110100 should be banned. As the unblocking administrator I would prefer it if Father Goose put this restriction in place, but if (s)he does not object, but does not want to do it, I am willing to put such a constraint on user:100110100. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a bit steep, considering 100110100 does not seem to be trying to sway discussion by using more than one account. He has agreed to not do that in principle: User_talk:100110100#Various_requests, although we must compel him to do it in practice. He has commented at Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Proposal_to_promote_to_policy.2Fguideline via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation) and a single time as 100110100, with a comment that would be hard to construe as biasing the debate ("Note that an rfc had been filed in the past, with only one response.")
  • However, I agree that any interaction on a given page should be done using one IP range or account only, and that if he wants to edit as both an IP and a registered account, he should mention the account and the IP range on all user/IP pages he edits from. He does seem to be using the 100110100 account as a maintenance account, which is a legitimate use, so as long as he abides by the terms of Misplaced Pages:SOCK#NOTIFY, I believe he will be compliant with policy regarding switching between his account and an IP. I'll inform him to do so right now.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<--Why is it steep? user:100110100 is a user who had been in conflict and indefinitely blocked. You argue above the as user:100110100 had been editing responsibly with IP addresses they should be unblocked. Fair enough but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Although we do not insist that people edit with the same account it is considered good practice (with exceptions for bot accounts etc). As this user has a record of abusing accounts to get around blocks, it is the least that we can expect that they use their user account. This is a user who has been banned and is more than willing to mix it up on talk pages. The very least a potential antagonist should be entitled to is to know is the edit history (and block log) of the account ID they are dealing with. user:100110100 should not want to hide behind IP addresses and if user:100110100 does then user:100110100 should be prevented from doing so.

I still think you should make that a condition of the unblock, but if you do not I will impose it unless there is a consensus among other administrators that it should not be done. -- PBS (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get all embroiled in this, but I've got to ask: but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Why? Is this sort of like a, "you've gotten in trouble once, so now you can't edit without my permission" sort of thing?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It's so that an edit history is built up and other editors can see who they are dealing with. (If not there was no point in unblocking the account in the first place). -- PBS (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, "good faith" restored here, but still... is there really a point in registering? I wouldn't ever edit as an IP (at least not knowingly), but from a philosophical view I don't see what the fuss is all about. Allowing IP edits might make maintenance "jobs" more difficult, and it may make some of the "jobs" that some administrators give themselves to police users more difficult, but how does that make the whole notion of IP editors a Bad Thing™?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you (PBS) to re-read the second paragraph I posted in my response to you, above, and explain how it would not address your point (I have made the same point) that other editors should be entitled to know which person they are dealing with. Read my most recent post at User:100110100 if you don't understand the specifics.

Are there any principles involved beyond requiring that the user not "speak with two faces" in a given discussion, and that users be informed of what account (and non-accounts) he edits from? I see no evidence that he has used multiple accounts abusively -- although having been informed of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, he should comply with it from now on. Or are you characterizing the "clean start" he has earned himself via IP editing to be an abuse? I hope not; that would be a pretty a dismal attitude.

I wish others could experience the interactions I've had with this user. I'd just like to say that I think he is deserving of more good faith than has been exhibited toward him by many users so far. He has his quirks and his missteps, and he needs to be informed now and again of what our policies are, but I still think he is an asset to the community and has not deserved the rush to judgment that many have displayed toward him here. He's still not quite a model Wikipedian, but whatever behavior got him indeffed years ago is not in evidence now.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FG you wrote "via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation)" Well maybe not for you, but how is an editor to tell if any particular edit was done by user:100110100 or if it was done by someone else sharing a dynamic IP address? I can not see how this can work in practices as there will have to be a bi-directional set of links for every dynamic page used. (so if I go to the talk page of an IP address user:100110100 is using I can follow it to his/her user account.

Do you really think that user:100110100 is going to keep a diary/log of change of IP address will user:100110100 place onto the talk page of every IP address he/she dynamically uses that user:100110100 is now using this IP address and how does user:100110100 know to add a log to that page that (s)he is no longer using that page (if user:100110100 does not access Misplaced Pages for a day, that address could have been used by other editors during that day). Not only does that information have to be written to the talk page of the IP address it also has to be logged centrally as well (WP:SOCK#NOTIFY). I can not see user:100110100 faithfully doing this every time (s)he uses a changed a dynamic IP address (until user:100110100 saves an edit does he/she even know what IP address (s)he is using?). Much better that (s)he simply use his/her user name, as not rational reason has been given why he/she should not, and the above complications shows why it is not practical to use dynamic addresses and keep to the stipulation in WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Persecution

I don't know the entire guidelines of english Wiki, so I leave it to administration to decide how my story suits for this noticeboard. And please excuse my grammar.

To the story. It's all began on March 9, 2010, when User:Crusio nominated for deletion four articles of my edition, and navigation template: * Chris Adams * Bernardo O'Reilly * Calvera * Django * Template:The Magnificent Seven

Then came User:EEMIV and nominated six more articles: In the high attention area * Hit Back * In the high attention area 2 * El Shaitan * * Phantom (russian song) * 30th

Before they nominated these articles for deletion, they did not even try to edit them, nor to discuss something, as well as there were no advices to me, nor a recommendations.

Faithfully, all those articles were visited by hundreds of users, since Dec 2009, and nobody try to delete them, nor to remove the images from there.

So, when I told them about my concerns about their good will and impartiality, they had responded me in such way:

• User talk:Crusio#Check it
• User talk:EEMIV#Russian sources
• User talk:Crusio#Warning
• User talk:EEMIV#Warning
• User talk:SerdechnyG#Your warning

Let me cite them:

... It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related topics on English Misplaced Pages are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are amusing. ... --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My lack of grammar is a good reason to edit my mistakes as User:Aiken drum, User:Badger151, User:MuffledThud, User:Phil Bridger, User:Chris the speller, User:Plasticspork, User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Skomorokh, User:Woohookitty, User:RadioFan, User:Mild Bill Hiccup, User:Eeekster, User:Stpaulelective2010, User:Piratedan did (thank you all, gentlemen, I appreciate it). But maybe I wrong, and it's really a solid reason to delete all of these articles? These articles are not my property - they belongs to all wikipedians. Didn't they realize it?

Their deletion nominations it's only a half of the problem. Together with nominations they start another sabotage, such as images deleting (instead of editing them), they deleted a references which provided evidence of notability to articles, reverted my edits (edit warring) and did another things, trying to reconvince those users, who had removed their deletion templates (e.g. User talk:Phil Bridger#El Shaitan). The whole picture looks like a tangle of troublemaking actions, and no signs of even try to edit, or act constructively. Only destructive actions: delete, remove, undo, etc.

To be honest, I don't know entire "legislation" of English wiki, and I suppose nobody really know it all. But, as I suppose, my linguistic defects or lack of knowledge of English-wiki proceeding are not a reasons to start this deletion war.

And I have nothing against User:Crusio and User:EEMIV, but I have a strong doubts about their intentions towards me. The most incomprehensible to me was that one user can nominate innumerable quantity of another one articles. In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy. I see no controversy in threads, which they had opened. In their actions I see nothing against articles themselves, I see only prejudice towards me. I suppose, if there were no list of my contributions on my user-page, they would give absolutely no attention to them. It seems like a badgering and nothing else.

Please, make clear for me: Am I doomed to pass this ordeal, and what a kind of ordeal I faced? Is this a rite of passage for all newcomers, or this is a kind of procedure created especially for me. Before this mobbing, I've got a whole lot of ideas what should I write next, some to-do list, but now I have a strong doubts about my further presence in English wiki. So, please tell me, what should I do next: Pack my bag and say goodbye to English wiki or what? SerdechnyG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning your good-faith contributions, nor is anyone "persecuting" you. However, your article and image contributions are problematic under several policies, e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NFCC. You excised several discussions about these issues in the talk-page quotes you included. Please heed the advice I offered you to review several policies and guidelines about article creation and maintenance. And, FYI, in an effort to at least help out a bit, I have made several useful edits to some of the Magnificent Seven articles you created/heavily edited; Crusio has done likewise. Whether deliberate or innate, myopia about how editors respond to your contributions isn't particularly useful to anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The links presented by SerdechnyG and his comments say it all, I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: this is Administrators noticeboard, and nobody ask your opinion yet. You've got an opportunity to write evetything on above mentioned talkpages, or retaliatory note instead. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the 'admin' noticeboard, but if you are so perseptive as to to see that, perhaps you would note that the majority of edits here are not all by admins, but other users trying to help with the problems being discussed here. You don't have to be invited to comment, nor do you have to be an admin to comment. Anyone can comment, and these comments are not judged by the user level of who wrote them, but rather the arguments themselves. So instead of outright dismissing an argument because it was someone uninvited or a non-admin, why don't you heed their advice.

Lastly, wikipedia is everyone's business. Anyone can comment anywhere.— Dædαlus 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAT ADVICE? SerdechnyG (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it clearly indicates their intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your refactoring of my talk page post. Do not insert your comments in my posts, only after my signature. As to their advice, it was quite clearly given to you by EMMIV.— Dædαlus 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean?? I didn't wrote nothing on your talk page! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, dear friends, you see. They're following me even here. Actually I had no doubts that they would do so. Picture is clear. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You announced very clearly that you would post here, even though you failed to notify us both when you actually did (as is your obligation, as clearly marked at the top of this page). Both EEMIV and I have been around here for a while and we know WPs procedures reasonably well. "Following" you here is nothing out of the ordinary. Posting here without notifying the people concerned is discourteous at the very least. Please stop your baseless accusations and start getting familiar with en.wikis policies; things obviously are being done very differently here from ru.wiki and you cannot just try to impose your ideas of how the rules should be here. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before advising me to "start getting familiar with en.wikis policies", You start it first: Misplaced Pages:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG, That is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is by no means binding. See also Misplaced Pages:An unfinished house is a real problem andMisplaced Pages:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad You confessed it. I hope You understand that this issue as well as the other rules (which I may or may not violating) does not overrule The Basics. And The Basics is:

- Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity

- Newcomers are always to be welcomed

- You can edit this page right now (Jumbo says edit, not delete).

So who's right? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're citing Jimbo Wales' personal principles. I'm glad to see that you're tying to make arguments based on fundamental principles. However, the page you are citing is similar to the Five Pillars, they are not our core policies. If you wish to make arguments based on a fundamental :policy, see WP:FIVE, for the Five Pillars. If you're wondering about the essays I cited, they are no more or less correct than Misplaced Pages:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, they just explain the opinions of certain editors. I'd also like to point out that if you think that an article could be made to meet our standards for inclusion, you could create it in your userspace and work on it there. You can ask any admin to move any of your deleted articles into your userspace. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget about articles for a while (if, of course, they're not a vandalistic issues. I hope they're not). Let's discuss a behavior of two mentioned users. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I want answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In looking through the history here, I'm really not seeing any evidence of "persecution." You have, unfortunately, created a lot of articles for unnotable films that also use excessive non free images., as can be seen in the AfD discussions for those in which almost all are at a anonymous delete due to lack of notability. When an experienced editor notices a less experienced editor making the same error several times, it is very common to review their contribs to see if there are other instances that need to be dealt with. I'll also note that Crusio's remarks were not bad faith. They were actually commending your passion and desire to help expand coverage of Russian topics, while lamenting that you choose to focus on unnotable topics that cannot be sourced or brought up to Misplaced Pages standards. EEMIV also complemented you for the same reason, but again reminded you that this is the English Misplaced Pages, and that the articles you have made to not conform to its standards.

Their removal of the images is not only complying with Misplaced Pages policy, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to keep non-free images uses in-line with policy. As far as I can see, they have been polite in their interactions with you and have tried to help you understand that this is NOT the Russian Misplaced Pages. The English Misplaced Pages probably has the most detailed and exacting policies and guidelines of any of the Wikipedias, in part due to its age, and in part due to its much larger and active user base. Even above, you have shown that you really do not have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, as you point to Misplaced Pages:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built which is an editor's personal essay that has pretty much no meaning at all.

Above you note that "In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy." - that is not the case here at all. We would have no users with such a rule, and quite honestly, it is a bad rule. There is nothing controversial in their nominating unnotable articles for deletion, even if they were primarily created by you. As for your question of what should you do? I would suggest really sitting down and learning Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (including the difference between them and an essay), and perhaps getting a mentor to help you negotiate the differences between your home Wiki and this one. You can find the core policies and guidelines here. I'd also recommend you cease trying to see that neither Crusio nor EEMIV were hounding you, which is a malicious following of another editor for the point of harassing and stalking, but a proper reaction to noting a slate of articles from the same editor that are primarily unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered above. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And please do not talk about mentorship. Who will be my mentor? You? If "no" it's all just a words. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, if SerdechnyG is willing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly good person for being a mentor, but I do believe you may find it helpful, and as a Films project coordinator I am of course always willing to answer any questions you may have on determining the notability of films and on creating/improving film articles. Also, please keep in mind that yes, anyone can edit here, that does not mean that the edits will be kept and that articles created will not be deleted. This is why we have deletion processes. Yes, it can suck, especially when it seems clear you had the best of intentions in creating this articles, but sometimes it can be very difficult to show notability for foreign films (which for the English Misplaced Pages, would include Russian films). If you have not already done so, I'd encourage reading over WP:NF, which spells out the criteria under which a film is generally seen as likely to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I see debates, but I see no answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answers to the questions you pose at the end of your initial post are entirely up to you; no one is going to tell you to stay or pack your bags. Make up your own mind. Just be aware that if you continue to participate at English Misplaced Pages, you must abide by its policies. But, to answer your questions: *shrug* make up your own mind.

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But aren't they obliged to obey this rules. Knowledge of rules and regulations gives you no supremacy over the others. I cited Jimbo to underline that they're supposed to help. What help did they given to me? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Look back at the five talk-page links you offered in your original post, and the entire array of suggestions about familiarizing yourself with basic policies -- couched, again, in an appreciation for a deep content knowledge most of us here lack. It's unfortunate, but ultimately an issue with you, that you react defensively and don't perceive some of these talk-page discussions as attempt to help. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I'm looking back there, I see no help. Please do not use word basic. I had mentioned above what is basic. And it's better for you to familiarize yourself with it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not discuss no articles. I discuss you, and your behavior at first. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You posed to questions in your original post about the fate of some articles. I just attempted to offer some guidance about where their fate is more appropriately discussed -- and you offer that kind of irritable/irritating response? Please take a deep breath, take some time simply to read the policies and to look at decent film and character articles (e.g. The_Hunt_for_Red_October_(film), Palpatine) for a sense of what we're moving toward with content (and a sense of what isn't appropriate). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd better attempted it, when you nomitaded these articles for deletion, rather than now, after I posted this appeal. Not so much comments and advices you given, when you nominated these articles and images for deletion. And there were not so much comments and advices from your side, when you deleted chapters and references from articles. Now it looks like informational outburst. Please take a deep breath - ??? What should I respond on such advice? Belt up? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the broken English. "Take a deep breath" (sorry for using an idiom you don't understand) means stop, read, and pay attention. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Belt up means... never mind. It's too complicated to explain. Please be clear, using no idioms. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of "help" I had received from EEMIV with these files:

• Revision history of File:Praporshchik Volentir.jpg
• Revision history of File:Tarasov and Shwetz.jpg

I understand - it's all a struggle for Misplaced Pages copyright policy. But is it necessary to be so overzealous? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is starting to become annoying. User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice. He acts as if he owns the articles that he has created. His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication as he tends to misunderstand many comments and often interprets them as a kind of personal attack, even if they are not. I have offered advice on several occasions and extended an olive branch when he got upset about the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD after he deprodded them. I cleaned up some of the grammar/spelling of some of these articles (see histories of Chris Adams (character) and Calvera (Character)) and in the process removed the academic titles (as is customary) of some authors who had written books that were added by SerdechnyG to show notability for the articles. Again, SerdechnyG got very upset and reverted me three times on both articles. Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice

For example?? I received NO advices from you yet. All your rebukes could be directed inversely.

His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication

It's difficult to communicate only with you and User:EEMIV. Nobody else said that it's very difficult. All other users simply corrected my grammatical mistakes and nobody told me that my knowledge of English is limited. And guess why? Because I allready know it without outside assistance. So, thank you, Captain Obvious, indeed.

the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD

It's no fact! I privatised them or what? Misplaced Pages is a Free Encyclopedia. THERE IS NO "MINE" OR "YOUR" ARTICLES.

Again, SerdechnyG got very upset

Don't worry about me. I'm not so upset as you may thinking. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you and I have already delivered that message a few times; SerdechnyG either doesn't believe it or doesn't understand it. Hopefully mentorship with RadManCF will be useful. Regardless, this ANI thread is stale. --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right: a message. I hope, both of you understand the difference between advice and message. My mentor - is only my mentor. This mentorship is out of your competence, we will sort it out ourself. And last, this thread is stale because of your presence here. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just perfect. Masks off. Now they have their own administrator: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crusio, User:EEMIV reported by User:SerdechnyG (Result: No 3RR violation) -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't it even occur to you that there was no 3RR violation?? At least not from EEMIV or me: you violated 3RR on two articles. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did? Maybe it's you, who violated it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Crusio, no one's getting through to this guy. Let his mentor take a whack at it; we, obviously, won't change his mind. Let's let SerdechnyG get the last word in on this thread, and then the magic bot can archive this long-stale conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Who decided, that it would be my last word? Don't worry, even if this magic bot archive this conversation, it will be easy to restore it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. I always keep thinking that reason should triumph, but of course the world is not ideal... Let's spend our time on better undertakings. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever thought why it's not ideal? I suppose, not. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As you see, it's too much to discuss. I wouldn't describe everything, but only the main points. As for their "second" SarekOfVulcan. I can understand his anger, but let me answer him with John Wayne' words: "It's not me ! It's El Shaitan!"
As for User:Crusio following all of my actions in wiki, I can say that I was slow in informing him about starting this tread and another one, because I had some... let's call it premonition, that he need no my notifications, because he allready knows about it, by constanly watching my contributions-list. Considering his statements that "I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project" it's all looks curious and maybe even suspicious. Some morbid attention towards my person, isn't it?
As for User:EEMIV. He got to the point that picture on my user page and even my avatar must be deleted. Well, actually I have a few pictures on the wall in my kitchen, and... Oh, boy! They're not copyrighted properly! They must be deleted! Happy deleting! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian above asked you to learn the policies & guidelines. That seems a bit unreasonable, as there are hundreds of them (I can't find the exact number). You're probably right in saying nobody knows them all. Perhaps someone would like to suggest the "important" ones. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Users: TimLambert & John Quiggin

Users Lambert and Quiggin are two editors that work closely together off-Misplaced Pages as political activists seeking to shape environmental policy. Quiggin and Lambert have been identified and criticized as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question" them. This observation is from a fellow Australian, the Publisher and Chief Editor of an exceptionally reputable top 25 Australian news outlet. Numerous criticisms of the pair can be found, but the tragedy is that Lambert & Quiggin attack and fight but then exceed all bounds by editing derogatory information into their opponents BLP Misplaced Pages articles - here we see a concerted effort to record as fact, that the BLP subject was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy international tobacco industry to fight malaria in order to divert the World Health Organization from reducing smoking. The Bate campaign is ongoing and lasts years.. Much of the Bates Attack Page is blogs derived from the "research" conducted by Lambert and Quiggin regurgitated by other blogs - and sourced in the BLP to non-notable blogs.

Other special targets for attack include, but are not limited to peer-reviewed and published scientist Theodor Landscheidt who has his BLP edited as and then a hatchet job At other times the public feuds are fought on the BLP's Misplaced Pages article by Lambert. including using his personal attack blog as his entered supporting reference in his BLP attack.. The number of articles is unknown in total but may number a dozen or more, but the pattern is the same, and equally egregious. On the blogs themselves, Misplaced Pages edits are often discussed in detail by Lambert, Quiggin and blog readers/contributors off-wiki.

There also exists a high correlation between the editor who introduced a number of these Lambert refs and the public attacks Lambert apparently engaged in with another blogger named Watts. 212 mentions of Watts on his blog with many occurring around June and July of 2009 - as were these edits here for which the Ed. was twice warned on his talk page. Note also this pointed peacocking within his first month here. Many, if not most, of the IP edits to these articles geo-locate to the same area in Australia.

Lambert's blog is the notable focus of an academic paper written by the Chairmen of the Undergraduate Computer Science Department at the University of Maryland who uses the blog as an example of poor scholarship at Misplaced Pages.. The paper is referenced here and is cited by at least one Advanced Placement AP teacher who links to the paper by stating, "One of the (many) reasons why I do not accept Misplaced Pages as a reference in any circumstance, and why you should not trust it for anything more than the most casual, entertainment-level browsing:" (note:The blogs previous name cited in the paper is timlambert.org, which is still an active redirect to the same sections at "scienceblog".)

It can't be in the community's best interests to facilitate attack bloggers activism through biased editing at Misplaced Pages, whether it be BLP or regular articles. As a side note, and purely for transparency and without casting this light on them, other editors highly involved in these articles include YilloSlime, Plumbago and will c connolley among others. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This IP began editing Misplaced Pages 8 days ago, and appears to be static. The editor started editing with a full understanding of Misplaced Pages's ins and outs, leading to the possibility that this is a registered user who is editing while logged out. Given that severity of the charges levelled here, it seems wrong for them to come from an anonymous IP, especially one with such a suspicious provenance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It also contains numerous inadvertent errors, including reference to the "academic paper" that is simply a web essay. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I referred to it as an academic paper as it was signed as a department chair, it was referenced and it was cited by others. I did not refer to it as it was not, it was not peer reviewed, it was not published, etc... It is quite easily an academic paper. And yes, I have been here for eons - and I fully expect a major shoot-the-messenger push. But my concerns are well referenced and clear and I will not clutter the debate with massive tangents not germane to the behavior documented above in which two Wiki editors engage in extended off-wiki wars and then edit their opponents BLP's here. Crystal Clear, the behavior is either acceptable - or it's not. I can't make the decision for the community, only you can. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• This parses for me as "some people with opinions I don't like are editing Misplaced Pages. Some people whose opinions I do like have said how terrible that is. Ban them now!" Also John Quiggin appears to be a legitimate and respected academic. Something tells me that this is a better characterisation of this particular issue... Guy (Help!) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  I knew some of those people before they had beards. And blogs! --TS 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we're being trolled... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an unusual response to a civil and concise discussion supported by nearly 40 references.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think the complaint has a shred of validity (or that the original posting was "civil and concise"), but "trolling" is not an accurate description. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(out)Since you admit you've "been here for eons", I suggest you log in and use your account to make this complaint, and I urge that it not be acted on in any way until that happens. As a logged-in user, you have standing to make a complaint, and a honest-to-goodness IP without an account, you'd have standing, but as a user with an account who's admittedly editing as an IP, presumably to deliberately obscure his or her Wiki-identity, you have no standing, and your complaint should be totally ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IPs have no standing? I've never heard that before. Can you please cite a policy or guideline to support this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Read again, please. IPs have standing: registered users who log out to mask their identity don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks are not allowed to post on admin noticeboards. The IP should leave a comment under their real account, and it will be listened to. (An IP whose owner was here on Misplaced Pages for the first time would not be a sock, but they would be most unlikely to find their way to an admin noticeboard). EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. But is there a policy or guideline that says registered users who log out don't have standing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit in project space ("Misplaced Pages:" pages) or project talk space, including in any vote or dispute resolution...". Admin noticeboards are in project space. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user.99.142.1.101 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 99.142.1.101's claims are without merit. To pick just one example, he/she argues that I am using a sock puppet because another editor made edits to the Anthony Watts page and there are 212 references to "Watts" on my blog. But he/she's counting the phrase "Watts per square meter" as a reference to Anthony Watts, and I . 99.142.1.101 is knowingly making false statements. The rest of 99.142.1.101's charges are not any better. --TimLambert (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply an attempt at misdirection and deflection of the specific and supported references found above. Of the 225 Watts mentions, only eleven are as you state. And although you frequently refer to Anthony Watts by his last name only, we are still left with 97 of the 225 references undeniably to "Anthony Watts". That's about 10 mentions to 1 without sifting out the additional last name only attacks.99.142.1.101 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just because someone blogs about someone doesn't mean that they're editing the Misplaced Pages entries under a different name. Keep in mind that we tend not to take off-wiki activities all that seriously (for better or worse), and that a lot of the controversy in the "academic paper" by the Computer Science Professor is focused on some disputes over the tone at John Lott, who is known for his conclusion that more guns equal less crime based on remarkably flawed econometrics (see Goertzel's analysis). Sure, you can point out mistakes that these guys have been made, and they might have done some name-calling and false accusations, but that's par for the course in these parts. II | (t - c) 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lott is an excellent example. Lambert has engaged in a running battle with Lott on his blog and elsewhere - including direct interaction with Lott outside of Misplaced Pages .. and here he writes his BLP? Roughly 10% of all Lott's BLP edits are from Lambert. This is something Misplaced Pages reportably finds unacceptable - spending your time focused on destroying someone, and then in your hobby hours write their biography? _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think there's a sockpuppet case to be made, gather the diffs and open a case at WP:SPI. If you think some egregiously BLP violating edits are being made, you can list them. Otherwise, I think you should agree to drop this. It's about content and tone in certain articles, and there are no evident policy violations. Quiggin and Lambert's editing look fine. II | (t - c) 04:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of 'content and tone'. It's a question about the acceptability of engaging in years long campaigns to disparage individuals and their character on ones own blog and multiple third party sites ... and then writing the BLP biography's of the subjects one is engaged in a protracted war with. This is behavior which has been widely condemned by numerous reputable and neutral people on three continents - and which specifically names Lambert & Quiggin, and which not incidentally has been harshly critical of Misplaced Pages by name in association with Lambert & Quiggin. It's not acceptable editing. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the discussion, and have a few thngs to say, but don't intend to respond until talk comes out from under the sock. If that doesn't happen, I guess we'll have to go to WP:SPI. In the meantime, I'd urge others not to feed the puppet. JQ (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a registered user. My criticism of your and your partner's editing is supported by nearly 50 diff's. Your accusation is a baseless attack. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, given your obvious knowledge of Misplaced Pages, you could list some of the other IPs under which you have edited. Meanwhile, I'll observe that your "neutral and reputable" sources appear to include: John Lott's current employer; Graham Young, an activist in the main conservative party here in Queensland (just to confuse matters, it's called the Liberal Party); and a high school teacher whose main interest is as a fan of Confederate history . Nothing wrong with that, of course, but none of these are likely to be neutral sources.JQ (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument, that all your enemies are horrible scummy people, is of course the point. You, and your partner Tim Lambert have engaged in a nearly decade long battlenow with some of your chosen targets in a venomous assault commented on by multiple uninvolved, and yes reputable sources on three continents.

It is unacceptable to write the BLP's of your enemies, and worse yet - it's not just one edit but most often near complete control through dozens of edits and reversions over the course of years in articles. And the introduced bias and derogatory opinion is staggering as in this textbook example that states that the BLP subject was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy international tobacco industry to fight malaria in order to divert the World Health Organization from reducing smoking. That's a delusional conspiracy theory which never should have entered a BLP at the hands of an attack blogger using Misplaced Pages to further his vendetta..99.142.1.101 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, this generic climate change griefing is going nowhere. Time to close, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

These BLP's look like they revolve around tobacco, climate change is not involved here, nor is tobacco for that matter. This has to do with Lambert's & Quiggin's edits in pursuit of an agenda, specifically in regards to BLP's. Here you'll find Quiggin extolling on the virtues of explicitly using Misplaced Pages to write the BLP's of enemies. Quiggin states, "Winning the debate will require scientists to learn new and unfamiliar ways of communicating" "Now, anyone who performs a basic check can discover, with little effort, the full history of his efforts as tobacco lobbyist and hired gun for polluting industries" "where scientists have mounted a concerted response to their intellectual enemies", he goes on to state, 'they have won'. ... _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are bringing external battles to Misplaced Pages. I see nothing actionable in the contributions of the two editors about whom you are complaining, and this is the wrong venue anyway. You've been told the right venue. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that directed at Lambert & Quiggin for bringing their external battles here, and encouraging others to do so - or at me for coming to AN/I and pointing out the Lambert & Quiggin abuse of Misplaced Pages? _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Without endoring the claims of Mr. 99.142.1.101 in complete detail, I think it worth noting that he has raised what is clearly a real issue - it only takes a very brief look at the diffs he has posted to see that Quiggin absolutely should be banned from editing the biography of Roger Bate, at a minimum, and probably topic-banned from anything having to do with tobacco. I am disturbed to see the resistance here to what is clearly a valid complaint (although it may very well be, in some details, something that we find to be mistaken in at least some particulars). JzG, I know you care deeply about BLP issues, so I encourage you to take a second look at some of these diffs. People who are willing to cite blog posts in ad hominem attacks really need to be shown the door. I have only looked at the edits by Quiggen to Bate's biography, but I have seen enough there alone to suggest that those who care about BLP warriors engaging in hatchet job attacks should take a much closer look at these concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, I thought I was the only one. Endorse topic ban of Quiggin. I'm disappointed in the response this user received from others. Auntie E. (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I started out looking at Lambert, got sucked into surfing around the external activism he's involved in (some articles were interesting to me) and did not spend time on Quiggin. Lambert's edits seemed OK to me. I don't mind looking at Quiggin's. The explanation for Aunt E is simple: anons coming into long-standing disputed areas with complaints about one side or other replete with diffs and appeals to policy always have a certain smell of stale hosiery to them. There's not much we can do about that other than keep encouraging people to register accounts, which makes it vastly easier to interact with them and understand where they are coming from. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This all looks positive now. My main concern is that there is always a very human temptation to carelessly "consider the source" and this can be problematic when the source has a valid point. John Quiggin, below, makes it very clear that he was indeed a POV pushing editor working to include negative information in the form of deliberate ad hominem argumentation. (I.E. an attack on the person's funding rather than an assessment of the validity of the science... a common technique in politicized scientific debate) He has, thankfully, decided to voluntarily stop doing this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit overbroad. An assessment of the "validity of the science" cannot be totally independent of an assessment of funding conflicts of interest. That's why major scientific and medical journal demands that authors disclose such relationships in addition to submitting their work to scientific review. For anyone interested in the subject, this article from JAMA is a useful starting point. I am absolutely against using a biographical article to make a political or ideological point. I'm comfortable that my editing and administrative record speaks to the fact that I take WP:BLP very seriously. Blogs don't belong in BLPs. However: if I had an independent, reliable, BLP-appropriate source commenting on a researcher's funding, I wouldn't feel any compunction about using it. Does that make me a "POV pushing editor" committed to "deliberate ad hominem argumentation" and "politicized debate"? MastCell  05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit harsh, Jimmy. Quiggin is an academic doing what any reputable academic would do if he read a paper which failed to disclose a conflict of interest. That's not how Misplaced Pages works, of course, but nobody seems to have taken the time to explain this to him and once I explained it he didn't seem to find it hard to accept. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors and contended articles

User John Quiggin

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

Last 500 mainspace contributions takes us back to July 2009, so nothing before that will be actionable I think.

• Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edits by Quiggin to this article seem OK to me at first glance. A cite to a blog is used to support a quote of Lindzen's views, and Lindzen wrote the blog post. I'm not seeing anything actionable here.
• Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - two edits by Quiggin in last 500 mainspace edits, and - WP:COI perhaps but all he did was restore the name of a co-author when someone removed it, which might be considered fixing uncontroversial errors of fact. The edits about which the IP is complaining include this: . That is certainly a bad edit on two levels, it cites a blog and it is an edit to an article on someone with whom (we are told) the editor is in external conflict.

• This is a complete set of Quiggin's edits to Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
• Quiggin and Bate are both economists. Quiggin is professionally qualified to comment on the work of Bate and might be expected to do so in the course of his professional life. Academics are not, as we know, always quick to grasp the different mores that exust at Misplaced Pages.
• That Bate has accepted money from the tobacco and drugs industries is not, I think, seriously disputed. It is verifiably the case that bate has been criticised for his work over generic drugs, rightly or wrongly. He's also linked with Richard Tren (), they work together as activists for DDT use. In other words he's a controversial figure whose biography needs watching.
• The origin of this particular dispute is probably revealed in this spirited defence by Quiggin of Rachel Carson, accused by the DDT advocates of "costing millions of lives", in a tone eerily reminiscent of the language used by Matthias Rath to describe the Treatment Action Campaign.

• There is only one comment, as far as I can tell, in the history of user talk:John Quiggin and its archives, that mentions Roger Bate, it's from November 2007 and is still on the current version.

Summary in respect of John Quiggin

1. User:John Quiggin is John Quiggin, an Australian economist and professor at the University of Queensland.
2. John Quiggin's external activism may give rise to a conflict of interest in respect of some subjects. No attempt appears to have been made to alert him to this.
3. John Quiggin's edits include linking questionable sources, e.g. . The blogger is Eli Rabett (probably user:Eli Rabett on Misplaced Pages), a pseudonym stated to be used by another professor. This is not a slam-dunk "no blogs" but is still an inappropriate source for the information.
4. This in June last year adds critical material again sourced from blogs though the overall tone of the edit seems balanced, giving both sides of the story.
5. The issue is complicated by the real-world collaboration between Quiggin and Lambert. My recommendation would be that Quiggin should be reminded of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:COI and cautioned not to cite his own work or that of those with whom he is personally connected or to directly edit the articles of those with whom he or his collaborators have disputes, but instead to propose such edits on the relevant Talk page.

User TimLambert

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

Fewer than 500 mianspace edits.

• Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - no edits to the article
• Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - no edits to the article

Summary in respect of TimLambert

99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Combative from first arrival, clearly not a new user (note consistent use of edit summaries on early edits). In order to be taken more seriously this user should register an account, or reveal the account or previous IPs under which they have edited, because the behaviour pattern is indicative of activism and that's likely to result in admins giving lower weight to complaints.

• , , and appear to be the catalysts for these reports. Given the very limited prior history of the IP this strongly suggests an external agenda against Tim Lambert specifically. The edit removes Lambert's name because he's an "unreliable source" ignoring the fact that Lambert is cited as co-author. The edit, reverted and repeated three times, is tendentious.

No, the name was removed because the linked article byline and sidebar explicitly do not name him as an author. The "unreliable source" was a wiki editor claiming that the RS website was wrong and testifying that Lambert was the co-author. The suggestion was that the ref should be corrected at the source and not by WP:OR from wiki editors.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's stated by Quiggin to be a co-author. You know better? Incidentally, I found one of your previous IPs, you could save me some time and effort by linking the others and / or any accounts you've used. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggins has no standing to make that claim here, editors do not correct verifiable references because "they know better". If Quiggins feels that the verifiable reference from the reliable source is in error - then correcting the source is the correct action, we do not WP:OR. There are no provisions to allow for such a thing at Misplaced Pages. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. You clearly have some external agenda against Lambert and should butt out. Now. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the reference, it's not Verifiable. Editors do not correct the written record. If he feels an error has been made and the website should have credited him - contact the website. We do not re-write history at Misplaced Pages. Your kill-the-messenger relentless and unsupported bad faith assaults on me for referring to - and supporting - the Pillars and Principles of Misplaced Pages are tendentious.99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• See also , 99.144.192.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), same ISP as 99.142.1.101.
• The article Africa Fighting Malaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen tendentious editing and sockpuppetry, e.g. Greenerapples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tracking back, 99.141.252.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same individual.

First, I am not, nor have I ever heard of, Greenapples. Second, what exactly is it that you use to unequivocally state that I am this editor?99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• 99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Summary in respect of 99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 is advised to create an account to ease continuity of interaction. 99.142.1.101 is also advised that posting to admin noticeboards and user talk:Jimbo Wales should be seen as an escalation path and not as the first stage in dispute resolution.

The user should also be topic-banned due to serial disruption and block evasion.

This is a work in progress, feel free to add to it but be prepared for edit conflicts over the next half hour or so. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick research suggests the following are relevant:

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Join or be banned?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor

There is a long history of disruption and blocks. This is not his/her first appeal to Jimbo, either. Prolog (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised that last AN/I report (). The IP editor was on a three-month block that expired in late February 2010, when he resumed editing from other IPs. I am not at all impressed to see that he has jumped straight back into the same pattern of behaviour that got him blocked before, within little more than a few days of the block expiring. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from JQ

The Roger Bate issue raises some general problems regarding BLP on which I'd be happy to take guidance. I don't have any personal knowledge of or enmity for Bate, or any conflict with him that isn't evident from my edits to Misplaced Pages. My dispute with Bate is entirely summed up by the information I added to his bio and published elsewhere; namely, that he has published misinformation on a variety of topics, while taking unacknowledged funding from the tobacco industry and others. The same is true for lots of published information on any issue even tangentially related to tobacco, though it's probably worst for Passive_smoking#Controversy_over_harm. The passive smoking article has been subject to repeated attempts to insert talking points, from seemingly independent and authoritative sources, which invariable turn out to have been generated by the tobacco industry. One response is to include relevant information in articles on these sources, such as those on Bate and Gio Batta Gori (I created this article as a result of edits of Passive smoking citing Gori's work, but haven't edited it for several years, and it doesn't seem that subsequent editors have found my contributions problematic).

The general problem I see is that, if pointing out someone's status as a lobbyist or consultant is seen as evidence that you are an enemy and therefore disqualified from editing a BLP, then it seems that such information is automatically excluded from Misplaced Pages.

I think it's important that Misplaced Pages should include such information where it's verifiable. I have taken the view in the past that it's OK both to publish this information in appropriate outlets and to cite it in Misplaced Pages. However, I can see that this may be problematic and would be happy, in future, to point to my external work on talk pages, and invite other editors to include it if they see fit.

A final observation: A lot of this discussion is only possible because Tim Lambert and I edit Misplaced Pages, blog and publish under our own names. There is a difficulty with rules about external conflicts that can't, in practice, be applied except to the minority of editors who do this.JQ (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reality check: Quiggin's never cited himself on WP, at least far as I can tell. With regard to the article by Quiggin and Lambert being used as a source in Roger Bate: I was the one who first added it. I don't see why the fact that John Quiggin has written about Roger Bate in real life should preclude him from working on the article about him. As some who's worked a lot on the Bate article, I can tell that there's not a ton written about the guy. You can find plenty of stuff by him, and plenty of passing mentions of him in newspaper articles, etc, not a whole lot of direct, detailed, biographical coverage of the man. Quiggin is one of a handful of people who's bothered to research the man and publish that research--we should be welcoming his expertise. Yilloslime _C 02:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That there is "not a ton written about him" and that "Quiggin is one of a handful of people who's bothered to research the man and publish that research" raises the question of why Quiggin is researching a man in order to create a record with which to create a BLP, one of exceptional negativity with blogs as supporting ref's.99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that real-life interaction should not preclude Misplaced Pages editing. I have a blog, I sometimes write about issues that I edit about, and if there's a problem with that, it is news to me. II | (t - c) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggin has just (15 March) been condemned in the Melbourne Herald Sun by national columnist Andrew Bolt. The criticism is exceedingly harsh, "Ethically unconstrained, Professor John Quggin smears a sceptic" Note that although the BLP is not on the list presented earlier of known targets, both Quiggin & Lambert have edited the BLP of the individual the columnist mentions is the target. Misplaced Pages is not the place to engage in multiple long term campaigns of character attrition. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you cite are from 2006--3+ years before Climategate and the blog posts criticized by Bolt. What this proves is absolutely nothing. Yilloslime _C 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cited a reputable, notable and neutral national commentator condemning Quiggin as an "ethically unconstrained" individual who "smears". That the BLP of the subject he smeared was edited before he published the particular smear singled out by the national columnist is not germane to a discussion about the lack of neutrality by Quiggin and any proscription regarding his activity here. Your point is a question regarding which came first the chicken, or the egg. In point of fact, Quiggin criticized the BLP subject in 2004 and in 2006 and characterized the paper he co-authored as, "The result: McKitrick’s work is even shoddier than Lott’s." Lambert also targets the BLP subject. That's six years of interaction and animosity culminating in a personal rebuke] by a neutral main stream media columnist just two days ago. That's a problem _99.142.1.101 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Issue: Editing the BLP's of Enemies

The questions are clear and simple. Is there a limit? Is this a violation? Is there a solution? I've split the areas up for clarity. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Should editors of attack blogs be allowed to use Misplaced Pages to write the BLP's of their enemies?

1. Definitely not. Politics has its place, but that place is not here, nobody in their right mind wants an encyclopedia written by activists. Rush Limbaugh shouldn't write Rahm Emanuel's BLP nor should it be the other way around. Neutral editors write articles - not committed activists with political goals.99.142.1.101 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do the editors TimLambert & John Quiggin maintain blogs which engage either in whole or in part in ad hominen attacks on their enemies?

1. Quiggin and Lambert have been identified and criticized as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question them." This observation is from a fellow Australian, the Publisher and Chief Editor of an exceptionally reputable top 25 Australian news outlet. Numerous criticisms ]]] of the pair can be found.99.142.1.101 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm...an opinion piece by a Liberal party ("Liberal" is Australian for "Paleolithic redneck") activist is not a reliable or even remotely useful source. See WP:REDFLAG. And while you sprinkle pointless web links through your text, few if any of them seem to be reliable sources or support your hyperbole. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is reputable] and meets all tests as a WP:RS, that they are in your words "Paleolithic redneck's" and are Lambert & Quiggins political enemy's is the point. Neutral BLP's are not written by ones most committed political enemy's.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You decry ad hominem attacks and in the same post refer to other editors as "brownshirts". You're waving the bloody shirt of WP:BLP while simultaneously citing a bunch of blogs that vilify another living, high-profile individual. Those kinds of things generally make it harder to take your complaints seriously. For me, anyway. What is this about, and why are we still having this conversation? What problems remain to be addressed? Do you feel like maybe setting an example of the kind of respect for BLP that you'd like to see from others? MastCell  18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate characterization. I quoted a reputable source ] criticizing Lambert & Quiggin's activism as using "brown shirt tactics" as a supporting reference for my contention that the bloggers engage in political wars for which they are notable for personality based conflict. This is germane to the issue of whether or not the activity here in which the pair edit BLP's of their enemy's should be proscribed. No doubt their cause is just, and their detractors "Paleolithic redneck's" - but this is not relevant, that they are central party's involved in specific personality based politics is the issue. The quote, from a reputable source, is simply entered as a supporting reference. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. So your response is that you're not actually breaking Godwin's Law - you're just "entering as a supporting reference" an opinion piece characterizing other editors as Nazis. Forget my other questions; I think I've heard enough. MastCell  21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Which BLP subjects that have been edited by Lambert & Quiggin can be identified as "targets" of attack?

1. These are subjects that have been targets of attack by Lambert & Quiggin and have often been subjected to years long ad hominem character assassination outside of Misplaced Pages. Michael Fumento, Anthony Watts (blogger), Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Theodor Landscheidt, Fred Singer, Roger Bate, and John Lott as a start. These are some of the Misplaced Pages BLP's which have been identified as attack victims either by the subject themselves or third parties outside Misplaced Pages.99.142.1.101 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, those are articles on climate sceptics which are as subject to critical edits as are the articles on mainstream climate scientists and topics. It's a polarised political debate that is being fought out on Misplaced Pages and of which we are well aware. We're also well aware that the the world of science is vastly less equivocal about it than the world of politics - a lot of people seem to reject climate change on the basis that they don't like what it implies, and therefore they feel compelled to reduce the cognitive dissonance induced by the mainstream scientific consensus on the subject - but that's an aside. By continuing to pretend that only one part of the problem exists, and continuing to deny your own problematic edits, you actively impede the chances of your being taken seriously. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What, if anything, should be done here?

1. Editors should not write BLP's for subjects in which they are at war. Quiggin & Lambert should be prohibited from writing the BLP's of their enemies.99.142.1.101 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• If editors have self identified and have a citable dispute with living people it would be better imo if they volunteered not to edit the articles of those living people here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you guys are edit warring over collapsed/uncollapsed please be certain to include or remove the section headers vs ; boldings - if the section headers are in the collapse, it messes up page navigation. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Should single-purpose IP sockpuppets be permitted to disparage identifiable living individuals on Misplaced Pages?

1. No. This one should be stopped post-haste. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Agreed, although this should not be restricted to IP sockpuppets. As always, we should not penalize expert editors who are open enough to edit under their real identities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   Lambert teaches computer science, Quiggin teaches economics. The subjects related to the BLP's; tobacco, DDT, and environmental policy, are not within their claimed professional expertise.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   "The aim of Professor Quiggin’s research program is to analyse options for adaptation to climate change in Australia and, in particular, the role and management of uncertainty." Which suggests that environmental policy is within John Quiggin's recognized field of expertise. Do you do any due diligence before making assertions? When I bother to double-check your assertions, they are frequently incorrect, which makes me less interested in hearing more assertions from you. MastCell  22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   Quiggin researched, under that short-term fellowship, property rights and emmisions trading. Widening the umbrella we could also just call him a scientist and place everything equally indiscriminately under his expert purview. Again, the issue is Biography's of Living People in which a person engaged in personalized debate and political animosity writes the BLP's of their opponents and not the Red Herring's.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   I was curious how you'd respond when confronted with an incorrect assertion. Some people admit their error and correct it, revising their assumptions as appropriate. Others try to parse their way out of the corner (for example, by asserting that "emissions trading" is somehow separate from environmental policy). People in the latter group often get frustrated that they're not taken more seriously on Misplaced Pages. MastCell  23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Thanks for summing up just what I was thinking. I know nothing about this except what I have learned in the last minute by skimming the above, and the take-home message is that some named editors have been excessive but have now very properly expressed themselves here, while an extremely experienced IP is busy agitating for a particular POV. If someone can fix the bullet asterisk I've used to a hash that continues as "3.", I would like to see how it's done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Ooooh, tricky. Oh, wait, no, actually it's blindingly obvious. See below. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from TimLambert

I have never cited myself on Misplaced Pages. Nor have I written any BLPs of my "enemies". 99.142.1.101 knows this because he/she must have gone through all my edits looking for examples and the closest he/she could get was an edit I made in 2005 (yes, 2005) to the Fumento page where I reverted an edit that Fumento had made using a sock puppet. 99.142.1.101's claims are without merit and he/she seems to just be using them as an excuse to make personal attacks on me. 99.142.1.101's purpose here seems to be to create conflict and start fights. --TimLambert (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not a very helpful response, Tim. You have edited the entry on John Lott, and there is no question that a reasonable third party would conclude that you consider him an "enemy". (I don't like that word, but the point is, you clearly have a conflict of interest and have therefore edited inappropriately. For those needing evidence: "John Lott's Unethical Conduct" - a blog post by Tim Lambert and a removal of academic citations to Lott's research on clearly spurious grounds. (And lest anyone wonder: I agree that Lott's conduct has been very questionable - my point here is about the inappropriateness of Lambert's editing.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm not sure that I agree with the principle that editing the BLPs of one's "enemies" is always inappropriate. (As it says somewhere around here: all editors have biases; we can't expect otherwise. But we can expect that their edits be neutral.) But regardless of the merits of the concept, it's clearly unenforceable. The only reason we know Tim Lambert edited the biography of one of his "enemies" is because unlike the vast majority of users here, he's editing under his own name. I don't see why he should be held to a higher standard than other users simply because he's being honest about who he is. Yilloslime _C 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is one thing for Rush Limbaugh to edit Rahm Emanual's BLP as an IP, another as an anonymous wiki member and still another in the persona of Rush himself. I can assure you that although "Anyone can edit Misplaced Pages", not all are considered equally. Misplaced Pages is, as another editor pointed out, quite exposed and ripe for embarrassment should it not clean up its own house - again note that one can write a great article about Rush writing Rahm's BLP, now try it with "dazzledog" (I hope my example isn't really a login here).

Further, and as importantly, we have a citable and pronounced years long war of character attrition outside of Misplaced Pages involving the targeting of the BLP subjects. Inside the wiki some of the targeted BLP subjects have had their entire BLP's tweaked to lay negative through years of edits. Just like rules against littering the desert we have rules regarding neutrality, which we strive to enforce for the greater good. There is ample evidence of abuse and pronounced citable animosity to topic ban just on conduct shown.99.142.1.101 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's unfair, Jimbo. I've tried to avoid editing John Lott except for reverting the many edits made by Lott using sockpuppets and making uncontroversial changes. I did not cull the list of external links on Lott's page on "spurious grounds". WP:EL is quite clear -- such links should be kept to a minimum and copying a list of links from Lott's site (which is one of the external links already) is pointless. If links were to be included on the page they should be their as references to support some statement about Lott's research. Furthermore, the list was put there in that form by one of Lott's many sockpuppets and is heavily biased towards the papers the papers that Lott feels confirm his work. --TimLambert (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough: proposal to ban 99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Following the review that has been carried out by Guy (see #99.142.1.101 above), it is clear that the person editing from 99.142.1.101 and various other IP addresses is a serial disruptive editor and block evader. He is presently attempting to harass two prominent public commentators who contribute to Misplaced Pages under their own names, treating Misplaced Pages as a battlefield to fight off-wiki quarrels. This individual has used literally dozens of IPs, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked many times for a cumulative period of over three months within the past nine months or so. He has repeatedly evaded previous blocks and has edit-warred and disrupted articles in a variety of topic areas.

Previous socks/incidents:

• 99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Join or be banned?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor

I raised the last AN/I report on this individual. Despite all the warnings and blocks, he has continued to behave disruptively and abusively. He clearly has no intention of being a constructive editor.

I therefore propose that this individual be site-banned for a year, and indefinitely banned from interacting with User:John Quiggin, User:TimLambert, their respective article pages and any matters concerning them. If there are technical means available to block his IPs without too much collateral damage, they should be used; otherwise, under the banning policy, any edits from this individual should be removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very much worth noting that he's claiming that the two prominent public commentators have engaged in inappropriate editing. In one of the cases he's absolutely right. In the other case, I'm interested to see diffs. That's a valuable service in and of itself, whatever else he may have done wrong.

Range-block will probably be out of the question (Chicago area). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspected that might be the case, unfortunately. In that case the best option is an editorially-enforced ban (i.e. removing anything he posts) combined with short-duration blocks of the IP addresses. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a siteban is appropriate. This could make it simpler to remove his posts as needed. Rangeblocks would cause too much collateral. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• SupportVerbal chat 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's simply unacceptable if editors are harassed because they edit in the open. And while its deeply ironic if that is done by editors hiding behind an anonymous 32 bit number, I'm still not amused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that ChrisO, an editor that I'm engaged in a content dispute with has canvassed a number of people from Misplaced Pages in order to explicitly remove my every edit from Misplaced Pages. And his stated basis is the AN/I discussion I started above regarding Lambert & Quiggin - a discussion which has been both participated in by, and specifically supported as a legitimate discussion by, the Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have notified JzG, who investigated your complaint and proposed that you be banned; Elonka, who blocked you for three months, which you evaded; and EdJohnston, who did a check of your IPs in the investigation recorded in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. Since these three admins have dealt with you currently and previously, they are well placed to advise on what is to be done with you now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who care, read the links. You'll find in the "SP" investigation that I not only claimed all the IP's but also noted and claimed on the article's talk page in an edit that pre-dated any SP action or questions my IP's. No attempt at anything even approaching SP was introduced, not one diff. The "finding"? "Since the IP sees no problem with his actions, and it's unlikely that he would ever agree to edit from a single account, I propose that an admin go ahead and enact these rangeblocks". I was blocked for using an IP account. Period. Not one SP diff was ever produced. And here I'm being pilloried for civil discussion of policy in an ongoing AN/I thread. Quite a through-the-looking-glass moment.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have now read more, and wish to point out to 99.142.1.101 that the normal rules of a courtroom do not apply here: we can exercise common sense to see that you have an agenda, and while the details may be unknown, the outcome of your continued participation would not be helpful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support banning this hypocritical timewaster who shows every sign of being an enemy of Tim Lambert and is abusing our processes in furtherance of that. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) - I'm amazed that the IP hasn't been blocked already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Only here to fight the battle, not to actually contribute to an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Objection-IP has brought up a fair point, some editors have commented that this type of conflicted editing is an issue, it wouldn't look good in the press would it? As I said above, it would be better imo for the credence of the wikipedia if editors with a strong declared and citable opposition to the notable aspects of certain biographies of living people did not edit their articles, a voluntary commitment to this would be imo beneficial to the neutral POV reputation of the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Nope - Valid concern raised. Arkon (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not simply about the current case but about a long-term pattern of disruption going back at least to last August. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then this isn't the place (or time) for this request. It is confusing the initial post, which was valid, with perhaps some unsavory actions by the originator. I would recommend a seperate (not part of this topic) section for this request. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think we're engaging in a very blatant case of shoot ban the messenger, and that seems to have a lot to do with the fact that we don't like the message. jæs (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Query - Has any legitimate reason been advanced for the editor's choice to not register, or is it simply fear of the unknown? User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From the previous discussions and the editor's past conduct, it would appear that he is not registering in order to make him harder to block. He has hopped around between multiple IPs and evaded various previous blocks, including a three-month block placed in November 2009. User:Excirial has commented on this: "Every IP you used is owned by AT&T, and even in the same netblock. Dynamic IP's are most likely to be refreshed after the end of a session or after a given amount of time. You had 99.151.166.95 for 3 days, but after it was banned you suddenly moved to 99.151.166.95. After that one was banned as well, you appeared as 99.144.192.74. Seeing these are all in the same netblock, and seeing the IP changes right after a block this reeks of intentional block evasion / sockpuppetry." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP's change because they are -> Dynamic. Also note that although you accuse me of having a new IP after 3 days, which is by the way how it works (they change for all sorts of reasons, including a reboot) you actually show me not changing here. 99.151.166.95 ... suddenly moved to 99.151.166.95 ...99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't really care if the anon has been disruptive (assuming he has) if he is essentially correct in his claim. No matter how popular it may be these days, shooting the messenger because you don't like what he says is still wrong. —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• But he's not - his comments about one of the editors are completely without foundation and his diffs about the other are stale, plus he had made precisely zero attempt to bring the policy issues to the notice of either editor, instead going straight to escalations, and it turns out he has a long history f precisely the same kind of activism against one of the editors about whom he complained, but he failed to disclose this material fact. So he can... take it back off-wiki where it began. We don't need that kind of "help", in my world it's called hypocritical shit-stirring and is as welcome as a fart in a space suit. Chuck in a dose of block and ban evasion and he's not welcome here either, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did bring issues to the notice of the editor, here you see me respond on his talk page after he threatened to topic ban me for having the temerity to correct a reference sourced to the Bate article to conform to WP:Verify and WP:RS. The editor insisted the referenced source was wrong. This is also where I first came across his activism. His response, and earlier threat to topic ban me for my single edit correcting a cite, was final. Here's what remains of the section, notice that everyone admits and knows the ref in Misplaced Pages does NOT conform to the supporting document. Base principles here, not grey areas.99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jebus. You still can't admit you were wrong about the authorship of the Prospect article? That doesn't bode well. Yilloslime _C 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm, Yilloslime - you agreed, "The current byline is simply incorrect." and then asked for someone to check the print version as you seemed to think it would be correct. To which Quiggin clearly states, "it appeared online only unfortunately". Verifiability, not truth. If it's wrong why hasn't anyone corrected the source yet? Electrons are cheap to rearrange. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no I've always maintained that the article is by Quiggin & Lambert. Please refrain from quoting me out of context--it makes us both look bad. Yilloslime _C 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime, you even offered a $20 bet that the print version would be different and credit Lambert]. Quote, "Anyone have access to a print version? I've got $20 that say's it's credited to Quiggin and Lambert..." _99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The full exchange is here: User_talk:John_Quiggin#WP:OR, if anyone is interested. @ 99.142.1.101: You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole if you still insisting that we ignore common sense and cite the article to Quiggin rather than to Quiggin and Lambert. This is the last I have to say about this.Yilloslime _C 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no grey area. We cite to a verifiable source, WP:Verify It's wiki 101. If he didn't fill in the form correctly I have no doubt the webmaster will happily correct it for him. We do not do WP:OR, but that's possibly a wiki 200 level course.99.142.1.101 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Quiggin is indisputably one of the authors of the paper, your repeated insistence that Lambert is not credited in the face of repeated statements from Quiggin that Lambert is a co-author is WP:POINT, especially when taken in context with the rest of your edit history. You are very clearly here to promote an agenda part of which involves doing down Tim Lambert. Get yourself a blog, Misplaced Pages is not the place for your vendetta. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• And if you look at his edits, his contributions to mainspace are minimal. He spends almost all of his time arguing on talk pages and importing off-wiki disputes, as in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying something is so doesn't make it true. Here is the article at the center of the "controversy" you referenced above, I took it from here as a stub without references. This was my work:. More recently I took PIIGS from an inaccurate slapdash that had the term coined in 2008 to a tight informative, and useful article. I did leave the "corrective policies" section alone, but my instinct was to remove it. I also created and wrote this article. As an ip. :) 99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• JgZ, are you saying that the two editors in question have not edited improperly at all? And ChrisO, I don't like Wiki-disruption, either, but those points are irrelevant and do nothing to alter his claim. —DoRD (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@ IP: You're determinedly ignoring the point that the first mention you made of the supposed COI was apparently on Jimbo's talk page, you also fail to say why you have spent months edit-warring and block-evading in order to remove one name from Misplaced Pages. @DoRD: the accusation by the IP against TimLambert is baseless, as per analysis above. The accusation that Quiggin is serving an external agenda is arguably ture, we all are, including and especially the IP, but there is nothing actionable in the diffs cited. I have already cautioned Quiggin and explained the problem, he shows above that he understands this and is willing to engage in dialogue. We are left with a block-evading IP whose sole input to Misplaced Pages appears to be a vendetta against one or a few users. That's a behaviour issue we can do without and is independent of the merits of his case, which in this case turn out to be questionable. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This IP's exposure of the COI editing by protagonists in public controversies has been a great service to wikipedia. Give the IP a barnstar, and save the bans for the people who have been misusing Misplaced Pages in furtherance of their careers ... or prepare for the "Misplaced Pages gags whistleblower" headlines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please read JzG's findings above; he has actually taken the trouble to look into the matter in detail. As Guy has said, "his comments about one of the editors are completely without foundation and his diffs about the other are stale". We are dealing here with false and unactionable allegations. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The stale argument is bogus IMO, and I believe in yours as well, considering the latest example you posted regarding this anon in your request is from ~3 months ago. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support enough time has been wasted here. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Give him some grace if he registers an account and sticks to it. The use of multiple IPs may not have been intentionally done to deceive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Creates massive drama but cannot show any serious policy violations, attacking people for editing under their own names (i.e. for being transparent), uses IPs to evade blocks. Xanthoxyl 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RHB100

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been disruptive on Talk:Gravitational potential over a period of several weeks. He has been extremely rude towards User:Sławomir Biały: . I posted to WP:WQA and informed RHB100 at 05:54, 13 March 2010 . Rather than respond peaceably, he continued to insult other users: . Sławomir Biały is a well-regarded WikiProject Mathematics regular, and his calm replies can be viewed in full at Talk:Gravitational potential.

Additionally, RHB100 ignores consensus and tries to force his text onto the page. Here are his attempts to get his preferred description of the potential and its expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials on the page: . While there are some structural differences, the text is mostly the same between these; it ignores the criticisms and corrections made by other users, both in other revisions of the article and on the talk page.

I cannot see RHB100's behavior changing in the near future. Therefore I ask that he be blocked. Ozob (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I informed RHB100 of this discussion but he has continued to post offensive comments . Ozob (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that I have ignored consensus is untrue. I wrote the original version on expansion into Legendre polynomials in its entirety. Certainly any consensus must involve me. Patrick added valuable contributions. Sławomir Biały then took it upon himself to destroy the vector diagram that I had created and ruin the article with some terrible writing. The changes Biały made were so terrible that it seems more likely to have been an attempt to deliberately degrade the quality of the Misplaced Pages. There are some people, including those who want to sell more books, who don't want the Misplaced Pages to be a very good source of information. Considering the terrible thing that had bee done to the Misplaced Pages, my reaction was rather mild. And their certainly is no consensus. RHB100 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue here is not the content of the article, nor on being on the right "side" of a content dispute. At issue, first and foremost, is the absolutely unacceptable way in which you have behaved (and continue to both here and at Talk:Gravitational potential). Perhaps Ozob's choice of the word "consensus" was less than ideal, although conforming to the specific manner in which it pertains to WP:CONSENSUS. However, edit-warring against several other editors to attempt to reinsert one's own preferred version of the text is generally considered to be disruptive, especially when at the very same time you come here to make a non-apology while continuing the same incivil rhetoric that landed us here in the first place. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding User:RHB100

I would like to propose a sanction upon RHB100:

Findings

• (a) RHB100 has engaging in talk page incivlity on Talk:Gravitational potential, making personal attacks and inflammatory remarks.
• (b) RHB100 has referred to their own credentials.
• (e) In March 2010, a WQA report was filed against RHB100 in hopes of a peaceful resolution.
• (d) Despite the WQA report, RHB100 has continued the incivility.

Remedy

• (a) RHB100 (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week.
• (b) After the expiration of the block, RHB100 will be placed on civility parole for a period of one month.

Continuing incivility after a WQA report suggests that action is needed. I think this is sufficient (but I hope I'm not being too harsh). —Mythdon 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't suppose there is anything in policy to prevent it, but it seems rather odd to me that an editor who has just come off a six-month ban and is on an additional six-month probationary period is proposing sanctions on another user. Shouldn't that six-month probation be used to re-establish your bona fides as an editor by contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than involving yourself in administrative matters? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been meaning to suggest to Mythdon that they moderate their time spent at these noticeboards. –xeno 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am an involved party to this incident.) What purpose would a one week block serve? RHB100's behavior is pretty far outside of what should be tolerated by the community under any circumstances, and an indefinite block is certainly warranted. The editor has not shown any sign of a willingness to abide by the rules that bind our community (or indeed those that would be considered remotely acceptable in any community of individuals). And until he shows some signs of contrition, there is absolutely no reason that he should be allowed to continue editing at this project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors can and do change their behaviour. Usually short block are given to give a person time to change and improve. If this does not occur than longer blocks may follow.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, and would not be averse to an unblock once he acknowledges that there are rules, that he was far outside the rules during his interactions with me, and agrees to follow them in the future. I believe that he has already been given a chance to do this (over the course of several weeks of discussion at Talk:Gravitational potential, through his invitation to participate in the discussion at WQA), and has continued to flout them. The kind of probationary measures that were suggested above would require the contributor to acknowledge the rules, to demonstrate a willingness to abide by them, and to want to change his behavior. Nothing stops him from agreeing to these things and then requesting an unblock, but this agreement is clearly a necessary condition for allowing the editor to continue to contribute to the project. (Indeed, all of us have implicitly agreed to abide by these rules.) But a fairly infrequent contributor such as this will likely not even feel a one week block, and so this would literally serve no purpose. Hence my question: why block at all if for such a short time? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, something needs to be done, because the behaviour at the talk page in question is simply unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What they don't tell you: RHB100 was the original author of the section in question

They tell you that I have exercised my right to change to change a poorly written section. But they don't tell you that I did the original research and the original writing of the section on expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials. After I did the original research, Sławomir Biały completely replaced my well written article with a poorly written article. I have attempted to get back to my original article, but Sławomir Biały has been very disruptive by continuously replacing my original work. He has removed my vector diagram which greatly added to the clarity of the article. I am a licensed professional engineer with advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. It appears that Sławomir Biały does not even have an engineering degree and his poor writing indicates that he is not qualified to rewrite my original work. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response of RHB100

I have removed my offensive comments. I will look further to see if there are any that I have missed. I regret having made offensive comments. I was incensed over the fact that all my hard work and research had been destroyed.

Sławomir Biały has repeatedly destroyed my well written section. He has turned a well written section that I researched and wrote in its entirety into a poorly written section. He removed the block diagram which provided clarity. He appears to have the goal of making the Misplaced Pages confusing and difficult to understand. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He has shown no respect for me. He destroyed my work without any form of consultation with me. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some slight cosmetic changes had been made to earlier posts, but this post that you just made (accusing me of deliberate vandalism) is clearly not in the spirit of an amicable resolution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, RHB100 changed his posts in these diffs: .

He has also reverted the article once again to his preferred version, ignoring consensus on the talk page: . Together with two diffs that I already referenced above, and , he is a little shy of a WP:3RR violation, as these edits happened over a 44 hour period. Ozob (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talk page. This statement that there is a consensus on the talk page is completely false. They have again reverted away form the article as it was originally written and researched to a non-consensus poorly written version. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate board for 3rr. Gerardw (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to report him there if he violates it. But I hope that someone here blocks him before that happens. Ozob (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RHB100 has made further personal attacks, some of which you can view above, and the diffs for which I am collecting here: (both at AN/I) (at Talk:Gravitational potential). Will someone please block him? Ozob (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The behavior continues to continue . Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And . Ozob (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs)
• DarkFalls (talk · contribs) Adding this one because he's had more involvement than I. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the past few hours, there has been issues between the above editors, regarding incivility and warnings.

Daedalus969 has been expressing concern about Mbz1's personal attacks (only one found) , in which Daedalus969 warns against , and then reports to AIV. Mbz1 has been claiming that these warnings are harassment , in which Daedalus969 denies as harassment . Mbz1 has responded incivily to these warnings , and has requested Daedalus969 to not post on their talk page .

This controversy has been stirring on the talk page of Daedalus969's. Baseball Bugs is backing Daedalus969 up on the issue . DarkFalls (talk · contribs) has expressed concern about Daedalus969's warnings that they are baiting Mbz1. Since then, Daedalus969 has been accusing DarkFalls of personal attacks and not taking their own advice.

While not necessarily involved, I have commented on the issue on Daedalus969's talk page.

I am bringing this to the attention of the community for formal review. —Mythdon 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I would like to correct a small mistake Mythdon has made. Daedalus969 posted warnings at my talk page not two times, but 11 ;;;;; , and then the user reported me reports to Vandalism noticeboard.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a complete falsehood. I warned you exactly four times for personal attacks, and notified you about what harassment was, replied to your messages on my talk page(the other 6 times).— Dædαlus 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• +cmt(calling other human beings 'its')
• It will always be it
• even a bigger idiot than I thought it was
• "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."Albert Einstein:
• →To be exact: new section) Here, they say, and I quote, BTW I agree it was a little bit premature to call you an "idiot", when I did. I should have done done it later, after you reported incivility to to vandalism board
• +cmt Mythdon, you did not understand. Actually my emotions were very positive after I saw that incivility was reported to vandalism board. As a matter of fact, when I saw it, I started laughing, and I still am. I'm even ready to forgive the harassment I was the subject to after the user left 11 warnings at my talk page in few hours. At least in the end the user made me to laugh, and to realize I was right all the time.

Those diffs stand on their own. A user shouldn't be let off with a wrist slap for this, as this user has been. I know that I am at fault as well. Next time after a user refuses to stop personally attacking me, instead of trying to warn or template them, I'll screw it and go straight to an admin. I am not saying that the circumstances excuse what I have done, but I couldn't find any active admins to report this to. I tried AIV, as that is where I have reported PAs in the past. I would like to make a request for a PA reporting project page, like AIV, but for PAs, since AIV isn't the place, as I have now been told. It would be nice, that if such a page were created, it would be added to twinkle as well. I tried warning this user against PAs, and I guess I lost my nerve, although I tried my best to remain civil. Instead of trying to warn this user in the first place, I should have just abandoned the endeavor. It was a waste of time, and now my clock is reset. I'm not posting anything more to their page now, and in the future, in case it wasn't obvious by my ceasing of edits to their page.

The above was actually a pending ANI thread as well, but seeing this one when I clicked preview to prepare for the ani notices, I saw Myth's alert on my talk page.

Although Myth only found 1 PA, I list several above.— Dædαlus 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Partly related break: To put it nicely, I am not my normal temperature right now. Don't expect me to respond, I am taking a short wikibreak of some amount of hours to cool down.— Dædαlus 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Factsontheground

Full disclosure: I have been involved in several disputes with Mbz1 about various issues of content and policy. However, I have always tried my best to be civil and polite with her despite the fact that Mbz1 has never treated me with anything other than contempt.

Why? Because I complained on ANI about her friend Gilabrand spamming racial hate material into an article I wrote. Incredibly, she defended Gilabrand's actions in that ANI thread. I am amazed at how many personal attacks on me she has gotten away with since. (, , , )

She has recently taken to calling me it (, , ), a slur that she has not apologized for or given any indication that she is going to stop ("it will always be it"). (I did report her for sockpuppeting, but with good reason. And I was civil about it).

Her attacks on me have managed to drive me away from editing at least one article and she is utterly remorseless and unstoppable. But on the other hand, the admins don't seem to care at all, so I guess I can't really blame her for continuing behaviour she isn't being punished for. The "it" thing is really the last straw for me. If people can treat me like an animal on Misplaced Pages what's the point of hanging around? Factsontheground (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So...

Tempers flared. Users did not act with good faith toward each other. There was hostility. How about everyone backs down and have a nice cup of tea?

There should never be an environment on Misplaced Pages (fantasy Misplaced Pages) where editors are pressured by other editors either in a positive or negative way. The purpose of a collaborative environment is self expression and dealing with other individuals to work together. Mbz1 should not be "ganged up on", as this is perceived. At the same time, Daedalus et al need to remember that "doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist" to a good faith editor is contrary to spirit and policy. Doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist applies to vandalism and other non-good faith contributors.

Let's all walk away from this and remember that words carry more weight when you can't see a person, and drama is stupid. Keegan (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Mbz1, act cordially, including calling users "it" to be passive-aggresively insulting. I've got my eye on you. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So, Keegan, it's okay for me to be continually insulted to the point that I'm literally driven off pages, all for having the temerity to complain about hate speech? Why do you think I don't deserve to be treated like a human being? This isn't new. It's been going on for days now.

And what makes you think that Mbz1 is being "ganged up on"? Factsontheground (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. and I put that in quotation marks for a reason, I didn't say that that is how I feel about the situation. If Mbz1 feels that they are being hassled in a coordinated attempt, real or not, that's going to be the reaction even if it was predicated by misbehavior. This is not an excuse for being hostile, threatening, and uncivil.

Basically, Mbz1 is out of line. That's pretty cut and dry. The opportunity here, since it has come to this noticeboard, is for everyone to walk away and keep an eye on Mbz1's behavior towards you and others in the current and future. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If this has stopped with the thread, then we have this part of the issue resolved. Your grievances are real, and legitimate, and Mbz1 must take them into account in future interaction with other users. Should Mbz1 flinch an iota in dealing with other editors after this notice without civil discourse, we will have a different issue. Factsontheground, I do hear your concerns and will watch. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of "watching" Mbz1 when she has vowed to continue calling me "it", hasn't admitted any wrongdoing, refuses to apologize and still proclaims to be the aggrieved party?

The thing is that I could come up with lots of differences to explain why I used "it". SPI request was the last drop only.I will not take it back.

You're not even going to give her an official warning, which is just unbelievable.

I'm no saint, but I try to be civil and I admit when I make mistakes. For example, I apologized to Gilisa after telling him to "Learn English".

Mbz1 is blatantly flouting the rules and getting away with it, as always. Factsontheground (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't be the end of this matter. This week, Mbz1 has gone out of her way to be as offensive as possible to as many editors as possible. (See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), for instance.) The abuse heaped on Factsontheground just happened to be the most recent, and most egregious, example.

Before Mbz1 accuses me of harassment, I'll acknowledge that we disagree with one another about a lot of issues. Nevertheless, I have always tried to be civil toward her. In return, I get comments like "as always you're missing the point" (with a lovely edit summary to boot). Also, Mbz1 has started referring to User:Drork in her edit summaries, as in "I'm starting to understand what Drork meant" and "Drork was right!" Since DrorK made many personal attacks against me, I asked Mbz1 to stop insulting me in her edit summaries, so (of course) she used it as her edit summary for her three replies to my message.

I hope somebody will take these issues seriously. Mbz1 needs something stronger than a cup of tea. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah Malik. "Drork is right" has nothing to do with incivility. Just between the two of us I'm disclosing that I used this edit summary to communicate with Mossad. Of course now, when I disclosed it to you, I will use it no longer. I will have to come with something different that only me and Mossad would understand :) BTW what did you mean under "Mbz1 needs something stronger than a cup of tea"? Did you mean I need a cup of coffee :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Keegan, you are right. Somebody should keep an eye on me. Thank you for your warning. I'll try to behave.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone that primarily uses sarcasm, satire, and tongue in cheek references, I would like to clarify if you are being serious or not, because I'm not sure. Mbz1, this is important. Keegan (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, Keegan, but to me, the above was an obvious insult directed at Factsontheground. If you read through several of Fact's diffs, in one of them Mb calls Fact a conspiracy theorist. Mossad, as linked, is an intelligence agency, and as conspiracy theorists or the people who are labeled that sometimes think that the CIA or other intelligence agencies are hiding secrets from the citizens/civilians or wire-tapping them.

Another reason why I do not believe this is sarcasm is because this user has a history of incivility. It shouldn't be allowed to continue.— Dædαlus 07:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Daedalus969, that was definitely a snipe meant for me. Mzb1 has continually accused me of being a conspiracy theorist for writing an article she didn't like and her "Mossad" snark is a reference to this. She refuses to stop taunting me even during an ANI about her behavior but the admins don't even give her a warning... so frustrating. Factsontheground (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suspect you see no irony in someone who sees normal collaboration between like-minded editors as "good reason" to conduct a sockpuppet fishing expedition then complaining about being described as a conspiracy theorist. *Sigh* -- Avenue (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

People sockpuppet on wikipedia, there's no question about that. When it comes up that someone who has a history of personally attacking others and, in their view an IP that comes out of nowhere to do the same thing, it isn't that far off from a good reason. Maybe you should take a second look at your comment and retract the personal attack. The Theorist comment came before any SPI, so your comment is rather off.— Dædαlus 21:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with NPA before accusing people of attacking you. Grow a thicker skin, Avenue's criticism is not a personal attack. —Dark 05:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that neither getting familiar with NPA nor growing a thicker skin would be enough in this particular situation :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Not an attack at all. —Mythdon 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting a thicker skin has nothing to do with this. I have read NPA, have you? A baseless accusation is a personal attack. Mb, back the hell off with your personal attacks as well. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so stop acting like you do.— Dædαlus 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion to archive

Looks like the user, who initiated the post was blocked indefinitely. Maybe time to archive that one, if for nothing else just to safe some space :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Uh, no. The initiator is not the one under the spotlight, it is you and your behavior. As you still continue to personally attack others, the issue is not resolved, and there is no reason to archive this thread.— Dædαlus 06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What I wanted to say that you still could move it to Vandalism noticeboard like the last time, you know :) See the last time it was deleted so fast that I had no time to ask you what exactly I vandalized :) --Mbz1 (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is pathetic. You people are trying to twist every little thing Mbz1 says into something that you claim is a personal attack. She makes a joke about Mossad and you claim it's a personal jab at Factsontheground? Am I the only one who realizes how completely stupid that sounds? Everyone needs to grow up and get back to contributing positively to the encyclopedia. This is just petty, and isn't in line with the WP:5P. Breein1007 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that an admin just confirmed this is not new for Mb, I see no reason to not take it as an attack, as they have insulted Facts before. Thanks for backing up your buddy when he clearly does not deserve it.— Dædαlus 07:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, and it is patently obviously a personal attack. We don't need to twist it at all.— Dædαlus 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My buddy? You don't know me or anything about me. Watch your assumptions. And you have no right to comment on other people's motives. Please WP:AGF. Breein1007 (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you take some of your own medicine. AGF? You accuse of of twisting everything into a personal attack. Why don't your read it for what it is. A personal attack, and stop accusing us of twisting everything to suit our needs.— Dædαlus 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right..... sorry for not understanding that "I was communicating to the Mossad" is in fact a clear personal attack against Factsontheground. Common sense, right? What was I thinking... Breein1007 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you have failed to read the above, Mb has called Facts a conspiracy theorist. This happened before the SPI case. In case you failed to click the link on Mossad, Mossad is an intelligence agency, a common subject of conspiracy theorists. Ya, it was blatantly an attack. And back off with the sarcasm. You state below that this is a collaborative project, so why don't again, you take your own medicine.— Dædαlus 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a lesson on the Mossad, thanks. What you fail to understand is that you do not have the privilege of being able to declare other people's motives. You do not have the authority in that field, no matter how many times you continue to hit your head into the brick wall in hopes that people will agree with you. When editors on Misplaced Pages make comments, you are expected to take their comments literally for face value, and read no further than what they have explicitly stated. If you do any reading between the lines or make any assumptions about the "real" purpose of their message, you are in the wrong. This is the last time I will be explaining this. I'm not going to keep repeating myself just because you refuse to acknowledge policy. Assumptions about an editor's motives, no matter how "blatant" or "patently obvious" you have decided they are, violate WP:AGF. Breein1007 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently you do. First, let me address your false assumption of AGF. AGF is not a policy, and even if it was, it is not something that should be used in tandem with this user. AGF should not be used on those who have a history of personal attacks. Maybe I'm wrong to assume, but that doesn't mean my assumption is wrong. Just because you think it isn't an attack doesn't meant that it isn't. Again, take your own medicine. You do not know the motives behind the user's obvious attack above, so you cannot say that without a doubt, it is not an attack, call the edits of others deliberate twisting of the facts. As to my buddy comment, it is rather obvious they are your buddy. You barely make any edits here, and yet, you show up out of nowhere backing this user up. Right.— Dædαlus 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mbz1, who calls the warnings from others "harassment", could maybe 'splain his approach in posting this item on Mythdon's page - which he then reinstated after Mythdon deleted it and had presumably read it (sound familiar?): ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A warning!!!!There was 12 warnings you buddy and you left at my talk page. Sure I could explain about Mythdon, but I am not sure you will understand. I posted a message at the user talk page. The user deleted it, then I posted to AN/I and provided the link to the user. That's it. Nothing like your buddy and you did to me yesterday.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound familiar. She posted the first comment that you linked, which was like you said chippy, and then after it was removed, she posted another one notifying Mythdon of the report that she had filed at AN/I. This is common courtesy. It is not at all comparable to the embarrassing behaviour shown by certain editors on Mbz1's talk page. If that isn't harassment, I don't know what is. Mbz1 was warned how many times for the same thing, 6? She was attacked on her talk page by more than one editor with these warnings. If she deleted a warning once, that was confirmation that she received and understood it. Any subsequent reposts of the warnings by those editors (even if they were reworded) were in violation of Misplaced Pages policies. I expect that admins who review this case will act accordingly against the editors who breached these policies and continue to hound Mbz1 here on this AN/I report. It is unacceptable for editors to treat each other this way when this is supposed to be a collaborative project. Breein1007 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not 6, I was "warned" 12 times!--Mbz1 (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not leave any warnings on your page that I can recall. I left you one informational message, which you then deleted, which you have the right to do, as I stated in that informational message. I'm not sure why Mythdon shlepped me into this section, but there it is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lies and more lies. I warned you exactly four times, and noted to you 6 times regarding the definition of harassment, talk page privilages, talk page ownership, and other things. Breein. Again, take your own medicine. Where have I attacked this user? I haven't, so either back up your baseless accusation or retract it.

So, you expect people who have violated policies to be blocked? What about Mb's continued attacks on others? Why do they deserve to not be blocked when they clearly violated NPA many, many times.— Dædαlus 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 toned down his notification to Mythdon, yes, but used the original heading for the section here on Mythdon, where it remains intact as of now. There are a couple of ways this brouhaha could have been minimized: (1) Instead of deleting a warning with an edit summary about "harassment", an edit summary like "acknowledged" would have sufficed; and (2) Instead of making a snide remark about Mythdon in the heading, something like "Complaint about Mythdon" would have sufficed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about." Oscar Wilde and --Mbz1 (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My view

Okay, so I may as well present my view of this issue before I get accused of hypocrisy. I first became involved with Daedalus' and Mbz1's "dispute" when Daedalus reported him to AIV, which I might add, is the wrong forum for an established editor not involved in obvious vandalism. So I had a look at both editor's contributions and came across this SSP. In the SSP, Mbz1 repeatedly called an IP address he was accused of being a sock of the initiator of the SSP report, an it. In the SSP, Daedalus wrote "This doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me, given that this user has socked before," regarding the possibility of Mbz1 being a sockpuppet; an accusation without merit , which he later redacted. This, although an honest mistake, probably created quite a lot of ill-will between them.

I will disclaim, before I continue, that I believe myself to be a completely neutral admin, prior to my message on Daedalus' talk page. I have no affiliation and had no contact, that I know of, with Mbz1 prior to this incident. I also had never, afaik, talked with either Daedalus696 or Baseball Bugs prior to this.

IMHO, I believe, although calling someone it is incivil, in this case, it is not a personal attack. Daedalus, however, evidently thought it was, and warned Mbz1 for NPA. Mbz1 responded to this by removing the message. Nevertheless, Daedalus decided to warn Mbz1 again, templating Mbz1 using an NPA warning, with a short personal comment underneath. Mbz1 removed the message and asked daedalus to stop posting warnings on his talk page, and Daedalus responded by posting another message, with the warning, You want me to stop warning you against personally attacking another user? Stop personally attacking them. Continue and I'll report you.

This message was removed by Mbz1. Subsequently, Baseball Bugs notified Mbz1 that "Other editors have the right to post legitimate concerns on your talk page," which was removed. Daedalus then posted three messages on harrassment, which were removed with the summary, WP:DRC. Daedalus then posted a message warning that DRC does not apply in this instance, posting "That's nice, but irrelevant. I have not restored any removed comments. What I have done, however, is leave a different message every time. Completely different." Mbz1 removed this comment as harassment .

Daedalus then replied by posting a new message on the talk page, , stating that what he is doing is not harassment. Mbz1 removed that comment, with " I hope it is going to be last thing. I am sick and tired of you. Shut up, and get of my talk page." . Daedalus countered with a NPA warning, which again, is not appropriate. The edit summary was incivil, not a personal attack. He also stated: Oh, and don't tell me what to do. You have no right to do that. This page is not yours. Mbz1 removed the message , stating that "even a bigger idiot that I thought it was. Daedalus then posted a final warning,, which was again, removed.

I believe that Mbz1's behavior in this issue is mitigated by the persistent efforts of Daedalus to intentionally inflame the editor. Despite Mbz1 asking Daedalus to stop, he persisted 8 times with messages on the talk page, before taking it to AIV. Although Daedalus believes that policy is on his side, clue and good judgement are equally as important. Daedalus baited the editor into the personal attacks, whether intentionally or not, and does not show good judgement or clue in this issue. That is the reason I warned him about his behavior. —Dark 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to apologise to Baseball Bugs in this issue. His involvement in this issue is minimal, and the comments I have made regarding his behavior are not warranted. Sorry. —Dark 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No hay problema. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not read the whole thing is, but I never used "it" towards IP. I used the word towards the initiator of SPI.--Mbz1 (talk)

it's quite possible I misread that part. Changed, as suggested. —Dark 07:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Even so, this is not all that this thread is about. Sure, it was initiated in regards to the talk page dispute. What do you have to say about their behavior towards other users? Their continued insistence to insult Facts after being warned against it? They are dancing past the line and will likely continue until someone blocks them to prevent them from continuing.— Dædαlus 07:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You asked me what the motive for my involvement was. You also asked me to present the evidence. And you accused me of being biased. I dealt with that. And on the issue of Mbz1, I do not feel they acted with civility throughout this issue. I addressed that on my talk page. —Dark 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And look who's talking :)--Mbz1 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:STRAWMAN. Address your own behavior, I am not the one under the spotlight. I never insulted you.— Dædαlus 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have clearly acted inappropriately and have received a warning about it. If you are continuing to harass other editors, maybe you should be under the spotlight. Breein1007 (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am not continuing to harass anyone. Stop dismissing Mb's behavior because of others. Behavior of others does not excuse behavior of one's self. Mb was warned and Mb continues to insult.— Dædαlus 07:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not forget we were reported together. Your own behavior is much worse than mine. You should be blocked not me. You were blocked for harassment before, and you "agreed to be less bitey" Did you? No you did not. You should be blocked, and blocked for good that no other editor should ever again to experience something like I did last night because of you and you buddies--Mbz1 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)editor should ever again to experience something like I did last night because of you and you buddies

My behavior? Where did I call another user less than a human being? Where have I called another user a conspiracy theorist. I have insulted no one. My behavior is nothing compared to yours, and your continued inults.— Dædαlus 07:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dark, that is a good summary. Thanks for handling this case appropriately. It doesn't seem that everyone is taking their warnings seriously though, as the hounding is continuing both here and on user talk pages. I think everyone needs to let this go and stop harassing each other. This is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. If people can't get past this, I would suggest that you consider further action past warnings. Breein1007 (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing seems to happen frequently: One editor will post something that seems reasonably reasonable on another's page, the second editor will zap it, and flames start to rise. As I said a few minutes ago, if editors would include a low-key edit summary such as "acknowledged" or "read and deleted" when they zap a warning or any other message (some editors in fact do just that), that could lessen the need for ANI fire extinguishers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. That might help avoid some conflicts. But at the same time, there is no expectation or policy for editors to do that, and failure to do so definitely does not give justification for continuous harassment. Breein1007 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to have a formal policy for that, although maybe something could be mentioned about it in the page on how-to-use-your-user-page. Here we've seen the consequences of not doing that. Not that this is World War III or something - just a dispute that has gotten personal, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Handling this case? And it isn't a good summary, as it does not describe the situation completely accurately, I warned the user exactly four times, and, as state above, posted another 6 times to their talk page telling them what harassment was, the rules of owner ship, and various other things. You're one to talk about continued hounding on user talk pages, posting an attack at my talk page, when I haven't posted to Mb's or Dark's in more than 25 hours since I last have. Continued violation of policy is not something to drop Mb has clearly insulted people. Mb clearly continues to insult people. Something has to be done, because this user obvious does not care about warnings from anyone. Dædαlus

Not 10 times, 11 times, which was exactly 11 times too many. You should be blocked for doing this to me, and blocked for good.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple mistake, given the situation, and you are in no position to be insulting me in edit summaries.— Dædαlus 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My behavior is nothing compared to yours, and it is not worth an indef block. You're just playing the victim here. I know I was at fault, but you continue to insult, and as I have done many things, insult people is not one of them. You are on very thin ice, which I'm sure will break as soon as an uninvolved admin reviews your history of personal attacks on others.— Dædαlus 08:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, I would advise you to keep calm whenever possible. Messages like this are not helpful. —Dark 08:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That being said, suggestions of which user to block is not productive to this discussion. Remain calm, and wait for an impartial editor to sort this out. —Dark 08:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not worth an indef block, but it's also clear that you are baiting him, and that he is taking the bait, which makes you both silly. You should both stop it. If Mbz1 is behaving badly he will continue to do so in the future, but right now, Daedalus, you are just making him look like a victim. You need to keep to proper precedures and behaviour even when dealing with vandals. And Mbz1: Stop taking his bait. Try ignoring him. If he really is harassing you, ignoring him wont' work. Then you can report him here. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would have never suggested an indefinite block, if there were not for two reasons.

The first reason is the user's history.

In one of the users unblock reasons an admin writes: "agreed to be less bitey, discussed in #wikipedia-en-unblock"], which clearly is not the case.

The second (more important) reason is that the user still cannot understand that what he/she done to me

was wrong.

Having said that I do agree that it is silly (not to say stupid) of me to take the baits.

Of course I also agree with Dark comments as well, and that's why I am out of here. --Mbz1 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop with the lies, really. I already quite clearly said, when I first replied to this entire discussion, that I am at fault as well. You however, still think you are in the right, as you continue to insult me and others.— Dædαlus 08:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"I know that I am at fault as well" in case you missed it.— Dædαlus 08:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Break

Mb is calm, Dark. He knows you won't block him so he continues to insult others when he feels like it. OF, my comments may be baiting, but it wasn't intentional.— Dædαlus 08:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not be blocking any parties in this dispute due to the simple fact that I am involved. —Dark 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I give you full permission to block me, if you believe I deserve to be blocked. You are not really involved with me, mostly with Daedalus969.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior does not merit a block. Just remember this is just a website, keep calm at all times, and you shouldn't have any problems in the future. —Dark 10:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How does insulting someone after being warned they were on thin ice not warrant a block?— Dædαlus 10:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And the insults keep coming. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure they are. What started with one troll was picked up by few others all with the purpose to drive an unwanted editor away. Here's Alison message at one's of the troll's talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to call others trolls here, no matter what you think. I suggest you retract those insults now. You were already told you were on thin ice.— Dædαlus 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, I suggest you remove yourself from this issue. Your input isn't helpful. —Dark 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, like I said, keep your cool. Refrain from calling people names, even if you believe them to be so. Ignore them. —Dark 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And yours is? How is letting a user continuously insult people helpful?— Dædαlus 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Now Mbz1 is violating WP:TALK by striking out another person's comments, not to mention she is getting into a revert war with an admin. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsontheground (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sign your posts. And no, Mbz1 is not violating WP:TALK. The user Vexorg posted a lie about the result of the SPI. Checkuser confirmed that Mbz1 and the IP were unrelated. Then, Vexorg posted a note on the AfD claiming that they are the same user, in an attempt to trivialize valid comments made by the IP. Mbz1's deletion of the comment (and my subsequent striking after it was reinserted) was perfectly in line with Misplaced Pages policies. Review WP:TPO. Breein1007 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Be sure you know the policy you cite. They are clearly violating TPO. TPO says nothing about lies, and Vex doesn't even cite the SPI in his post. TPO quite clearly says personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. As the post isn't any of those, it is not allowed to be removed or struck.— Dædαlus 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy, as well as the background of Mossad, is good. Thanks for the concern though. I appreciate that you care about my knowledge. I suggest that you carefully review the definition of a personal attack, because this isn't the first time you have shown failure to understand its meaning. Vexorg's comment is a clear example of a personal attack. On the other hand, many of the comments in this AN/I that you have claimed to be personal attacks against you or others, in fact, weren't. Breein1007 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So, let me see if I have this straight. You claim that I cannot be a judge of what is, and what is not, a personal attack, yet, you can act like you know for fact, when in fact, you are not Mb, and there is no possible way you could know? Talk about hypocrisy. The above that I claimed were personal attacks are clearly personal attacks, just as clear as the one you claim is a personal attack.— Dædαlus 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just leave other people's comments alone. If you think they're lying, then write a response. There's no need to delete or strike through Vexorg's comment. Factsontheground (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear need to strike through it at the very least, if not delete it altogether. I chose to do the less extreme and strike it out since I didn't know what would be more appropriate. I hope that an admin will make that decision ultimately. The need stems from the fact that the personal attack trivializes comments made by both the IP and Mbz1, and will influence people's votes on the AfD. Breein1007 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And the taunting continues. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary topic ban

As an uninvolved administrator - I am temporarily banning the "involved parties" here from responding to each others' contributions or talk pages, interpreted broadly, for the next 24 hours. Without regard to origin of the dispute it's being perpetuated beyond reasonable limits. I would like to STRONGLY DISCOURAGE further snipes on ANI but this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction.

Community input on whether this separation would be a good long term editing restriction is welcome, though I am not proposing such yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Definitely endorse, although I would suggest that the parties be notified of this restriction.

On a side note, can someone please check out this request by Mbz1? NW (Talk) 00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short term ban is a good idea. I would suggest extending it to the article and AFD that prompted the dispute, to avoid any incentive for people to "get in first" with comments they know the others can't respond to. -- Avenue (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked this, by the looks of it, it was posted pending my diff gathering to another incivil user. There was no message on my talk page, I only have 3rr watched because it isn't as active as ANI. I tried to watch ANI once. Bad idea.

Back to the discussion at hand, however, NW, that request has already been taken care of, and another admin, Mal, restored the archive to what it should be.— Dædαlus 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with and support Georgewilliamherbert's proposal of a broadly-defined 24-hour interaction ban between both parties, enforceable by blocking; I was going to propose something similar along those lines while I was reading through this.

In addition to George's proposed interaction ban, I would also propose an additional, more narrowly-defined, interaction ban of 1 week between two parties: party 1 is Mbz1 and Breein1007; party 2 is Daedalus969 and Factsontheground. This would also be enforceable by blocking. –MuZemike 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What a bad idea! I mean why only one week ban? I insist on indefinite ban between me and the wikihound, who was mercilessly wikihounding me for the last few days. Please do ban our interactions indefinitely. Please help me to get read of that user. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This could not work, both parties seem involved in the same general sphere of articles. The closest thing which might work would be actual topic bans in these areas of interest. Quite honestly though, I think the involved parties simply need to work out a format under which they can interact constructively. First, please do not make accusations lightly and accept that ANI should be the last venue of dispute resolution sought. If necessary, make use of WP:WQA and Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Not using these venues appropriately runs a risk of censure for WP:BATTLE mentality. Unomi (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I am not asking to impose any ban neither on Breein1007 nor on facts, only on communications between me and daedalus969. It will work just fine. The only things daedalus969 is doing is hunting for vandals and reporting them (wants to became an admin one day), it is of course, when the user does not wikihounding me. The user also likes to put the nose into SPI reports that have nothing to do with the user. I'll never do something like that, never. So the ban should work and work very well. It is not even a ban because I've never was wikihounding daedalus969, but rather a restriction order for the user to stop wikihounding me.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I took your proposal to be extending MuZemikes proposed 1 week interaction ban between the 4 of you. As for you and Daedalus, I would have to agree that it doesn't seem likely that direct interaction between the 2 of you will be constructive or necessary in the near term. I always find it commendable when people speak out against perceived wrongs, but obviously the particular manner of the interaction did not reduce tension. I have no reason to question the initial intentions of Daedalus but ultimately I think he became too invested. Unomi (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe you could give me an advise how to proceed. Should I start a new topic at AN/I or to go to Arbitration, or open vote in that very post. (I do not think people will vote here too much to read). You seem to know the way around the those boards better than I do. Please help me.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think you should do anything, just go about your editing work and see what happens. Should you continue to feel that Daedalus is acting inappropriately then deal with it by asking either MuZemike or NuclearWarfare on how to proceed, I am fairly sure they will be able to deal with it directly. Opening a new thread now may work, but it may backfire, in any case I think everyone involved would spend their time better in other areas of wikipedia than ANI ;) Unomi (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I will follow your advise, and see what happens. That conversation would stay here for the record.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is everyone's business. I am fully within my rights as a user to help in sock cases, and I would appreciate it if you would stop attacking my work in that sector. Sock hunting is something I'm good at, so please, back off.— Dædαlus 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted outing by Vexorg

I'm not sure if I am one of the "involved parties" here, and I do not intend the following as sniping, but there is an important point that I believe hasn't yet been addressed. Georgewilliamherbert, please feel free to block me if I am out of line. To the point: Vexorg attempted to out Mbz1 by revealing Mbz1's IP address. According to WP:OUTING, "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block", unless it is unintentional and unmalicious. This was intentional. Should Vexorg be blocked? --Avenue (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not outing since the very same information is there for anyone who wants to go to WP:SPI. (I didn't mention you-know-who in this comment but if it is considered a violation of the topic ban I will remove it. I am posting on the basis that "this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction"). Factsontheground (talk)

I didn't think of it as outing until I read Spitfire's comment here. According to them, attaching an IP to a user is (attempted) outing except "when it's done for the purpose of a sockpuppetry accusation". I thought it was an important point to raise, but in respect for George's ban I will now leave it for other uninvolved parties to discuss. --Avenue (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That only applies if the IP is actually the IP of the user. In this case it has been found not to be per the WP:SPI discussion. It cannot be personal information because it's not her IP. Factsontheground (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-read WP:OUTING. In a hypothetical outing attempt, even if the information turns out to be incorrect, the attempt is still a policy violation. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Avenue, I personally would hesitate to call this an outing. Vexorg's intent was not to expose Mbz1's personal information; it was merely to draw attention to the possibility of logged-out editing to the effect of sockpuppetry. I don't know whether Vexorg came anywhere near to hitting the mark with his post, but make no mistake: "Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account" under WP:SOCK. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Violations of 24 hour ban

I am not saying anything about this topic except officially recording violations of the 24 hour ban.


Breein1007 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just being polite and participating in a discussion that is entirely separate to this. Comment deleted. Also, considering I started that discussion and was heavily involved in it, his reply can also be considered a violation of the topic ban, particularly since it occurred ~50 minutes after GWH announced the ban. I must say that this shows how difficult it is to get on with some people when sincere, polite, friendly comments like that are cynically used as an attempt to get me banned. It was actually an attempt to bury the hatchet and move on, but I guess you just can't please some people. Factsontheground (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not covered by the topic ban until after my last post there. Breein1007 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, you were an involved party, therefore you were banned when the notice was first posted.— Dædαlus 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, the admin who requested the interaction ban seems to think otherwise. Breein1007 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit my fault, then.— Dædαlus 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll also just note that Breein1007 and I have a disputes on a number of articles so this topic ban will make it difficult for them to be resolved if we cannot dicuss the issues on the talk pages. Factsontheground (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Try to resolve them after the 24h interaction ban is over. Please just remain calm, everyone. Unomi (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the week long interaction ban proposed by MuzeMike above is implemented it would make things very difficult. Factsontheground (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles

On noticing the above threads about arguments concerning user conduct at articles related to WP:FRINGE theories about Shakespearian authorship, I've had a look at suich articles as Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Shakespeare authorship question etc. These are written in ways that blatantly violate WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Headings explain that Will Shakespeare is to be referred to as "William Shakespeare of Stratford", fringe terminology is used refering to those who defend the mainsteram theory as "Stratfordian", and the articles are heavilly weighted in support of the fringe theory inviolation of WP:DUE.

Michael Dobson says in the The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:

Most observers, however, have been more impressed by the anti-Stratfordians' dogged immunity to documentary evidence, not only that which confirms that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, but that which establishes that several of the alternative candidates were long dead before he had finished doing so. ‘One thought perhaps offers a crumb of redeeming comfort,’ observed the controversy's most thorough historian, Samuel Schoenbaum, ‘the energy absorbed by the mania might otherwise have gone into politics.’

The doggedness to which Dobson refers has left Misplaced Pages with a whole swathe of articles that risk turning us into a laughing stock.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said more than once that there is a coordinated effort to use Misplaced Pages to promote a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Feels like I've stumbled onto a conspiracy theory website by mistake.. Rehevkor ✉ 05:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

These articles should of course all be merged. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I used to believe that most of these should be left alone as a harmless playground while the grown-ups concentrated on keeping the more definitive accounts, such as Shakespeare authorship question, sane and stable. The recent history there has shown me how I was deceiving myself and some other way forward, supported by the community, is definitely needed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Making sure the other articles information is accurately reflected in the Shakespeare authorship question and then redirecting seems reasonable to me. But I don't have time for more conspiracies right now, that's for sure. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not around much this week sadly, but I agree that they should be merged into the Saq article, except for the bio, which should only mention the subject briefly. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have duly added merge templaters per the consensus here. I recommend that a thick-skinned admin expedites this.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how this article Baconian_theory achieved Good Article status. It follows the same format as the Oxfordian Theory article.Smatprt (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people seem to have short memories - see Talk:Baconian_theory/GA1 (all of it). --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is an excellent archive to reference. It shows that efforts were made to balance the article the exact same way the Oxfordian Theory article is - both have a "mainstream view" section at the beginning of the article which clearly states that the majority of academicians do not subscribe to the theory, and both have a "critical reception" section at the end. With these sections, which I helped to add, the article achieved GA status. As such, it should be the model for other notable theories. Notability has been easily established. The recent NY Times survey of college english professors Did He or Didn’t He? That Is the Question, shows more acceptance than was previously believed (6% of Shakespeare professors agree and another 11% acknowledge that it's "possible"), a major university now offers "Authorship Studies" and another university has just opened a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre. And 3 current Supreme Court justices have recently declared themselves authorship doubters. I sincerely doubt that is the case with Moon Landing Hoaxes or the like. Smatprt (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW it might be useful is an admin checked this merger thread at Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Merging. I have my suspicion thta sockpuppetry is going on.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a rather serious charge. I'm wondering what your evidence is to support it? If you feel like a witch-hunt, then by all means, have an administrator check IP's and the like. But I must say that as a successful sock-puppet hunter, I completely disagree with your "suspicion". Smatprt (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of this confusion was brought on by Shake-speare himself. When he received his first royalty check, he informed his family that he was "Bringing home the Bacon". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

concerns about too much of user:Mythdon on AN/I

The user just came back from 6 months ban, during which the user could not have edit their own talk pages. Now the user is making lots of contribution to AN/I that including, but not limited to fishing accusation of of being a sock-puppet and responding in a strange manner to an user apology that has nothing to do with Mythdon.
Few other editors find the user contributions here not helpful:

IMO somebody should keep an eye on the user, or better yet ban the user on contributing to AN/I--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Well...

• As for this; I had misread "incensed" as "licensed", but when I finally realized it wasn't, I reverted (retracted) my comment. I should have paid a bit more attention.
• This comment by Atlan (talk · contribs); a concern that I'm being hypocritical in that I feel evidence is need to block sockpuppets, but yet again reported what I had suspected as a sockpuppet- the report was made not to request a block, but for a review as to whether others agree that it may be a sockpuppet as well (it doesn't seem that way, but that's what it was).
• This comment by Xeno (talk · contribs); suggesting that I'm spending too much time on ANI (I don't think that's the case), but I won't deny I spend lots and lots of time here.
• I don't know what to say about this by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).

I hope that's clear enough. —Mythdon 03:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, Beyond My Ken's post seemed pretty offbase to me. Mythdon had made what seemed to be a reasonable suggestion (albeit one that I did not agree with), and had already been briefly involved in the precipitating discussion at WP:WQA before it even got here. I don't have any strong opinions about the others, but I also don't see anything obviously disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Xeno has agreed with Beyond My Ken.

This should not have been filed here by an absolutely uninvolved user. There was more than enough drama without AN/I post. It almost looked like the user tried to stir things up.

IMO after that message it might have been a good idea to apologize to a falsely accused person especially by someone, who gives advises how to apologize to other users.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to clarify; I reported the dispute you had with Daedalus969 not in any way an attempt to "stir things up", but rather calm things down. I found problems with all sides- yours for claiming harassment to warnings and blocking communication between Daedalus969; DarkFalls for making accussations of baiting (something that you can't be easily prove), and Daedalus969 for not coming to ANI despite so many warnings not working. —Mythdon 05:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "falsely accused" editor cannot be considered "falsely accused". That can only be if a checkuser were to prove there was no socking. The editor was not found innocent of sockpuppetry- only that there wasn't enough evidence, and that the benefit of the doubt be applied. That said, an apology isn't worth it, and the editor cannot be considered "falsely accused". —Mythdon 05:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, where we are differ. Being falsely accused 2 times in sockpuppetry myself, I know the feeling. IMO it is better to miss on a sock or two, than to report an innocent person, who has not caused any disruptions so far.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I ALSO attempted to address Mythdon's behaviour (in this post and was reverted and nearly rebuked (the next 2 diffs) for my time. I managed not to post my one-word opinion in reply, but I can't say I'm crushed by his block, either; something about "living by the sword"? GJC 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Block explanation requested

I do not see anything in the above, nor in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon banned and related pages, nor in any of his contributions that i have looked at (which is admittedly far from all of them, that warrants a block, much less an indef block. Perhaps User:FayssalF would explain exactly what actions of Mythdon required and warranted this bock? Because this is not clear to me, even if it is obvious to everyone else. DES 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps User talk:FayssalF would be a good place to request that explanation? See also User talk:FayssalF#Block of User:Mythdon (note it is collapsed for some reason, along with the rest of the threads on that page) –xeno 13:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks, as I understand it, are supposed to be reviewed and discussed on this board, particularly when they are in response to threads here. This has much greater transparency, particularly if the block winds up being challenged in due course. DES 14:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not typically. Blocks are discussed on this board if they are contentious or high-profile; they are not "supposed" to be by default. I've blocked over three thousand editors; good thing we didn't discuss every one on AN/I. Granted, the vast majority were vandals, but the point remains - ANI is not a default block review. Tan | 39 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, if a non-arbcom block is challenged, is ANI not the normal place for review? Particularly when the block results from an ANI discussion? While I am not yet prepared to challenge the above block, I don't see any valid reason for it at the moment, and if none were provided I might (depending on the results of my own research) be disposed to challenge it. Does the possibility of such a challenge from an uninvolved editor in good standing make the block contentious? Given that, is ANI not a proper place to ask for such an explanation? In any case I posted about this thread on User talk:FayssalF, indicating that I was asking for an explanation of the block, so if FayssalF prefers to respond on his own talk page, or for the matter of that on mine, that is an available option. Any such response could of course be copied or linked here if further discussion here seems needed. DES 17:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the block was issued not because of the thread, and was rather a coincidence. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To DES. The case of Mythdon has been discussed in depth from more than a year. This indefinite block makes an end to those lengthy —but empty— discussions. His AN/I reports on people he's got no business with was discussed more than enough at his talk page and the point was brought to the attention of the ArbCom during the case which involved him and an administrator who lost his administrative tools for good reasons.

As the drafting arbitrator of the abovementioned case, I must say that I am —obviously— well aware of all the details surrounding Mythdon's case. I'd urge you to read the case beforehand. This block is a result of a non-ending tendentious behavior by Mythdon. Although there were calls to restrict Mythdon from ArbCom and AN/I pages, I thought at the time that it was too harsh as a sanction. Now, after his case ended (refusing any kind of a mentorship) he chose —a couple of weeks later— to get back to his old habits. He then got a 6 months ban as a result of his actions. 6 months later and just days after his return, here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever.

P.S. It just happened that I am both the drafting arbitrator and the AE enforcing administrator. Please also note that I had asked Mythdon 17 explicit questions during the case. I really don't plan to ask any more question. Enough is enough. -- FayssalF - 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, FayssalF, for that explnation and those links. i will review them. DES 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I might also point out that Mythdon's last 500 edits to Misplaced Pages space only take us back to June 2009...quite a fixation given the 6-month ban that time period encompasses. There's nothing wrong with editing Misplaced Pages space, but...search that list of contributions for edits that include the phrase "statement by Mythdon" or "amendment" or "clarification" to get an idea of the drama that Mythdon has been involved in just since June. Note: I'm saying involved in very specifically; I don't presume to suggest it is all self-generated, but...much of it is perpetuated by Mythdon.  Frank  |  talk  03:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Small Comment, I must admit I haven't gone over his edits in the past 6 months, but from reading his posts that are on this board now, they seem fairly sound, in all cases were there disruptions taking place and likely actionable behavior. He seemed far less prone to incitement than the involved parties. Sure, perhaps he should have sought to have brought them to WQA or some other forum, but ideally we should welcome people trying to head off drama before it escalates, which imo is exactly what he seems to have been trying to do. His proposed remedies were if anything milder than what was sought by the injured parties. Again, I have not had the time to look into his history, but if FayssalF had considered restricting him from ANI yet not done so then he can't rightly be expected to know that he would be sought indeffed for bringing issues to our collective attention. By all means if it seems necessary then seek such a restriction, but his recent actions, by themselves, do not clearly seem to warrant indef. Perhaps I missed something crucial. Unomi (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You won't find any edit during the last 6 months as he was banned for 6 months. He has just returned last week and came straight to AN/I. I encourage you to go through his edits, his talk page history (the archives), ArbCom case and judge by yourself. I'll then listen to your views and be ready to unblock him (with an AN/I, ArbCom and policy pages restrictions) if you believe that would be beneficial to the project. Spending 99% of the time on AN/I (looking for disputes all over Misplaced Pages and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand), ArbCom pages and discussing policies is not what Misplaced Pages needs from its volunteers. -- FayssalF - 12:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon engages in 2 activities here on Misplaced Pages: RC patrolling, and diving headfirst in disputes, be that on talk pages, ANI, Arbcom or Rfc. The first he does pretty well, with the occasional incorrect rollback because of lack of attention. The second activity is where the problem lies. While well-intentioned, Mythdon is generally clueless about when to get involved and when to stay away, and how to properly conduct himself when he does get involved. Lately, his mission seems to be to go around like some kind of civility police, butting in every time someone utters a cuss word or isn't all but friendly with their fellow editors. It's quite aggravating and brings more heat than light. The main reason for the 6 month ban was Mythdon's refusal to get a clue. This clearly hasn't changed at all. Even now he's all "what do you mean, what concerns?" on his talk page.

If we're considering unblocking with restrictions, Mythdon should be restricted to mainspace editing. Just restricting him from ANI, Arbcom and policy pages won't do, because he'll just cause more trouble on user talk pages. I'm not a big fan of such restrictions because I feel it limits the editor too much, but I don't see any other way for Mythdon not to be a source of disruption. If this results in endless requests for clarification and amendment again like 6 months ago, block indef again.--Atlan (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose lifting the block and replacing it with yet another restriction. History has demonstrated that doing so will prove to be a timesink with this user, and not learning from this history would be just as clueless as his conduct imo. The amount of time he spends in these venues is more of a secondary issue; the primary problem is how he spends that time here, and the quality of those contributions. Weeks/months were spent providing evidence, then even more time was used to workshop and enact ideas (both before the case's conclusion, and after) that would give Mythdon plenty of opportunities to get his act together. Unfortunately, it has not been sinking in even after the 6 month ban, and many case findings still remain as relevant today as they did back then. To be frank, I'm surprised it took so long before someone reported this issue. The amount of good faith that has been extended to him has been enormous, and I'm left wondering how much longer we as a community are going to wait before formally cutting our losses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note - I already had a post-block discussion with Mythdon here, which Mythdon has since collapsed since it wasn't "getting anywhere". It's more of the same stuff...nothing has changed.  Frank  |  talk  16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

It is clear from the above that Mythdon's approach and conduct has not changed after his return from a 6 month ArbCom ban and the multitude of sanctions that have been tried. I don't want any administrator who happens to stumble upon an unblock request in the future to reverse the effect of this block without community approval, regardless of whether the appeal is made directly to the community or via ArbCom. Therefore, I formally propose the following:

1. Mythdon is indefinitely community banned from Misplaced Pages.
2. Mythdon may not appeal this ban more than once a year.
3. Mythdon may not appeal this ban more than once every four months.

• Support both as proposer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)seems to be going in direction of de-facto ban, but added additional proposal seeing this is being considered anyway.
• Seems unnecessary at this point - user is indefinitely blocked and an administrator would be foolish to unblock without looking deeper into the issue (somewhat ironically, it is partly for these types of proposals that Mythdon is blocked!). –xeno 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • However, there is no restriction on the number of times Mythdon is permitted to appeal which was the type of problem that led to the ban, per here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They haven't even put a single unblock yet which is an improvement over past performance. –xeno 17:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
      • There's nothing to suggest that this circumstance will remain permanently though; if he can continue from where he left off 6 months earlier, I don't see why we have to reopen such a discussion 1 month later, 3 months later, or even 6 months later when it occurs. This may just be a formality, but it's effect is more preventative than a straight block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Mythdon is notorious for his number of appeals concerning his arbcom imposed restrictions. However, he takes something of a defeatist attitude toward blocks (collapsing discussions, asking for his talk page to be full-protected, etc.), so I think imposing a sanction to restrict his number of appeals is unnecessary. Let's just mark this topic resolved and go on with our lives. If no administrator is willing to unblock him, he's de facto banned anyway.--Atlan (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• If ever understands why what he's doing is a problem, and works to avoid it, then I'm sure he'd be a welcome member of the community. Despite the continued problems, I'm somewhat reluctant to community ban him outright, especially with that limited number of appeals (if this is considered, it should be six months or less per appeal). As of right now, he's blocked, and I doubt too many would willingly unblock him considering the notes in his block log. Hersfold 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

POV at Whitefish Mountain Resort

Starting back in December, various IPs (each an SPA user) have been turning up at the Whitefish Mountain Resort article and inserting the POV statement that a reverse stock split "was regarded as a hostile takeover", a statement which is pure original research. The material has been removed by a handful of editors (mainly myself, but a couple others as well). My best guess is that the user is the same as the IPs who have been characterizing the reverse split as such on the talk page for nearly two years.

I posted on the talk page about the edits at Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort#POV of "Hostile takeover", but there have been no replies to dispute my comment that there are no reliable sources which describe the transaction as a hostile takeover (and it's a different type of transaction than described at hostile takeover, so it's not a common usage issue).

The article was protected March 8th for one week; the protection expired this morning followed a few hours later by the IP again restoring the POV. I was uncertain as to the best way to respond to such a tenacious editor; either to request longer page protection, to request dispute resolution (which seems pointless as the IP has not posted to the talk page since the start of these edits), or to request here for more eyes to monitor the page. I chose to start with the last of those here, and to move forward from here based on suggestions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how the admins can help us here, right now. A longer semi-protection might be worthwhile. Or we can just steadily revert the anon. There are at least 2 sets of eyes on the article. Maybe just kill the change steadily a couple of days and if the anon just won't talk and just won't stop, lock it again for a while or request a block for the anon then. Say, Thursday unless the anon breaks 3RR?- Sinneed 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that blocking the anon would be effective - he/she rarely edits more than a couple times under the same IP. And the anon's edits are usually no more than one per day - so it's too slow-motion of an edit war for 3RR to likely ever become an issue. That just leaves extending the semi-protection, or getting more eyes on the article to manual revert the POV material (which, hopefully, this ANI thread will encourage others to also watch and/or comment on the article talk page). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You and I are watching. The reasoning for non-inclusion is pretty clear: fails wp:NPOV and wp:V. The article could certainly use more eyes and editors.- Sinneed 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this IP editor has worn out his welcome long ago. See the protection log for the background. The article first came to my attention on 16 August, 2008, through a request at WP:RFPP. Since all the edits are so boringly similar, I think we can safely conclude that this is a single individual who has a grievance against the management of the Whitefish Mountain Resort and just never gives up. See Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort if you think there is any glimmer of good faith here. Due to this IP editor's tenacity, and their lack of response to feedback, I suggest that one year of semiprotection would be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My last revert lasted 26 minutes. I support the long semiprotection, this is a time-waster on a very minor article, and clearly the anon strongly feels this belongs in the article (edit to add) and cannot or will not provide a source.- Sinneed 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To employ the finance term "hostile takeover" certainly doesn't imply point of view. It has an objective definition.

However, it was not a hostile takeover, but a going-private transaction.

Appears 600+ shareholders were 72% of total shareholders owning less than 3 percent total equity. My guess is, these were locals with emotional attachment to their "ownership" rather than financial. These holders were required by the transaction to get cashed out.

See ]

In this sense, perhaps, the transaction was "hostile" to the emotional interests of some of the shareholders, though this is merely an assumption.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But, as you stated, this is only an assumption - original research that has no source available for it.

I agree with others above that long-term semi-protection is the best available alternative at this stage. Misplaced Pages isn't the place for soapboxing of opinions, reliable sources are needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected for 1 month. It may be worth marking this resolved. One may hope the anon will be satisfied with the expansion of the section on the reverse split, or at least moved to talk.- Sinneed 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted on March 15, 2010 by User:Binksternet

The article "Steinway D-274" created on March 13, 2010 was deleted today by User:Binksternet. The article was – against the Misplaced Pages proces – deleted without noticing the creator of the article. Furthermore, the article was deleted before anyone could make the requested changes and before a discussion was started on the discussion page.

If User:Binksternet does nor like the article he still must follow the processes on Wikipeida. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted, the article was just redirected to another. Such disagreements should be sorted out at the article talk page. I do see a budding editwar at the article, which should stop. Ucucha 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Du you have an intern link to the article?

"Such disagreements should be sorted out at the article talk page." – But if one can not find the article and the talk page?

"I do see a budding editwar at the article, which should stop." – Where? Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Steinway & Sons. SGGH 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Steinway D-274. Ucucha 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Links failed. They do not display the article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See the history. Binksternet changed the page into a redirect to Steinway & Sons. Ucucha 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Steinway_D-274#References there is a discussion forming about the remade article. What has been seen by editors Karljoos and myself is that the article Steinway D-274 is a recreation of a previously deleted article, without any establishment of notability—the same problem that it had last time. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is completely new and created few days ago.

If one has requests about sources/references or other he can write these on a discussion page - not just redirect the page, of course. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining what the deleted article was that this is a recreation of. I see no deleted edits in the history of Steinway D-274 or Steinway model D-274 (concert grand piano). I see no discussion at Talk:Steinway_D-274#References about it being a recreation of a deleted article. I have some concerns about the accuracy of some of Binksternet's claims here. -- Atama頭 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See Steinway Model D-274 and Steinway model D-274 (concert grand piano). —DoRD (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not an administrator, and I have no ability to delete an article. What I'm referring to is the deletion of all content in an article, to change it into a redirect, as I did here in August 2009 with the article Steinway Model D-274, an action which was arrived at after talk page discussion. That same action was upheld three months later by User:THD3 in this edit here. I am aware that Fanoftheworld considers his creation of the article Steinway D-274 a new one, however, the subject matter is the the same, and the same lack of reliable sources is evident. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But the article that I have created on March 13, 2010, is a new article. If a new article about the same subject is made, and you think it got the same problem as the old article, you must remember and respect that it is a new article.
If you think an article needs references, you can write that on the talk page instead of redirecting the article.
You claim on the discussion page for the new article that there is a lack of references/sources that mention the model "D-274". The problem is that you do not know that D-274 is also known as "Steinway's concert grand piano" – D-274 is the only Steinway model, which is a concert grand piano. Furthermore, the look of the D-274 is different from all other Steinway models – one of the differences is that the D-274 has a Steinway logo decorated on the side. So there is no lack of references/sources. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This still does not appear to be an ANI issue. --Smashville 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Errr. Wait a second. It seems we do have a much larger issue here. Fanoftheworld appears to be a Steinway & Sons promotional account. Virtually every single one of his 2000+ edits (yes, 2000+) is either adding Steinway & Sons information to a page, removing the name of competing company in edits such as these, removing positive information about a company, adding fact tags to articles on competing companies on some very mundane sentences. While many of these edits are within policy individually, when looked at as a whole, you kind of get an idea of the motive of this account. --Smashville 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To Binksternet... Please keep in mind that a delete and redirect are two very different things. When it comes to article recreation, if an article was previously deleted through a discussion of some kind (such as WP:AFD) then recreating the article with substantially similar content, or not addressing concerns raised in the deletion discussion, might merit an automatic deletion of the article per G4. Also, if the article was previously deleted through speedy deletion the old speedy deletion rationale might apply to the new article which would also result in immediate deletion. Edit summaries such as this one are misleading at best. If someone objects to the previous decision to redirect, then a new discussion is warranted. An edit war to enforce the previous discussion is not acceptable, and at present you are one revert away from violating WP:3RR.

To Fanoftheworld, if you are in any way affiliated with Steinway & Sons, an acknowledgment of that affiliation would go a long way toward gaining the community's trust. I strongly recommend declaring such an affiliation on your user page. -- Atama頭 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To User:Atama, I am not affiliated with Steinway & Sons in any way. I am only a young Steinway fan, who is proud of Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Which leads to things like WP:COI anyway through bias. Are you sure your contributions are not affected by your liking of Steinway? SGGH 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The amount of bias coming from his edits is simply astounding. Just some examples in the last week or two: removes brand from one artistbut adds to anotheradds this to dozens of college pagesnominates a competing product for deletiona fact tag on a photo --Smashville 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is astounding, but in his defense, Fanoftheworld has taken part in editing a few articles about Freemasonry and lawyers' groups—nothing to do with pianos. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To Atama: Please forgive me for using the word 'delete' inexactly. Unfortunately for our purposes here, its use in English includes both the deletion of all content from an article, saving its web address, and the deletion of that article's web address along with its text. I will be more careful in the future. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem Binksternet, I just wanted to let you know that it could lead to confusion (at least it did for me, I spent quite a while trying to track down what page got deleted). :)

As to Fanoftheworld, our conflict of interest guidelines cover affiliations, not just bias. Bias alone doesn't constitute a COI, bias leads to POV editing, which is different from, and in most cases much worse than a COI. A COI just means you need to look more carefully at a person's edits, while editing with a POV is just disruptive. Our neutrality policy is a core part of Misplaced Pages and it's a big deal when someone flouts it. If, as Binksternet suggests, Fanoftheworld is productive outside of Steinway-related topics, then perhaps a topic ban would be appropriate, restricting Fanoftheworld from editing articles about Steinway, or perhaps pianos in general. -- Atama頭 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If a topic ban is considered, it would have to be all piano articles, as we have seen Fanoftheworld push POV-driven changes against other piano makes and models, such as nominating the Imperial Bösendorfer for deletion, a proposal with scant validity. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-Inflicted Block

Hi. I am wondering whether there is any such thing as a voluntary block, e.g. if I asked to block my account for one year, without me being able to change my mind and requesting it be undone, would that be possible? I'm far too technically skilled to be constrained by the Wikibreak Enforcer! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'm sure you're also technically skilled enough to make a new account if your old one is blocked. You realize the kind of time-consuming nonsense you'll create if you ask for an "irrevocable" block and then later ask for it to be lifted? Give the poor admins a break. If you want to self-block your account permanently, just scramble your password. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are admins who are willing to perform such blocks; see User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements for one example of criteria for doing so. Ucucha 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Use Wikibreak Enforcer but start with a shorter period. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record I have refused this request because Red Hat is currently involved in an ArbCom case and there is at least one proposal specifically related to him on the table. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Abfall-Reiniger has performed quiestionable article moves w/out discussion

Just a heads up for admins: User:Abfall-Reiniger has performed the following moves on the following articles (which I have all reverted):

• Noynoy Aquino -> Noynoy Aquino, the champion of Philipipne politics
• Manny VIllar -> Manny Cuttervillar
• Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo -> Fernandina Edralina Marcos - in reference to Philippine dictator
• Prospero Nograles -> Prospering Nograles (as in "prospering" the verb)
• Diosdado Macapagal -> GMA's father - in reference to Pres. Arroyo
• Silvio Berlusconi -> Silvia Berlusconi - changed gender

In these moves, no requests were made, and no discussion took place. These moves appear to be politically motivated, as the affected articles are about politicians. As mentioned, I've reverted these moves. Thanks in advance. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From comments he made on a few userpages, it seems he was blocked for a day on de:wiki only to request an indef block which was granted, as he also did here. Since that was denied, perhaps hes gone rogue--Jac16888 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought so, too, after taking a look at the user's recent edits. I've left level-1 user warnings in the meantime. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

aaaand now they're indef. blocked. Woogee (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Big Axe

Big Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been changing dates and order numbers on various politicians' articles. It is not looking good at all. Could anyone check their edits so as to understand if it is vandalism or something else? Dr.K.  02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but I'm interested to know why you've given the user 2nd warnings for every offense, and haven't elevated within the warning levels. He's definitely not listening every warning, from what I see. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I was losing hope that this will be responed to :) Good question. The reason for not escalating the warnings is because I am not completely sure as to the motives of the user. Some of his edits appear not to be vandalism. So I went on a holding pattern until vandalism was proved beyond any doubt. This guy is either a prolific editor who knows much more than any editor as far as orders of succession and dates than anyone in those articles he edited or he must be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I am simply not knowledgeable enough in these areas to make this call in absolute confidence. Dr.K.  10:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland and "Long form name"

There is a user, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives who seems to have a pattern of trying to add something he calls "long form names" of countries to every page he can. I didn't know this and reverted an edit he made earlier to Iceland. This particular edit was only recently the subject of lengthy debate. After reverting the edit I left a message on the talk page. His response lead me to believe that he might actually have a mental disorder, especially a remark asking why I want to "suppress" the name. While I was writing a reply he changed to contentious information again. I've asked that he try to reach consensus on the issue in the relevant discussion section. I don't want to be involved in an edit war, especially with someone who may not be reasonable at all. I'm choosing not to revert his info back. I'm sure other concerned editors will. I only wanted to make the sysops aware of the situation as I'm certain this will not be the only time ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! will engage in this behavior. Thank you for your time. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When you post here, your required to inform the parties involved, see top of this page for clarification. I've done it for you this time, please remember next time. Cheers.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He is technically in the right, the Icelandic constitution does use Republic of Iceland and many of our country articles do have the short form, then followed by the long form. Libya is the best example. User:Zscout370 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his previous name, ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), does not have a mental disorder. He does have a strongly held opinion on the long form names of countries, especially when it comes to Canada and Talk:Canada/Officialname1. Unfortunately this leads to problems with his editing and interactions with others. something lame from CBW 08:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as he is not moving the article to the long name, it is perfectly acceptable to add the long name into articles. User:Zscout370 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But not to use it in every instance in which the country is referred to, which gets repetitive and is stylistically poor. Once the full name is established, the colloquial name should be used most often, with occasional returns to the full name as needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. User:Zscout370 00:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of editors at Talk:Iceland have been claiming that 'Republic of Iceland' is *not* the official name. Consensus may not be clear, it is something like three editors to two against 'Republic of Iceland' among those who commented on that page. But meanwhile ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! made four reverts in 24 hours on 16 March, changing the article text to insist that 'Republic of Iceland' is the official name. (Reverts at 02:20, 02:59, 08:39 and 11:44, getting a 3RR warning at 04:22). Previously, he has urged that 'Dominion of Canada' is the official name of Canada, and this claim does *not* have consensus. He has been fighting battles like this one since 2005. (See Talk:Canada/Officialname1). Since he is clearly not waiting for consensus to form at Iceland, I suggest a 24-hour block if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has a long term history of disruptive edits and blocks on a range of articles. The ones on Iceland follow the same pattern as on previous occassions and its not just on the official names. British Isles articles, Middle Francia, its a long list. Given his history a 24 hour block is unlikely to have any effect, even ones for several weeks have not made a difference. I'd suggest some more substantial unless he accepts mentoring. At the very least a general 1RR restriction on all articles --Snowded 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, ZScout, CambridgeBayWeather, (i.e., the "Hang-em High" crowd),

Frankly, there is "no-love" lost between "us". As per my edits on Middle Francia, and the Rigsfællesskabet they were (i). correct, and (ii). helpful.

With the others ... British Isles (per Snowded), and Dominion of Canada (per ZScout), and I believe "folke-songs" with CambridgeBayWeather (I believe he that he was "un-aware" of the "America -- the Beautiful" song) ... your respective opinions really can-not be called "Neutral".

With regards to the (1918-1944), the country's Name was Konungsríkið Ísland (i.e., Kingdom of Iceland), and then after (1944), the country's Names was Lýðveldið Ísland (i.e., Republic of Iceland), ... you know what ... let the mistake of just Ísland stand. Who care's weither Misplaced Pages is correct or not (I've got better things to do, like learning foreign languages and linguistics, on my own, ... correctly).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you looked at my comments here, I said adding the long name is perfectly acceptable in the article (but the article should not be moved to that long title). I gave Libya as a prime example of something that is constantly used in Misplaced Pages. Plus, people told you that there is no RS about the long title. The Icelandic Constitution does use Republic of Iceland at least once, so it will be perfectly acceptable to add in the article (but just don't break 3RR while doing it). User:Zscout370 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting what the problem is here. The country's official name is the "Republic of Iceland", so says the Encyclopedia Brittannica, the CIA World Fact Book and the country's own constitution presented on the official website.. The country's colloquial name is "Iceland". The official name should be used in the infobox and the lede, and then sparingly throughout the article whenever it's appropriate. No? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I am saying! User:Zscout370 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To Zscout370 and Beyond My Ken, just to clarify, the lengthy discussion on the talk page has been about whether or not the full name actually includes "Republic of", based on the fact that in the (Icelandic version) of the constitution "lýðveldið" (=republic) is written with a lower-case l, and on an answer from the prime minister's office stating that the official name is simply Iceland, and republic of is a description. Some sense of consensus had been reached, at least to the extent that those initially involved stopped complaining or editing, before the recent brief edit skirmish. I've been following the discussion out of curiosity, but with absolutely no interest in seeing one outcome or the other (a feeling that seems to be shared by Iceland, if in fact "Republic of" is not part of its name, given that they routinely sign diplomatic papers referring to the country as Republic of Iceland). StephenHudson (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, don't go with the politician, who's apt to tell you whatever accords with his or her polical philosophy, go with the bureaucracy which, being innately conservative and abhorrent of change, tell you what's been done for a long time. If they sign treaties as the "Republic of Iceland", then "Republic of" is not a description, it's a name, since that's how they present themselves to the rest of the world.

In these matter, politicans can't be trusted, but bureaucracies, being inherently conservative, can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN, 3RR/Disruptive editing

Special:Contributions/Dapi89 appears to be reverting all edits automatically in History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) and appears to try to assume the ownership of the article. I tried to add a couple of tags into the article where I though the text was either poorly written, or where the information was somewhat dubious and needed discussion, or when was unclear about which period the sentence referred to, and wikilink some related articles into the text.

When I looked at the history page, I found that this user was automatically reverting everything, not even a minute passed and obviously no serious consideration given to it. He even reverted changes of correcting small typos like a wikilink to "Naval avition" being changed to "naval aviation". I did not want to go on an edit war with him, knowing his history, so I didn't revert.

• First revert, on grounds of "sourced"
• Second revert, on grounds of "obvious"
• Third revert, on ground of "sourced"
• Fourth revert, though I really don't know what his problem this time...
• Fifth revert within 8 hours: "reverted all changes"

Moreover this editor seems to start to follow my edits in other articles. In the Battle of Britain article to which I added a some casualty numbers from the article's talk page, on grounds that they "removed. No source. If you want the figures from terraine, ask.". The irony is overwhelming, as obviously both the figures were sourced to Terraine, which was discussed and was shockingly given by this very same editor on the talk page - an obvious case of bad faith reverting, though its in an other article, and technically no 3RR, it shows the pattern. At this point he seems to be reverting just for the sake of getting confrontational.

It looks very much like that he has wish to 'own' that article as well, but given the violent, disruptive and confrontational nature of this editor in the past (he was blocked several times for personal attacks and systematic harassment of me, which showed the same pattern, ie. following me on articles to revert my edits), and his similar attitude and methods in other articles and other editors (see: Battle of Kursk article for a similiar pattern of auto-reverting another editor), it seems to be a waste of time to try to talk sense into him. He knows the rules already, he was warned literally dozens of times, he was blocked for this exact same behaviour, he promised to change several times but he remains the same. He simply doesn't want to discuss anything seriously with anyone (very typical: Talk:Battle_of_Kursk#dubios_markings - I love this line: "Firstly, kill the attitude. Second, that's nonsense."), its much easier to revert everybody and dismiss them with one-liners. So, I just won't waste my time on a hopeless case - its been tried already. Kurfürst (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kurfürst. I'm sure you just missed the notification at the top of the page, but you are required to notify users involved in your ANI thread to tell them you have created it. I have left a message on Dapi89's talk for you. SGGH 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be issues with WP:OWN, editing "style", and attitude regarding Dapi89's editing of these articles. I would be interested in their response - or even if there is one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m not dignifying this with a prolonged response, and I haven’t bothered to read the diatribe by Kurfurst. He has a habit of making these accusations about every editor who disagrees with him. Kurfurst is a long term tendentious editor who seems to follow me around wikipedia and cause me difficulty. I the past I have responded heavy hand idly, and it has got me into to trouble. If you a look at Kurfurst's history you will see what kind of editor he is. I have managed to work well with the overwhelming number of editors in the past, but this guy is agenda driven. He was blocked indefinitely once; unfortunately some bright spark gave him another chance. He hasn't learned.

As far as the articles are concerned (particularly the Luftwaffe page), one will notice he deletes without discussion and makes false accusations of forgery here. The Luftwaffe article is one I have worked to bring up to standard. But Kurfurst is trying to cause trouble, as usual. Inflicting his own perception of events and deleting sources whenever he pleases. I created a battle of Belgium article last year, which is now at GA. Kurfurst was a leading force for its deletion. This just another attempt to ruin the work I've put in.

The nonsense he is spouting about the battle of Kursk is an indication of Kurfursts intentions. The editor in question has been blocked repeatedly. He brings it up here as pathetic 'proof' of wrong doing. To me this is block shopping, which he does often. As to the battle of Britain page. Kurfurst has a long history there; the one everyone is always combating. He doesn't have the source. If he wants it in the article, all he has to do is remind/request it via my talk page like any normal person.

Is it any wonder I reverted him? Is it any wonder his reputation is appalling?

Perhaps the admin reviewing this would look at Kurfursts recent history: he has been accused of the same thing 9OWN and DISRPUTIVE, justifiably) and is now making the same (erroneous) accusations against me: here. He's disruptive, uncooperative and unpleasant. If anyone is being disruptive, it is Kurfurst.

That’s it from me. Dapi89 (talk ) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could well be right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm far from being Kurfürst's favourite admin; see these polemical rants about my conflict of interest, misuse of the admin tools, favouritism and abuse of power following me blocking him for disrupting a talk page for months on end. Also note that I unblocked Dapi back in July 2009 after he'd been blocked for becoming frustrated with Kurfürst and stepping over the mark. I've never had any cause to regret either unblocking Dapi or blocking Kurfürst. Kurfürst seems to leave a trail of annoyed and suspicious editors in his wake; frankly I think he needs to tone down his combative attitude before we start looking at his presence on Misplaced Pages from a cost/benefit perspective. EyeSerene 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Feng shui and User:ThAmKuEnWeI

I apologise if this is not the appropriate place to put this - if so, please let me know for future. User:ThAmKuEnWeI created a page that was previously deleted: Tham_Fook_Cheong, mostly about a feng shui practitioner. Also, he blanked out a large part of the criticism section from Feng Shui. I've listed the article for speedy - is this appropriate? And can someone look over it to make sure I've done it correctly? Thanks. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Misplaced Pages! This is not the right place to post something like this. ANI is for things that require admin attention. It seems that you've done everything right tagging the page, just let an admin and delete it and rereport him too WP:AIV if he continues.--SKATER 12:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages? He's been here a year... Anyway, page deleted per G4 (someone who spends more time than me at AFD could do me a favor and clean up the AFD (if not, I'll get to it in a couple of hours)). Left a note on User talk:ThAmKuEnWeI as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ukexpat. I do it so seldom, I have to find, then read, the instructions each time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I used a script. Now if I just had the time to hunt through my monobook.js to find it... – ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

English Democrats Political Position

Dear Administrators,

I see that the page about the English Democrats describes them as being 'Right Wing'. The only sources provided for this Political Position is:

1) A link to an article in The Telegraph from 30 Sep 2007 about Christine Constable, but Christine Constable stood down and left the Party in 2008, please see the following link : http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/english-democrats/52891-christine-constable-steps-down-edp-vice-chairman.html

2) A link to an article in East London Advertiser

In my opinion these are two very weak sources to use to label a political party. Until better sources can be found with which to label the Party I would like to suggest the 'Political Position' should be left blank.

If something needs to be added to the Political Position shouldn't someone consult the manifesto and make an intelligent informed decision?

Yours faithfully

Silvatici4

Link to the English Democrats website: http://en.wikipedia.org/English_Democratic_Party#cite_note-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to need administrator attention at present - it should be discussed at Talk:English Democrats Party to find consensus there. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-keeper refactoring other user's talk pages

The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk · contribs) removed another user's content here ]. I restored and placed notice here ]. User reverted again ]. 15:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

Surely some mistake! The Magnificent Clean-keeper had closed the discussion at Wikiquette Alerts and another user started adding material to it (and actually refactoring MCk's closing comment). MCk then removed the material that had been added to the closed discussion, reopened the discussion and invited the editor concerned to add their comments. Why has that been reported here? Bluewave (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks to point this out Bluewave. Please take a look at the history and my editsummaries at wp:wikiquette alerts and user:Zlykinskyja. That should put things in perspective. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to add my view of the discussion, which Magnificient deleted so that only his view of the discussion would be seen. There has been a long term pattern of harassment and intimidation by Magnificent Clean-Keeper against me, intended to drive me off of the article and off the project, including WikiHouding. I am now so filled with stress that I cannot continue participating today or for a while. He indicated that he intends to 'get rough' with me and used disgusting profanity at me. I have offered mediation as a solution. But I think he and Bluewave just want to get me off the article. Beyond this, I can't say more today because I have serious illness in the family and a flooding problem and these people are just filling me with feelings of stress and intimidation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

More misinterpretation of the events and more personal attacks that are addressed at wp:Wikiquette alerts here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No personal attack at all. My concerns are valid ones. But obviously now will not be considered since the complaint is already "resolved", by what means I do not know. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File deleted in error

Merged thread with WP:AN#User:Melesse –xeno 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please help

At Daniel Rodriguez someone keep putting wrong Olympic song sung by tenor. He sang "America The Beautiful".. There are a few mistakes in articles such as Media Wire article that names incorrectly as God Bless America, - that is not correct. There are now 3 sources including from Beijjing that show the correct song, in this article. Can this be helped to keep correct. Thanks 66.216.233.50 (talk)

This comment has been copied to Talk:Daniel Rodríguez#Can someone please help. The editors who are active on that article are the best folks to ask for help. Thanks. — Satori Son 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

new editor who seems like a PoV pusher and is escalating

I was trying to keep Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs) from here, but if this editor is going to start complaining about the level of his/her headings on talk pages – as here – then I really have no option but to suggest that the ditor does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind when he/she makes their edits. As Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being used as a single purpose account, I would request a permaban. Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly suggest not. The number of contributions to date does not allow us to identify him as an SPA -- just one who hasn't found another subject to work on yet. I see no admin action needed at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you failed to notify IVP as is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An "new editor" who deliberately blanks all contributions to their talk page has forgone such niceties, I'm afraid. Physchim62 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, that's definitely not the case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change my section to a subsection on that page? What gives you the right to change my input on talkpages? I only joined wikipedia to fix what seemed to me like a grave misreprensetation of information on the Cod Wars article so maybe I am an spa but so what? The best name for The Icesave referendum might not be "The Icesave referendum" I don't really know but per my input on the talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article_Google_Results it should be obvious to anyone that the current name of the article simply just won't do.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, a look at the "contributions" – if not just at the username – shows that this is an account which has been created solely for the purpose of SOAPBOXing a particular political view: two "contributions" on January 31 (to set a date for autoconfirmed status) and then nothing until March 11, when the account becomes used for soapboxing. The very first edit by this account, or at least the edit summary, is quite instructive: this is an "editor" who knows how to get through the usual filters but, of course, his or her edit was not actually "thoroughly explained on talk page", just that nobody bothered to check! Physchim62 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These accusations are outrageous I am not soapboxing but working on having the name of the article changed. As for my Cod wars edit, how could I POSSIBLY! have explained it any better on that talk page? Are baseless accusations like these considered positive and tolorated her on wikipedia?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the value of IVP's contributions, there is nothing here that warrants a permaban. SPA's are not a permabannable offense, and it's jumping the gun to call him an SPA at this point. Beyond that, that he used an edit summary when deleting content to point out that he was going to explain on the talk page is admirable (which he did do, whether it was as "thorough" as you wanted or not), not a bannable offense. It is assuming bad faith of the worst order to be insinuating what you are insinuating when what IVP did was exactly what he was supposed to do -- use an edit summary to indicate that he would explain his change on the talk page, and then he explained it. I do not know, nor do I care to comment, on the value of his contributions, being wholly unfamiliar with the original topic, but this is not a permaban, or even really a blockable or bannable offense type situation at all, to my eyes. I see no evidence of edit-warring or anything else I'd expect to see given the accusations here. And, really, again the insinuation above is just frightfully bad form. The autoconfirm bit is indefensible. It doesn't even make any rational sense, given the criteria for autoconfirm status.

Also, nobody foregoes "such niceties" as a notification about an ANI you've raised about them. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you remind why I'm not an admin. I simply don't want to be associated with the likes of you... Physchim62 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the likes of we who actually read contribution histories in response to an AN/I report? Sorry to disappoint you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Yet another Truthseekers666 IP sock blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Image added to WP:BADIMAGE list.

Request to enable Abuse filter blocking

The wallflowers case is well.. almost as much as the DY71 case. Unfortunately, the amount of disruption is much, much higher. Therefore, I request that the AF be allowed to block. This would stop WF socks from getting more edits in if they succeed in getting past it. I know that this will likely snow oppose.. but I have to try..— Dædαlus 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two questions, does this person abuse their talk page/email once blocked, and of the 58 hits for the filter, how many are false positives?--Jac16888 04:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't abuse their talk page because they abandon an account just after using it for less than five edits. As to the FPs, I'll get back to you on that. Need to switch computers.— Dædαlus 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done a cursory look through the filter. There were some false positives early on, this is to be expected as this was during a testing period. Since then, the only false positive I have seen is one that occurred on the 17th of February; while it was appropriate that the edit was blocked, this was not the target of the filter and it has since been completely overhauled and wouldn't match that edit anymore. I have very high confidence in this particular filter right now, though I admit I may be a bit biased in this belief. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If the filter is accurate to a high degree, then I would support allowing it to block, provided it doesn't remove talk page/email access. --Jac16888 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the filter could actually revoke talk page/email access if we wanted to. (That is, without making a filter that says "users can't edit talk pages", of course) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I support this configuration change, provided it is used with the utmost care and filters are double checked and triple checked, preferably with code reviews. Inappropriate automated blocking is the ultimate in WP:BITE. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely if the filter can block users it can remove talk and email, since the two are block options just like blocking account creation etc--Jac16888 05:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't be sure, given that that option has never been enabled; it's just my understanding. I could certainly be wrong; I'm basing my knowledge solely off of what's available at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this configuration change with regard to edit filter 278. The last dozen hits cover several weeks of activity and show no false positives. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Help request wrt the Account Creation Tool Access

Hi guys. Stifle had enabled the Account Creation Tool Access for me. Unfortunately, I am not able to log on because (1)I forgot the password (2) The Password recovery mechanism is not working for me (3) SQL, who is supposed to handle such issues, is out of action currently (4) Stifle's additional support by deleting my original ACC account and asking me to create a new account, also has not worked. Would anyone be able to help me out here or give me suggestions on the next step? Thanks in advance and regards. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ 06:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock of User:Roman888

Prolific copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888 has re-emerged as User:MostlyMaybe. His contributions have been to restore four pages deleted for copyright violations. I ask for User:MostlyMaybe to be blocked as a confirmed sock and for the G5 deletion and salting (because of multiple copyvio recreations) of:

• Military Scandals in Malaysia
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Armed Forces
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Air Force
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Navy

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the two that weren't already redirected. Give me a minute to check the SPI if there is one. SGGH 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one, but per WP:DUCK I have indef'd MostlyMaybe for recreating topics with copyrighted material along very similar lines to recently blocked Roman888. SGGH 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal application of WP:SALT and redirect protection applied. MLauba (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:41.234.174.35

This user seems to be engaged in an edit war at Ashram; from the looks of it he's been blanking the article and replacing it with Arabic text. Since I'm getting the impression this user isn't fluent in English (and thus cannot understand the warnings presently on his talk page, let alone an AN/I notification), could someone fluent in Arabic please point him towards the Arabic WP? —Jeremy 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, another admin has properly protected the article. — Satori Son 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikhailov Kusserow archiving issues, again,

Mikhailov Kusserow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user was previously warned, and blocked, because they were archiving pages without consensus, and project pages which they were not members of. They have begun doing so again. Can someone please put a stop to this? I'll find the original thread tomorrow, I need to sleep right now. They have been notified of this thread. Also, if any doubt what I say here, simply check the history of their user talk page.— Dædαlus 08:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something they archived 1 page 12 days ago, got reverted, and haven't done it since. Maybe just a reminder on their talk page would've been fine? –xeno 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Left-arm orthodox spin

Could somebody please review the protection of the Left-arm orthodox spin article. YellowMonkey and myself got into an edit war over the inclusion of Mohammad Rafique, a discussion was started on the talk page to attempt and resolve the issue. YellowMonkey has been directed to the talk page on three occasions but has refused to participate, but two other users agree with me that Rafique should be included. The article was then protected by SpacemanSpiff following a request on his talkpage by YellowMonkey. It seems grossly unfair that YellowMonkey preferred version is protected when a talkpage discussion, which he refuses to participate in, shows more support for the opposing view. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not at Requests for Comment? This is a content dispute first. Not an ANI issue. SGGH 11:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have begun discussion on the talk page, and shall ask Yellowmonkey and Spiff to weigh in promptly. I believe this ANI thread should be closed as the situation will be in hand. It's overkill to bring it here in the first place IMO. SGGH 11:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff performed a poor administrative action and I would like it to be reversed, that's why this thread was started here. It's not simply a content dispute it's a issue of admins working together to help themselves out of trouble, that's a serious matter which shouldn't be swept under the carpet. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked Spiff to review his action? SGGH 11:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff has protected the article to stop edit warring on the article, and not to take sides with YellowMonkey as far as I can see. The current version is the one that existed before the dispute began, which is the one that is usually protected. The fact that YellowMonkey requested protection makes no difference. Protection of the page seems appropriate to me, but it may naturally be The Wrong Version ;) ≈ Chamal  ¤ 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose it was poor coincidence that SpacemanSpiff protected the article just minutes after YellowMonkey had reverted an edit which took place six hours previous. I wasn't born yesterday Chamal. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... didn't you read my comment? I said that version was protected because it was the one that existed before the dispute, not because it was the "YellowMonkey preferred version" as you say. I would have done the same if I was the protecting admin, and if that wasn't the current version I would have reverted to it before protecting. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 14:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually in your previous comment you said the current version is the one that is usually protected, I was responding to as why the YellowMonkey preferred version just so happened to be the current version at the time the protection was placed. What version are you referring to as 'before the dispute' because the adding of Rafique by various users and it's removal by YellowMonkey has been going on for years. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by "current version is the one that existed before the dispute began" was that the current version was the same as the version that existed before the dispute. Sorry about any confusion that may have caused. By "before the dispute" I mean the version before the Rafique issue escalated (around February). Addition and removal of various bowlers has happened before that, of course. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SGGH for informing me about this. This has been in a low-grade edit war for about 6-8 weeks and therefore I protected it (full-protection, so that it doesn't favor one party over the other). When I came to protect the article, that version was closest to the version before this dispute started, so I left it at that and posted on the talk page asking to arrive at a consensus on what should/shouldn't be included and noting that I'd unprotect earlier if that consensus was reached. —SpacemanSpiff 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat to sue me for slander in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eberhard Booe

Resolved – Blocked, but leave to someone else to do next time.

User:Rvbooe gave me 24 hours warning, about 14 hours ago, that he was going to sue me for slander, etc. due to a comment I made in the course of the discussion in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eberhard Booe. I've blocked him and given him the NLT template notification. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume it was this edit is the reason for the block. I agree with blocking under the circumstances but suggest you let another admin review then block/warn rather than acting youself. Gnangarra 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fairly clear-cut and appropriate to me. Interestingly unique interpretation of defamation there, I must say... --Xdamr 13:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it would've probably been best to let another admin do this, but I think the end result would've been the same. –xeno 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Jauerback/_dude. 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd been under the impression that under WP:NLT the block was the first thing; but if some other admin would like to revert mine and block it themselves, I certainly wouldn't object, just in the interest of procedural clarity and avoidance of any perception of bias. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary, noting that NLT isn't really something that's open to a lot of interpretation or bias. The legal threat he left you was clear and another admin would've blocked without delay. Next time though I would probably just say to post it at ANI. –xeno 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing to justify OrangeMike using his tools so urgently instead of leaving it to someone else. NLT, particularly in such clear threats, does warrant blocks first - but that doesn't mean admin guidelines are abandoned altogether. What we had is a block with a far greater chilling effect compared to the comment made by the editor. Obviously I will oppose lifting the block, and even if we got another admin to reimpose the block, it is useless in undoing any damage. But really, this level of involvement in blocking should not be happening - it's disappointing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (see also )

The result was inevitable so it doesn't matter who did it, he brought it here for review so transparency is preserved. No problem. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The vocalist has a point, and I consider myself appropriately chastised. If I thought I was above criticism, I wouldn't be worthy of wielding the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And here is an excellent example of an administrator who is actually receptive to criticism. :) It's something that is so easily lost or forgotten after doing a lot of tasks on-wiki, but it certainly should remind other trusted users on how to respond to criticism. Wow. :) :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Would an admin please take a look at a potential problem over at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)? This involves talk page disruption in the last week caused by editor User:Niteshift36. I suspect that some encouragement from an admin on that talk page might help move the discussions back towards improving the article and away from arguments about personal points of view. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I expected this. User:SaltyBoatr and I disagree on the inclusion of a graphic in the article. The bulk of the discussion has been by 2 editors that think it should be included and 2 who do not think it should be included. At my suggestion, Saltyboatr started a RfC. However, after only a couple of hours, he took it upon himself to declare the matter settled and that consensus was reached because the first 2 people to comment agreed with him. I contend, and I believe quite correctly, that a RfC should be allowed to run for more than a couple of hours. Saltyboatr then took this matter a step further by all of the sudden declaring a POV issue with all 50 tables being used in the article. I stated that I thought his sudden complaint was WP:POINTy and disruptive. He takes that as a "personal attack". I am trying to discuss the issue and doing so in good faith. I don't believe my actions are disruptive, but I do feel his latest complaint is disruptive. Further, I would like to hear some other opinions on whether declaring a matter settled after a couple of hours sounds proper or if a RfC should be allowed to run a couple of days. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RFCs should generally run for 30 days. This give time for a wide variety of editors to comment, not just the first few that agree with the filing party. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards