Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 2 December 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Talk page comments by MickMacNee

I'd like to report harassment/stalking by User talk:MickMacNee, per his comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if he's stalking me or User:Mjroots, but in either case the stalking is unwarranted. I was blocked on 31 October 2010 for "baiting Mick" on his talk page while he was blocked (Actually, I was trying to make fun of an admin, and the whole thing backfired. I learned my lesson anyway.) Anyway, I should be able to make comments in passing about someone without having to fear that they will feel the need to comment on it. In the case with Mick, he is known for harassing other users, especially at AFDs, and has been the subject of many ANIs in the past for such harassment, and other related behavioral issues. I'd like an injunction against his posting on my talk page for any reason other than gving notices reguiered by WP such as for ANIs, and ask that he be restricted in his interctions with me on AFDs where I have posted first, allowing other users to respond to me. I'll agree to the same restrictions in return, if needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have modified the header of this section. Stalking is a real-world activity that involves physically following a person and threatening their well-being. You're not being stalked, and using that term to describe someone posting on your talk page when you've made reference to them is unacceptable. This is not a comment on the remainder of the report, but a correction in terminology that should routinely be enforced on this noticeboard; the term "wikistalking" was deliberately deprecated a considerable time ago because of this issue, and it is remarkably disappointing to see that regular posters on this board have forgotten it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  That's a limited definition, and one I don't accept. Whether you call it hounding or stalking, it amounts to the same thing. it's a form of bullying, whatever you chose to call it. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  BilCat, Risker is spot-on here. I've not read any further than this in this thread, but I, too, insist that you adopt more appropriate terminology. Robert Bardo is a stalker. Mick is a chronically disruptive editor who keeps skating by being indef'd. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, you're right, I was wrong. To be honest, I was so angry when I first came here that I forgot that "stalking" was deprecated - seriously. I still disagree with the reasoning, but you are correct that it is not considered a neutral term. My apologies for it's use, and for my "defense" of it. I'll do my best not to use it again. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. It is a poisonous term, and it is part of the whole toxic-wiki environment. Risker has advised that that a prohibition of its use should be enforced on this noticeboard, and I strongly support that. Users who use the term should get one warning, and then a block on any subsequent uses. Calling someone a stalker is little different than calling them a paedophile; they are both accusations of criminality and should be viewed in the same manner as leagal threats. And, no, this is not at all about neutrality. Jack Merridew 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Such an interaction ban would seem reasonable to me. You obviously both rub each other up the wrong way or whatever. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing good will come from you posting on each others' talk pages. So I'd support an interaction ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• In agreement, an interaction ban would do nicely. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I reserve the 'right' to comment wherever and whenever my name is being mentioned, whether that user feels they have the right not to 'fear' my input or not. If that location is on a talk page of a user who does not want me there, then I reserve the 'right' to expect that they cease bandying my name about in casually incivil conversation, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond. That is pretty much the definition of baiting right there. Infact, while we're at it, I also reserve the right not to be called a mother fucker and a stalker in edit summaries, period, in all cases the former, and at least without evidence in the latter. This ANI complaint of 'stalking' is based on one post to one talk page, where my name was being mentioned. I was not aware of any ban of myself from that talk page, neither formal or through the expressed wishes of BilCat. Based on these facts, and the fact that this report makes various oblique references to my 'past behavior' in the best tradition of poisoning what he already knows is a very viperous well for me, I think it's pretty fucking clear who is baiting who here. Based on past experience of what he does and doesn't know about EQ, I will happilly accept the most formal and complete interaction ban with this user, who cannot it seems even file an ANI report header in a neutral, non-offensive manner, on the express proviso that I have done nothing wrong wrt the bare facts of this report, and also with the exception of his rather unusual 'me first' Afd suggestion, which can only be seen as an attempt to game me off of an ongoing notability content debate. I would note however that he is in no position to be offering to stay off my talk page save for notices etc as some sort of new bargaining chip at all, that was apparently what he had already agreed to do when he was unblocked for the aformentioned baiting of me the first time round. I had no knowledge of what was arranged in that appeal, and certainly no notifications of any related consequent obligations/restrictions on me, as I already explained here and here, and which has been clarified for him by the blocking admin here, so any and all suggestions from him that I have been baiting him, are quite false. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be clear that this interaction ban will be imposed on a "no liability" basis. It should also be clear that, as per usual, the interaction ban means neither party can "make reference to or comment on anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly". --Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The ban is two-ways. Also, he might've been calling you a Massey Ferguson. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From a user who uses profanity in regular converstaion on a regulkar basis, Mick's objection to being called an "m-f" is hilarious! He's called me worse names than 2 letters and a hyphen on several occasions. As to "stalking", that's why we;re here: to address unwanted attention and harassment. Note this is not the first time he has done this,, on my talk page or on others. He even interjects himself into converstations where I'm asking for advice out of frustration at dealing with him on another page - that also appears to be both harrasment and baiting, as he did at this admin's talk page today. This sort of behavior is normal for Mick, and no one else is permitted to do thses same things to him, even inadvertantly, as my block incident shows. If the community wishes to impose a direct and indirect ban on both of us, that's their choice. I won't be watchlisting his page (and I haven't been) to see that he keeps his part of the injuction, and I wouild ask he not be permitted to watchlist mine either. Let an impartial 3rd party do that if required. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Massey Ferguson? That's daft. MMN meant mother-fucker. Jack Merridew 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded. I will accept an interaction ban only because it benefits me and stops me from having to be subjected to his ongoing slurs and attacks, both direct and indirect, and nothing else. Anyone is free to go and look at the archive of his block appeals I provided above, it shows pretty clearly that nobody was convinced by his allegation that there is some sort of disparity between his treatment and mine wrt the block button. Infact, considering his baiting occured while I was in the middle of being community banned without the being allowed to defend yourself part, whereas he was just sitting out a week long block for a pretty egregious violation, which would have been quickly reduced to 24 hrs had he not shot himself in the foot with this exact sort of baseless allegation, I think he's got some brass balls even suggesting it. This guy thinks I have admin friends, that's how off base he is. I have had more than my fill of people dragnetting ANI for old Mick threads just like this and then claiming they are evidence I do this, that or the other at arbcom and such like. This stirring ANI is what is real misbehaviour, not placing perfectly relevant replies on an admin's talk page when this user is making requests that he pass messages to me because he says it 'appears' I've done this or that. I will also not accept any form of ban that restricts us commenting on the same content/process pages like Afd/articles, with the exception of direct conversation, this is certainly not what I understand as the standard 'interaction ban'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An interaction ban would not prohibit you from participating in the same discussions, such as AfDs, but it would prohibit you and BilCat from replying to each other's comments. Regarding "I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded.": the ban would not be enacted to give legitimacy to anything. It's no liability, for the purposes of preventing future problems without determining who may have been in the right or in the wrong in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's as I thought, although it probably needs breaking down for him in clear terms that he can refer back to, his misconceptions over policy, let alone even his basic recollections in this issue here really are that bad from my perspective. As for liability, as long as the resolution says that in crystal clear terms, I am fine with that also. And noting that he was already banned from my talk page anyway, even though I didn't even know, would also not go amiss, to give context to the above allegations and diffs. MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There he goes again, misrepresenting the truth. I think it's quite clear to anyone else why I am so frustrated with Mick. He is a bully, and anytime anyone dares to stand up to him, this is what happens. As to admin friends, HJMitchell is the one who blocked me, and then disapperared promply for 20 hours *he said he had trouble logging in, while I had to endure a 20-hour block after I stated I would not comment on Mick's page again. Blocks are supposedly not punitive, but I haven't got those 20 hours back yet. HJM also unblocked Mick while discussions were underway about lifting Mick's indefinite block. (Stated for the record, as Mick brought it up this time.) I'm a good editor, and while I have a history that shows I have a short temper, I'm generally quick to admit I'm wrong. I know I haven't behaved perfectly in this matter, and have "shot myself inthe foot" on several occasion, however inadvertanly. But Mick's bullying tactics are right here on this page for all to see! This is how he treats everyone who dares to disagree with him. The recent AFD's that he and HJMitchel have prticipated in are compltes jokes. They file an AFD on almost evert aviation accidennet article that's created, and almost all of them are kept. Yet they keep doing it, they repeat the same NOTNEWS nonsense at every AFD they participate in, and nothing changes. Mick instists on cross-examining every comment that disagrees with him to the inth degre, but it's all the same thing! The really odd thing is that Mick almost never participates in the accident AFDs were it's qute ovbious that the subject is non-notable. I can't help but think they're pushing an agenda here. If they won most of the AFDs, it would be a different story, but that's not the case. I actually stopped participating in Aviation accident AFDs completely for several weeks, then stared back while Mick was indefinitely blocked. We've had little interatcion in AFDs until today, but his showing up uninvited on my talk page set me off. I admit I shouldn't let it bother me, but it does. I'm not the only person he bullies, but I am just dumb enough to think eventually it will all catch up with him. I repeat Mick's own profane own words verbatim to HJM, and HJM immediately wanrs me, but Mick hasn't been warned for the original statement yet! I know it;s easy to tell me to just grow up, tht WP is not for the faint-hearted, blah blah blah. But seriously, who else on WP hets to say point blank that WPCIVIL doesn't apply to him if the other person is making a dumb argument! (yes, I actually have the diff on that one, if someone really cares to see it.) He admits he doesn't feel bound by WPCIVIL, and yet he's still here, bullying anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry, but yes, I'm angry and frustrated, I admit that. How long will Mick's uncivil behavior on a daily basis be allowed to continue before someone says enough is enough? Help stop him, please. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful for either party to continue to post here about each other. We've proposed a solution that both parties seem to agree to, that will have consensus support, and that will solve the problem going forward. No-one's going to get blocked here (I hope) so why bother? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to realize this is the last time either of us will be allowed to say this here on WP, to tell our sides of the story. Give us a little space, please. No one's going to get killed, so why not let it go a bit longer? - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, even though this is ANI, this is an encyclopaedia not a place to tell your side of the story. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is ANI - there's no where else to go, as we're both giving up the right to take it to any other venue on WP, as I understand the terms. ANd we both hope something else will be done intstead of this solution. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No probs, keep commenting on each other (or don't - your guy's choice) until the thread is closed. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as long as it is made crystal clear, and I mean 100% indisputable, that nothing this guy has alleged in here has been proven to be true in any way, then I'm fine diddly-ine with that frankly. Not much of what he said in this latest paranoid-delusional half page rant is even remotely true tbh. I invite anyone to pick just one of the more basic facts in it, to see if it checks out, such as the allegation that me and my best buddy Mitchell are an aircrash Afd team, and hold exclusivity in nominating any and all such articles, even the ones I also supposedly never vote in?!?!?, or even that we are simply wiki-buddies generally, or even that he has unblocked me ever, rather than just restore my talk page access once that was removed as a result of this guy's activites on it. Then you will see if it's likely or not as to whether some of the stuff that would take a bit more time to verify that he alleges, might be remotely true or not. MickMacNee (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant (to me) as to why you're both locking horns. That you're both locking horns is releveant, though. You both should reach a gentlemens agreement - to avoid each other & not speak of each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, BilCat voluntarily agreed not to interact with MMN as a condition of his unblocking. AFAIK, he has stuck to that agreement. MMN may well have been unaware of this. It is disappointing that BilCat has felt it necessary to withdraw from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 due to MMN's continuance of his usual behaviour at AfDs. I would urge BilCat to reconsider his withdrawal from the AfD. He has as much right to participate as any other editor does. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the same veign as my reply to BilCat's accusations, anyone is free to go and look at that Afd, and see if Mjroot's vague insinuations here are remotely proveable (or in this case even appropriate for an admin on the ANI board) as a description of my actual contribution in that Afd. I've tried an Rfc against him to stop exactly this sort of behaviour, but it was a waste of time, and it's not hard to see where the supposedly wiki-inexperienced BilCat is learning his bad EQ habits from. I won't stoop to BilCat's level with regard to alleging who is friends with who around here, and who does what or how at Afd, but seriously, this complaint of his here was sparked by me 'butting in' to a 'conversation' between these two on his talk page about whether "Keep, just to annoy MMN" was a valid Afd vote or not? I mean seriosuly, wtf? Infact, I urge all admins to go look at that convo, you'd be hard pressed to pick out which of them was the admin, and which was the inexperienced editor. MickMacNee (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MJR. Note that I could not tell him the agreement to stay off of his talk page, and to try to avoid conflict elsewhere, as I could not post on his page. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not accept these terms as stated by Mick. What I have said about Mick's actions and behavior are true, and I can show the diffs - but diffs have been shown countless times at ANIs just like this one. I'll file an RFC/U if that's what's needed to be fair to Mick concerning these "accusations", though it won't be today or tomorrow (Monday or Tuesday, NYC time), as I've never doen one before. I will agree to abide by the solution until the RFC/U is filed, and let the RFC decide on the issue from that point on, even if that is to not accept the RFC. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mick is welcome to file an RFC/U agaisnt me for my accusations if he would rather do that - it matters not to me along as both our behaviors would be reviewed. (I assmume that is how an RFC works, but some things about WP are still a mystery to me!) ARBCOM has recently declined to take up a case agaist Mick (or it's stillpending, so I think RFC/U is the next step here.) - BilCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would save you both alot of hassle, if yas would agree to remain on opposite sides of the Wiki-street. Pluss avoid commenting on each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't help the other people he's intimidating on a daily basis, though I'm not here today because of them. I'm not the only one he treats this way, nor are Aviation accident AFDs his only venue f intimidation - the British/Irish dispute pages are familiar with him too. But he does deserve "his day in court", as he beleives (publically at least) that I'm makeing false accusations against him. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom declined to take up the case re MMN. Partly because it was bundled in with a request to deal with the unblocking of MMN against consensus by an admin, despite several editors urging Arbcom to take up the case as it was felt that a RFC would not lead to any change in behaviour. It seems that a RFC on MMN is going to have to be made, something which I am working on atm. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do what ya'll think is best. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the terms of the restrictions, unilaterally, until the RFC/U is filed agaist Mick, as long as I'm allowed to participate in it when it is filed, or to file it myself within a certain time frame, as stipulated here. (I know Mick has seen the RFC as a threat held over his head, adn I don't ant this to be open-ended on my part.) I'll make myself availble to MJR, private communications, to help in any way that I can, if that is acceptable to the admins here. And I will unilaterally cease my comments that I ahve been making here about Mick's behavior elsewhere. Will that be acceptable? - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no authority in this whole matter. How you, Mick & Mj proceed is entirely in your (your 3) hands. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to propose a ban that is indefinite, where the one and only exception is to make a single appeal every six months be it to the Community or ArbCom. If each is going to refuse to get along and put aside their differences, and each is also refusing to avoid one another altogether, then these sorts of solutions are the only things that preserve everyone else's sanity against this utter rubbish.

Let's make no mistake; Bilcat's original comment, and Mjroots continuation of it, and MickMacNee's response to it...all of it is trolling. None of this reflects well on any of the three of you, and if you aren't willing to accept such a binding restriction voluntarily, then perhaps an involuntary restriction is all that is left. The apparent compulsive need to continue to inflame this dispute as much as possible to try to eliminate content opponents is utterly unhealthy. Am I the only one who is getting sick of it? At the end of the day, the trolling needs to stop...and you should voluntarily drop the sticks and move on to better things and ways of approaching certain situations. If you aren't going to do that but are trying to make assurances which mean diddly squat in the long run, then you're going to force the Community's hand on each of you through a series of sanctions and it won't be pretty. I seriously hope that it doesn't come to that and that the polite requests will get through to each one of you...well-before the new year arrives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You cannot brush under the carpet serious allegations like stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation made at ANI, without a shred of evidence, with a simple wave of the magic 'you're all as bad as each other wand', or by turning the issue into something else, such as the (unsubstantiated) allegation that I am trying to 'eliminate a content opponent'. Infact, filing frivelous 'mud sticks' ANI reports is a pretty good example of what someone who was actually trying to eliminate a content opponent, would try to do. You can actually see in his original report the suggestion that I be barred from any Afd he gets to first, right? I have done nothing at these Afds except give cogent, policy backed arguments, and request that others have the common courtesy to do the same, as per the instructions. If you are really interested in sanctioning people who have made personal comment after personal comment, assumption of bad faith after assumption of bad faith, and repeated, serious, attempts to poison the well in this dispute, just like this ANI complaint, then seriously, you need look no further than BilCat and Mjroots. BilCat's vote in that latest Afd was this gem of a PERTHEM/ABF combo. I take great offence to you even suggesting that I am in any way similar to him in either Afd standards of ettiquette, general behaviour, or motive, overt or otherwise. If your broad brush summary was remotely the case by the way, why is nobody here in the least bit disturbed by the fact that one of this trio is an admin? You or the community can propose whatever sanctions it like's on me, and if the evidence doesn't support it, well, let's just say I am getting used to having to use arbitrators as my first, last, and only court of session, on this site. There is a reason why they threw out the claim that ANI is evidence of proper dispute resolution, and certain posts in this thread are a pretty good example why. I've given the conditions under which I will accept an interaction ban, BilCat is the one with the issue with it, even though he is apparently in fear of me, yet here we are, still waiting for him to substantiate this report, and with him still trying to figure out a way that he can both have me eliminated from Afd and his talk page, while still having the right to generally talk shit about me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet, after all this text, I have not seen an actual explanation of why you made that snarky post in the first place. Ncmvocalist is right; from what I have seen you're all as bad as each other - almost in rotation. If no one can impress on all of you how annoying this little three-way spat is then it is not going to end well. The community seems to be roundly saying the same thing; quit slinging punches at each other, edit collegially - and if you cannot do that, stay the hell away from each other before the community just gets shot of you. Resist the temptation to rise to each other, go write something. --Errant 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might have had something to do with the fact that when I raised an Rfc/U about that admin's predeliction for making incivil comments and insinuations about me all over the pedia, in little talk page convos like that, and worse, even after his own multiple frivelous ANI reports against me had all ended in no action, because I had frankly done fuck all wrong, as many people of 'the community' he supposedly is here to serve, told him at the time, it was unsurprisingly turned around on me by editors just like BilCat, coming to the rescue of their good mate, and their shared outlook on content of course had nothing to do with that, oh no. As usual, you have to go all the way up to arbcom before you start seeing actual common sense interpretations of such obvious gamery like that. This is an admin who, having been appointed over a year ago, up to this month still didn't even know basic Afd procedural things like the fact you cannot just simply speedy withdraw a 5 day old Afd with tons of delete votes on it, just because the nominator changes their mind. I have frankly lost count of how many times he has been told that his ideas about what is and is not allowed wrt threaded discussion in afd's, and yet he was still acting only last month in the farce that was my attempted banning by Sandstein as if his views were still remotely supported or within policy, to the point where he even had the brass neck to propose them as unblock conditions! Frankly, out of the three of us, I am the one with the bigger right to feel absolutely fucked off at the utterly biased and underhanded campaign I am being subjected to, with an extremely questionable admin at the heart of it, for doing nothing more outrageous than not agreeing with them as to what is and is not 'clearly notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clear. My question was why you thought that a snarky reply was a reasonable response; you must have known what would happen. "I'm the victim, so a little snark is allowed" doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive argument. I've no investment in this dispute; but from the outside it looks more than a little silly. Leave each other alone. period. --Errant 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Being assused of stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation at ANI seems "silly" to you? I'm glad you have such a positive and breezy outlook on life. I on the other hand know from bitter experience what happens when people lazily summarise ANI reports as 'well, they are both as bad as each other', even when that summary is accurate, which it isn't here. It will go into the file to be pulled out at a later date by Mjroots as evidence of "my behaviour", and surprise surprise, when the shit hits the fan and these two come for me again, suddenly people will completely forget that anybody had a bad word to say about BilCat or the admin Mjroots in this thread. I hope you stick around to see it, and I hope you remember exactly what you said here, as you watch the ignorant pile on as it gathers to a frenetic pace. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the community decided to sanction all 3 of you or anything else, there's really nothing you 3 can do about it. Editing on Misplaced Pages is a privillage, not a right. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I honesntly don't know if this is permitted here or should be handled elsewhere, but I must state it: I do not beleive that HJ Mitchell is neutral in respect to Mick, and would like to ask that he recuse himself from all admin actions regarding Mick, mjroots, or me, in perpetuity, for any and all issues. If he is unwilling to do that, I am willing to file an approriate appel agaisnt him seeking such restrictions. I have reason to believe that his actions have not been that of a neutral admin, but I realize now tht in previously stating that opinion, I may be handling that the wrong way by bringing it up here in my previous comments. I'm totally willing to stop that from this point on, provided I am given guidance on how to officially present my concerns to the community, and have them considered. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I will stop bring up HJM's conduct in any posts, except that in pursuing restrictions against his interacting as an admin with me or Mick. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC) - in the proper venue, betiond this question itself. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole 'incidents' case is getting close to archiving. It doesn't look like a consensus for the intermed sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

• Back to the matter at hand, is there a consensus to impose an interaction ban on BilCat and MickMacNee? I would propose something along the lines of:

BilCat (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on one another at any venue on Misplaced Pages and from editing each other's user talk pages for an indefinite period of time.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, this is indeed agreeable & beneifical to the 2 editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, not that there are not issues; interaction bans do not work. I'm more interested in the RfC/U I saw referred to above. Jack Merridew 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Given that Arbcom were split on whether they should review Mick's behaviour and the removal of the block its a much bigger issue than an interaction ban. I understand an RfC is being raised per the Armcom discussion, so its best to move things there when its set up. The responses and the language above are indicative of a much wider issue. --Snowded 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, keep them apart if they are unable to resist their attraction, interaction bans do seem to work. The RFC is a rumor and even if created will only address the issues with one side of the dispute, this is a good start. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There has already been a RFC which raised issues with MickMacNee's editing - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mjroots. I can confirm that a RFC about MickMacNee is not rumour, it will happen soon; although I'd rather be spending my time editing articles on Misplaced Pages. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support non-rumour ;) free tickets. Jack Merridew 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support If another RFC is to be pursued, pursue it by all means. But this is a sensible solution to stop obvious problems between two editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm already under a restricition to not post on Mick's talk page (ANI notices excepted), and to limit direct interaction elsewhere. I've already agreed to not engage in indirect interaction until an RFC/U is filed and processed. What happens after that depends on the result of the RFC/U or similar community or ARBCOM action. I can't see limiting such appeals to once every six months, especially if an appeal is denied with comments that it be restructured and re-submitted. Further, what is the course of appeal if one of us violates these restrictions, sicn those would not be an RFC/U issue, as I understand it? These arer serious questions. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Then you need to understand what several users are telling you: this is not good enough and we don't find this assurance credible after seeing what has happened here.
    • The limitation on appeals is to ensure this supervision isn't moving from one venue to the appeals venues; it's to prevent any of you making excuses to interact with one another. We don't want to have to keep supervising the three of you. Should it come to the point that an appeal needs to be restructured and re-submitted as a matter of priority, the Community will amend the restriction so that you may make an extra appeal, as a one-off, to satisfy this requirement (but frankly, it is unlikely to be an issue). This is an interim measure and if either you, Mjroots or MickMacNee are unable to comply with the restriction, you would be blocked. An administrator could have blocked all of you based on the above incident; instead, we're trying this measure as a last resort before those more serious remedies. This will enable the constructive contributions from the three of you - that is, the contributions where you are not directly or indirectly interacting with MickMacNee, and the contributions where MickMacNee is not directly or indirectly interacting with you. The Community or ArbCom will amend the restriction as necessary (be it temporarily or as a long term measure) based on where the matter is at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as it deals with the issue at hand without prejudice to possibly examining or RFCing other issues--Cailil 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support sounds like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Not likely to work and is more likely going to lead to frustrations wish could be taken out on other editors. Best to wait for the RfC. Bjmullan (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The aggressive nature of the interaction is the issue and asking all parties to simply ignore each other's actions even if they are egregious is bound to be unproductive. The ongoing tendentious editing of one editor should trigger an immediate RFC and the community's resolve to follow through on positive measures to end that type of behaviour. FWiW, I realize my comments will now create a chain of voluminous debate/denial/effrontery, so be it... Bzuk (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

  'So be it'? The only tendentious behaviour here is the fact that you have for months been making poisonous commentary just like this all over the place about how it's 'high time' an Rfc was filed on me, instead of filing the Rfc yourself, or even bothering to back up your continuous accusations with a single diff, inlcuding at high visibility places like ANI, where people are not supposed to be able to get away with this shit. Why neutral admins tolerate this on this board and in those other places, considering it is definitly considered incivil behaviour if not worse (considering this thread is inronically supposed to be about harassment), is beyond me. But yet again, we come back to the point that one of the actors in this trio is an admin. Yet again, here we have an editor who seems to take his lessons on EQ from that admin, and yet there has still been zero comment in this thread in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pretty much sums it up in that last statement, there appears to be little more to say... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
    • And the same to you. Following a poisonous and tendentious comment with another poisonous and tendentious comment. Well done. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Still nothing new here...FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Nope, no change at all. You are still acting like a wind up merchant on the ANI board, and nope, no admin still seems to give a fuck about that. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
          • The derogatory comments are just part of the MO, along with the "last worditis". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
            • And alleging "MO's" without evidence, without any will to do anything about it, and in a generally tendentius and poisonous manner, and continuing and continuing that behaviour in an obvious wind up merchant manner, is what exactly? I don't give a crap about your pathetic 'itis' jibes, I am justifiably going to have the last word here, because I am sick to the back teeth of this sort of shit being tolerated as perfectly acceptable behaviour, not least on ANI of all places. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support These editors are both productive but they dont exactly bring out the best in each other. An interaction ban is likely to defuse all issues. -- ۩ Mask 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant socks, possible canvassing at AFD

I submitted three articles to AfD the other day. They are

• List of American politicians convicted of crimes
• Political scandals of the United States
• List of political sex scandals in the United States

At the AfDs, Leeroy10 (talk · contribs), an account created on the 28th, immediately voted keep on all three. Leeroy10 is a blatant sockpuppet. As all three of the AfDs have now been corrupted by a sock, I suspect other active socks may have added keep votes, or the sockmaster has also voted keep. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Leeroy10 may be a sock of Richrakh (talk · contribs). They both top posted at all three AfDs , and ... , and ... and finally , and - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 is someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bring in the checkusers, and maybe start a SPI? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, a number of regular eds have also posted keep. I think the nominator may be either unaware of BLP policy with respect to public figures, or trying to change it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change a thing and I know the BLP policy. Editors can vote keep all they like, it's the sockpuppets/sockmasters I'm concerned with, poisoning the discussion and attempting to stack the vote. This thread is about socking and behavior, not whether we think the AfD is merited... Some regular editors have also voted to delete, which seems to indicate I'm not alone in my concerns. Behavioral evidence seems to point at one of the people who has worked extensively on all three of these articles, per my post supplied above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the AfDs, Burpelson, you came here to bring up worries about a sock and it's a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 and Richrakh are  Unlikely to be related at the moment. The only similarity besides MO are locations, but it's a very busy metropolitan area, so even that doesn't say much. –MuZemike 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. Mind, I didn't say it was Richrakh's sock. I haven't blocked because neither the AfDs nor the project are hanging over the edge on this and I'm waiting to see what happens next. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oops, I just finished filing the SPI... if it's not needed feel free to close it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware though, Leeroy10 is somebody's sock. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the SPI will be able to discover the sockmaster if it's not Richrakh. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Time may tell. Let me know if you see any other accounts which are straightforwardly socky. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. In the meantime, I note that Richrakh has also openly canvassed for support in the AfDs here . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To "stop you"? How wonderful thrilling, how encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this Burplenson ;) (I was the one Richrakh asked for input). Yes, he perhaps should not have messaged me for support; I will explain to him why this is considered inappropriate and that should probably be enough. Given I am the only one he has asked for help I think AGF means it is a legit request for help and there was no obvious attempt to canvas - hopefully a talk page reply from me will end that as a matter --Errant 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't think I needed to notify you of this discussion since I wasn't explicitly discussing you or making any accusations against you, only noting that Richrakh had attempted to canvass on someone's talk page. A note from you on his talk page telling him not to do this would be nice (although he's been here since 2007 so he should know about it by now). And why should I assume good faith of him when he's openly assumed bad faith of me, not only by canvassing for support but by accusing me of having some kind of puerile vendetta? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was just being grumpy, apologies. I left him a reply on my talk page, hopefully that will serve as explanation :) --Errant 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. :-) - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic screed

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

I do not understand. The conflict is not about the content, it is about her not reading it to start with. Where should I go when the administrator responsible for the article will not inform herself about the article. Several other persons in the conversation are familiar with the content, shouldn't the administrator know the subject she is administering? Have you read the discussion, and realize how the subject is being manipulated to reflect only Gwen Gale's postition?Wm5200 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale does not appear to be using admin powers to maintain that position, thus it is not a question of Gwen's admin capability and doesn't belong here. As noted, if it is a question of source reliability, that should be taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if it is a question about Gwen's discussion/participation (as a regular editor) behavior, that should go to Wikiquette alerts. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time. However, I doubt that you could familiarize yourself with the subject in only four minutes. I am trying to be polite. Joach and Kershaw (along with several other noted authors referenced in discussion) cast doubt on the "Russian Autopsy" in general and Lev Bezymenski's book in specific, yet Gwen Gale will not entertain such a thought, on 11 November she still is using an almost universally discredited "Russian Autopsy" as fact. I do not see how she is qualified to administer the discussion. Anyone who will read Kershaw's two footnotes will see the problems with her position. We are not disputing Kershaw, she won't even read him!Wm5200 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about how Misplaced Pages works, Wm5200. There is no "administrator responsible for the article". Agreement regarding content disputes is reached by consensus on the talk page of the article. The role of administrators is to enforce Misplaced Pages's agreed policies. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

David is correct, Wm5200, but he understates your apparent misunderstanding. Not only is there no "administrator responsible for the article", you have not had an administrator "assigned to you" and no such assignments exist. Furthermore, no editor can demand that another editor carry out a reading assignment before editing or engaging in discussion, thus your view on what "should be required reading" is of no particular consequence. Right now you are engaged in a content dispute and a dispute over the reliability of a source, which is not what this noticeboard is for. In addition to the other avenues of dispute resolution, one of the two of you may wish to seek assistance at WP:FTN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin’s volunteer for article? Does this mean that she is not assigned me, also? An admin is responsible for policy only? She appears to be controling not only policy but content as well. The apparent problem is that she is not as informed as others in the discussion. Possible solution other admin’s to look in on article? The article is not terribly attractive, there are editors, not effective admin. I am also part of problem, need way out. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right; that's what Steven just told you; an admin is not "assigned" to an individual editor. You say "I am also part of problem, need way out"; your way out is to accept the consensus reached by other editors, or otherwise to follow the processes defined in WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a time lag between Steven and I. I do not dispute the consensus between the editors. I have the utmost respect for Kierzek and Farawayman. Their two days work was masterful, and greatly improved the article. I dispute Gwen Gale as an admin using her power to influence the editing, which is beyond her base of knowledge. She is beyond policy, and into content.

This is a good exit, though. I have stated my concerns, you will do with them as you wish. This is the fairest venue I’m going to find inside Wiki.Wm5200 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read that talk page and it seems to me that excellent and detailed work was done by the editors in analysing what the sources actually say. The page was entirely civil and hard working until the entry of Gwen Gale when she and the other editors seemed to rub each other up the wrong way somehow. But Wm5200 - as has been said above, you have misunderstood how wiki works in this regard. Gwen was not there as an admin - just an editor, giving her view on the talkpage as she is entitled to do as much as any other editor. Admins have no superior position or powers when it comes to writing articles. Their job as admins is to try and keep wiki clean, as it were, for content editors to create the encyclopaedia. Beyond that they are editors like everyone else. I note that all of your edits have been to the talkpage. I applaud the process of trying to work out the best summary of the many sources in a controversial area on the talkpage, but you are as entitled as anyone else is to actually edit the articles. There are no ranks here.Fainites scribs 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to find the talk:death of hitler discussion prior to 20 September. Have I misplaced the archives? Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are the "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" posts between 8 August and 20 September?Wm5200 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP made a vandalism edit that had the effect of hiding those comments. I've reverted and it seems fine now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? That discussion directly relating to this thread was vandalized? Or do you think I am being paranoid? Thank you Ken.Wm5200 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You people are lamer than the League of Nations. You all know what is going on, but none have the guts to oppose her. Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead. Wm5200 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is "her"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you mean Gwen Gale is the IP who made that edit? No freakin' way. I may have disagreed with Gwen Gale on some things in the past, but there's no way that I can see her doing something like that. Your paranoia (and lack of Wiki-sense) is showing. Come back when you have a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wiki-sense"? Are you jolking? Still, I suppose it's more fun to live in your delusional world than my sometimes paranoid one. Who told you about clues, you certainly don't recognize them when you see them. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you can sell me on that “vandalism” being random? Are you telling me that you think that a discussion pertaining to, and not reflecting well on, Gwen Gale should suddenly disappear at the very time this thread is dealing with just that info is mere coincidence? Do I accuse Gwen Gale of specifically pressing “return”? No, I doubt that she did. But I do believe that someone did, thinking it was in her best interest. I do wonder why these numbers keep showing up around her. I do believe that she has an alliance. Perhaps George Smiley, or Intrepid, can come out of retirement. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead." Wm5200 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLOCK. If you want to stop editing, do so. We don't block on request. Also, please read WP:CABAL. This is not a conspiracy against you, and Gwen Gale is a long-standing member of Misplaced Pages with an excellent track record. Accusing her of this is rather silly. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? User:Beeblebrox, and probably others, do block on request. Providing it's a good-faith request. Please ignore me if I've taken this out of context, I noticed the edit summary in passing but haven't had chance to read the thread. GiftigerWunsch 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Admins can do so if they wish. But it's their baby if the person changes their mind, which gets ugly sometimes. Generally, admins won't do it because either A) the user winds up coming back, often demanding their block log be cleared; or B) the user was just baiting, so they can claim how poorly treated they were. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Any time anyone who is informed on this issue wants to break in, I’m waiting. Perhaps actually reading the material, especially the closed up thing on the top, may help.

I know some Wiki are literate. Kierzek knows everything, Farawayman may be close. Why do I seem to meet the people who will not read a book?

Now, for those who won’t read, let me try once more.

1. Gwen Gale has dominated the article “Death of Adolf Hitler” for years.

2. Gwen Gale is not informed about the “Death of Adolf Hitler”. She refuses to acknowledge the work of Sir Ian Kershaw, about who Wiki itself (no books needed) says “He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective." “. She continues to use Bezymenski, a 1968 admitted fraud, as a source over numerous other authors.

3. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, serious scholars will fix it and get stars or whatever, Wiki will be accurate, and proud.

4. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, I and all my posts become moot. All I have ever wanted was to get the “popular press” out of what I consider a serious subject.

"Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

“not helping yourself”? “not helping yourself”? Really? You don’t think so?

When has this ever been about me? “I am not Wiki.” First sentence I ever posted. Do you flatter yourself by thinking I want to be? For me the “mission” has always been “the article”!

When I got here the article belonged in one of Rupert Murdoch’s rags. I had read Joachimsthaler, who sounded rational, and thought he could be of some use in the article. That’s it. My whole goal in Wiki.

Since being re-buffed by “my admin” (I don’t care about the assignments), I have read virtually everything about Hitler’s Death, becoming a world expert. About someone who I find distasteful, and doesn’t really interest me. And apparently to no avail. I can not get Gwen Gale to read two footnotes. Or get out of the way. That’s all I ask.

Apparently I am the only person who thinks that possibly Gwen Gale might recluse herself from this one article, for the good of Wiki. It appears that the quality of the article is less important than the ego of one admin.

I have said before, I don’t understand, or much care, for Wiki politics. Is this just a case of “old boy network”, where no one wants to offend a “friend”, or is there an actual “Gwen Gale maffia” who scares the rest of you?

I’m still waiting for any kind of informed answer. Or are you just waiting for 24 hours to come, and archive me, out of sight, out of mind?

And many of you miss the bitter irony of my now standard closing. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing this; it will just go on and on and is simply a content dispute. Recommend WP:RFC as an avenue for Wm5200 to explore --Errant 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cowards

Well, I guess that's it. Do not addres any point, just close the discussion. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

**Crickets** - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

<tumbleweed blows across the deserted vista.> LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

*snort* Sorry, what now? Fell asleep there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See above under the heading "Off Topic Screed". Or just read WP:DEADHORSE for a more thorough explanation. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm the point of closing it was to discourage people from replying and dragging it on. Shush ;). User should be aware of the correct forum for pursuing matters. --Errant 14:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:CBM, a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Policy issue to be resolved at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal. For the rest, whether the small differences between "references" and "reflist" falls under the "observe the original style of an article unless there's good reason not to" approach is a bit How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot. Rd232 10:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ever since I replaced <references /> with {{Reflist}} on Feynman point back in January (which BTW led to this discussion), User:CBM is tracking my edits, and reverts all in which I replace <references /> with {{Reflist}}, or {{Reflist}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} (Recent examples: , , , led to , , , , and there are literally thousands of other articles). I know there is no Wiki guideline on whether {{Reflist}} is recommended or not, and I know WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not a rule violation per se, but this is getting ridiculous. Could someone please tell him to stop that? —bender235 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CBM has been notified. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 is aware that our guiding principle is to not change the established style of an article, but he continues to change reference styles at his own whim. His changes are not limited to articles he is actively editing. Instead, he seems to go through random lists of articles he has never edited before, changing styles as he goes.

The most succinct response I ever received from Bender235 about this was, "That is a dumb rule I deliberately chose to ignore." I am not the only person who has pointed out to Bender235 that this type of edit is inappropriate; see and .

In any case, the underlying point here is that as long as he's permitted to make such "bold" edits, others have to be free to undo them – that's the reason that BRD works at all. The changes are not supported by any guideline; they actually go against WP:CITE's recommendation to preserve the established style. Moreover, common sense says that if there was actually consensus that <references/> should be replaced by {{reflist}} everywhere, a bot would already have done it.

I have been contributing recently at Template talk:Reflist to establish a general consensus about the right template usage, which I hope will establish more clearly whether there is a need to change the template invocations. It would be reasonable for Bender235 to stop making these changes until that discussion is settled, but he hasn't done so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Implementing {{Reflist}} or adding that "colwidth" parameter is not "changing the established style". It is an improvement of the existing article, adding a feature that did not exist when the article was created (i.e., when its "style was established"). So by doing what I did in all those articles was following Misplaced Pages's one basic rule, that says "If you see something that can be improved, improve it!". In my opinion, and seemingly everyone's opinion except for CBM's, {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} is an improvement compared to {{Reflist}} (and <references />, for that matter).

By the way, I've been roaming Misplaced Pages for almost 6 years, fixing minor errors on thousands of articles I had "never edited before". I didn't know I needed CBM's permission to do that. —bender235 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of WP:CITE is that you should not make stylistic changes simply because you feel they are an improvement. People have discussed these templates before, and the reason that {{reflist}} is not mandatory is that there was not agreement that it should be; the same is true for the particular parameters to the template. If the change was clearly an improvement, there would be consensus for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is reasonable. However, I would suggest that tracking and reverting edits like that is definitely a big no-no. The point of the policy you cite is to avoid pointless style disputes. If you are following Bender235 to articles purely to revert to a style (which you openly preferred) that's not really helping the matter. If he is widely making this change then address it with him (which I see has been done) then bring it to a wider forum for review. If the community says no, I imageing (AGF) that Bender235 will stop. On the issue of that policy; I've always considered the spirit of the policy to be about avoiding dispute amongst the articles contributors. Where such a change is uncontested (and so long as it is not part of a wide scale attempt to change massive numbers of articles) it should simply be taken as acceptable. --Errant 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the cited example where Bender235 doesn't actually add {{reflist}} but instead modifies the column width and then you turn to <references /> is an example why tracking edits like this w/o community input doesn't work. Because you accidentally violated the policy you're citing --Errant 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we ever allowed to change the reference style? Does the person who adds the reference section first get to dictate how they are presented for all eternity? AniMate 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The principle at WP:CITE is that editors should respect the established style. Now if there was a change in the middle of a lot of editing, for example to make the article a GA, I wouldn't complain. But Bender235 is simply going randomly from one article to another changing the reference style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So the only objections to his changing of the reference styles are from people who don't think reference styles should ever be changed? From what I can see, there don't seem to be many (any?) objections from people who regularly edit the articles in question, but rather the objections come from self-appointed citation police. Apparently the objections are based on principle rather than any actual objections to the change of style, and in the absence of any objections beyond rules-lawyering, this is dumb and I'd ignore it too. AniMate 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a large number of people have come to Template talk:reflist to complain about changes to the way that columns are displayed. One of the common changes that Bender235 makes is to change from a fixed column count to a flexible one. It seems, based on the discussion on the template talk page, that a consensus is forming against that change. So this is not just a matter of principle, although the principle alone is already enough to make the edits inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AniMate, you're right. CBM is the only one objecting the move from <references /> with {{Reflist}}. On most articles I fixed, other people actually reverted CBM's revert (e.g., ). Like I said, this is getting ridiculous. I have idea why CBM is acting like this. —bender235 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Errant: I have taken it up with Bender235, as have others; see the diffs I provided. He simply ignores it when people point out his edits are inappropriate. So I have instead been discussing things at Template talk:reflist to try to find out what the actual consensus on the matter is. But in the meantime as long as Bender235 is making "bold" edits, anyone is free to undo them. I will check the diffs more carefully in the future to avoid the mistake you pointed out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion but, Carl, this one is for me obvious that reflist is much better. They are 12 references there. I am not sure if there is any policy on the number of references the page much have to use reflist but I usually use when they are many. As I wrote before, I don't have strong opinion on the subject I just made a comment of this certain edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy about it; if there was, a bot would probably have already made the change, and AWB would also make the change as part of general fixes. The reason that these things are not done already is that, in the past at least, there was never consensus for the change. After this thread was opened, though, I started a thread at WP:VPR about whether to go through and change the remaining <reflerences/> invocations. Maybe that will lead to a new consensus that will let AWB handle it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to propose that Bender235 and I both stop until a clear consensus is established. That seems like a good-faith resolution. If there is indeed a consensus for changing all instances of <references/> to {{reflist}}, it should become apparent pretty soon on the thread I started on WP:VPR, and I'll be happy to abide by it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who determines whether there is consensus to use {{Reflist}} instead of <references />? And hasn't this consensus de facto been established already, since {{Reflist}} is implemented in almost 1.7 million articles? —bender235 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend you participate in the village pump thread. So far, the trend seems to be that people support changing the CSS for <references/> instead of replacing <references> with {{reflist}}. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: AWB doesn't change references to reflist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. I take that as strong evidence that there was not consensus to make the change globally, since AWB devs are usually on top of these things. However, if the style issue is resolved (by making <references/> have the same style as {{reflist}}) then the change could be added to AWB, like a template replacement, if people wanted to. That's all I was saying. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I routinely replace <references /> with {{Reflist}} whenever I am editing the article for some other reason. Does this mean I should not? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not IMO. I do the same and consider it appropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if CBM finally recognizes the consensus here. —bender235 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have been changing the font size without consensus, especially on large numbers of articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bender: you see what I mean? In any case, I will watch the VPR discussion very closely, since I think it will help clarify the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It won't clarify anything, because you made it a discussion about whether the font size of <references /> should be changed. But the original question was whether a Misplaced Pages user is allowed to replace <references /> with {{Reflist}} (or vice versa), or whether instead the "establised style" is presented for all eternity? —bender235 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The effect of that replacement is to change the font size of the references. Your claim is that there is agreement that the small font size is appropriate in general. If that's true, we can just change it wiki-wide and be done with it. Clearly not everyone agrees - see Gimemetoo's comment. If the consensus is that the font size is a matter of article-by-article style, then of course everyone should leave it alone. We'll see how the VPR thread turns out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the docs for template:reflist say, "Note that there is no consensus that a small font size should always be used for references; ". I think that is an accurate statement of the consensus a couple years ago, but it is not as clear now whether that's the consenus viewpoint. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of that comment on {{Reflist}}. The question is: does "no consensus to always use it" mean "don't implemented it anywhere w/out prior discussion", like you're suggesting. I don't think so. —bender235 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) See e.g. Misplaced Pages:MOS#Stability_of_articles. It's a basic principle here that when more than one style is acceptable, editors shouldn't go around changing from one to another based on personal preference. That principle is why your widespread edits to change reference styles, in the absence of a clear consensus for the style you change to, are simply inappropriate. However I'm willing to see if there actually is a consensus for the style you are changing to, and I'll heed any such consensus when it develops. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion on: if someone thinks that <references/> is better, do they need to ask first before converting from {{reflist}} to <references/>? If there is not a consensus in favor of {{reflist}}, would changing to <referenecs/> be inappropriate in any way? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion everyone should be allowed to convert from {{reflist}} to <references/> and vice versa. It depends on what fits the particular article (few, long notes vs. many, short refs). But I strictly condemn the idea of an "established style", because there is no such thing on Misplaced Pages. —bender235 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The MOS has said for a very long time, "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." WP:CITEHOW says, "You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." I must be seeing ghosts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bender, Let me say also, that you should not be replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} willy-nilly. Several editors have said so here. Bender's replies here seem to me to amount to just asserting that "Reflist is better". It has been explained here why you should not go around making this change. CBM is being entirely reasonable and polite. Bender, you should please participate in central discussion about whether such a change should be made wikipedia-wide, but just stop it now! --doncram (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pfft. Right now the only objections to Bender's changes are not from people who object to the changes but from people who object that policy hasn't explicitly been changed to condone his actions. If he thinks he is improving the encyclopedia, he should continue to do so, not sit through an interminable community discussion to see if we might form some rough consensus with the handful of people who will participate. Generally, we ignore policy when it gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, and I see no reason (other than people wanting more policy discussion) for him to change his actions. AniMate 22:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think it unlikely that we would change our policy to permit this sort of instability in article formatting--the rule to observe the original style is one of the most sensible rules in the entire MOS. Following it will eliminate this sort of conflict over trivia. If we ever do have an agreement on preferred reference style, this would beanother matter, but I doubt very much that the agreement would be for any of the existing formats. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is true. If there's a disagreement, the original style should be preserved. However, there was absolutely no disagreement about the style change in all the articles I edited (replacing <references/> with {{reflist}}). The only one complaining was CBM, citing a rule that only applies in major disagreements. In fact, most of the time CBM had his revert reverted by the next user that came along (like ).

Like I said: I understand having this rule helps minimize conflict over trivia. But when there is no conflict, why prevent people from improving Misplaced Pages? —bender235 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

When I undid the edits, didn't that make it clear there was disagreement, which invokes the rule to keep the established style? Isn't this thread itself "conflict" because of the changes you made? Maybe I don't "count" for some reason. Do Gimmeetoo, doncram, and DGG count? I'll point out that you re-did the same edits after posting here despite knowing that there was an objection to them. But you already knew there was a disagreement before you did them the first time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain clearly what problems you have with {{reflist}}. AniMate 06:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Animate, I think you have this backwards. If Bender is going around changing "references" to "reflist", then he is the one that has to explain what the problem with "references" is. CBM is maintaining the status quo and undoing changes that go against our "stability" MOS guideline. He is not going randomly to pages to change a long-standing "reflist" to "references". CBM is not the one that has to explain his actions, Bender is. Fram (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this the encyclopedia anyone can edit or the encyclopedia that everyone must maintain the status quo. Personally, I have no strong feelings about how reference sections should be formatted, but this idea that we must revert changes because this hasn't gone through a formal community process at the proper venue for discussion thus change is bad is frankly stupid. AniMate 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Continued widespread style changes

The closure of the previous section was "For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot." However, Bender235 has continued to make the same changes, including those that would completely be covered by the proposal on VPR. For example . Several people commented in the above thread that the changes are inappropriate (Fram, Gimmetoo, doncram, DGG). Could someone else point this out to Bender235? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing this because it is not about the style. Like replace a HTML table with a wiki table is not about the style. It's about replacing a bare MediaWiki feature with a modifiable template. —bender235 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender, though I agree with you that replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} is a positive move in general, you really ought to lay off, at the very least until Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Change to template:reflist fontsize wiki-wide? is resolved, not least because if it goes the way it looks right now, the change you're making immediately becomes neutral in terms of presentation and most reasonable objection to it is removed. In general, even if you're doing something you see as reasonable, if a bunch of editors say you should chill out, that really ought to give you pause. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you realize that this will end like the recent Template Reflist experiment? It started when CBM reverted my replacements of {{Reflist|3}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, arguing (like he does now) that the "established style" (whatever that is) is set in stone for all eternity. I started a discussion whether flexible column numbers should be prefered over fixed, which was somehow turned into a discussion whether a fixed column input (like {{Reflist|3}}) should automatically produce a flexible column output ({{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}). That idea was implemented, and (of course!) had a number of people wondering why they don't get out what they inserted (see Template talk:Reflist#Anomalous behaviour).

It will be the same again with this bogus proposal. Once implemented, people will wonder why <references /> doesn't produce the <references /> outcome anymore, and it will get reverted. This is just a waste of time. —bender235 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bender235 - "It's about replacing a bare MediaWiki feature with a modifiable template.": replacing a bare feature with that same feature wrapped in a formatting template is not an improvement if it leads to no changes in output - as it won't if the Village Pump proposal succeeds, as seems likely. If that proposal is implemented and then reverted, you can restart the discussion, but in the mean time, please don't require us to start talking about editing restrictions to prevent mass implementation of trivial changes without demonstrable consensus. Rd232 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine. But I'll guarantee that this font size change will soon get reverted, like that other Reflist change. —bender235 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that bet :) The reflist change had unpredicted consequences about how it affected display on diverse screens; I don't see any comparable risks here, and there's already a draft gadget for those who prefer a larger Reference List size. Rd232 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually those "consequences" were both predicted and intended, because that is the purpose of "colwidth" (the number of columns being determined by the size of screen). if you enter {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, that is just what you want. But when you enter {{Reflist|3}}, you want three columns, no matter the screen size. But you didn't get it after that recent Reflist modification.

It's the same with <references />. If you want small screen size, you enter {{Reflist}}, and if you don't, you use <references />. Having small fonts with <references /> will unsettle a lot of people. —bender235 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235, you have justified the change from <references/> to {{reflist}} as an "improvement" of the article. If there is actually consensus that it's an improvement, we can use that consensus to make the change wiki-wide. After all, you claimed above "CBM is the only one objecting the move from <references /> with {{Reflist}}.". If that's true, we will get consensus to make the change. But now you seem to be saying that people will object to the change. Which is it?

Rather than trying to predict whether there is consensus, I started a proposal to test what the consensus is. That seems like the best way to put the question to rest.

There was a related question about column width, whether width-based formatting is preferable to fixed-column-count formatting. The outcome of that discussion on Template talk:reflist makes it clear there is not consensus that the change to width-based formatting is an improvement. It is clear that a significant number of editors prefer the fixed-count formatting. Ergo, that style change should not be made en masse. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Baiting and insults by User:Binesi

the User:Binesi has been baiting and insulting me, refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content.

he goaded and provoked me, saying to the effect (he didn't say these himself, but his words conveyed the meaning) of- "I don't want to edit war with you but you are an obnoxious dick" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but you are totally wrong and should shut up" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks"

His messages to me may seem concilliatory and neutral, but are extremely sarcastic in nature, claiming that he is "sorry" that we are arguing and have different views, but using insulting terms to describe me and my edits. take a look at his edits here, in which he makes thinly veiled insults veiled and disguised as friendly overtures and compliments

Binesi admits to being 208.64.63.176-Binesi admitted to being 208.64.63.176- "As you saw fit to abuse the administrative process to claim my edits where "vandalism" I have registered an account and made myself fully accountable."

208.64.63.176 was given the highest level severe warning by an admin for deliberately misrepresenting sources

i filed an ANI report which led to the warning here

When it appeared that Binesi realized his mistake, i even tried to pull back my complaint about his copyvio to an admin, but i was forced to retract it after Binesi was uncooperative

Among other edits, one of the things he did on the talk page was to falsely claim that i accused him of legal threats, and that I claimed slander was a legal threat. He provided no such diffs or evidence that I ever said such a thing. I invite him to provide evidence that i did so.

Mr. Binesi's sarcastic "concilliatory" messages to me Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Misplaced Pages rules and standards would become an article in itself.

By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Misplaced Pages articles do. It's more juvenile than effective.

It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment, in which he - enters into an off topic monologue about original research, in which he totally ignores the fact that the content he deleted was referenced and not original research These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- These were the references- criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&dq=He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&hl=en soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&f=false

In general, the tone in which he talks is sarcastic and mocking, pretending as if he is "friendly" to me and hopes to "work with me", then after insulting me more, he pretends to be "horrified" and "disgusted", with me.

I tried being nice, and explained to him exactly what was wrong with his edits, in these two comments- , but i only receieved an extremely sarcastic, insulting response

i consider this message from him to be an attempt to bait me into insulting him back- "Thanks for encouragement. I am really trying to improve this aspect of my character - remaining cool headed and neutral that is. I was fairly disgusted at first that someone would slant this article so blatantly and cherry pick from the given references fragments which suited a particular viewpoint."

We have both agreed not to touch the article in question, what i want is for a definite warning set up by an admin that anyone who accuses another of being a "Wu Mao Dang" (a term used to describe internet users paid by the Chinese communist party to insert propaganda) as ip 208.64.63.176 claimed that the article was "hijacked" by wu mao dang"

I consider it a personal attack to be accused of being affiliated with the communist party, and I also protest against Biseni's baiting ( Misplaced Pages:Bait)

WP:BAIT states that- "They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon." "In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator."

regretfully i may have taken the bait here in response to his insulting message, but i apologize for responding to his insult and next time I will report and delete such messages with responding.

It appears that Biseni is attempting to deploy this tactic against me. I request an admin promise to ban everyone, from this moment, who attempts to bait and hurl insults on the talk page of Boxer Rebellion. I know this will apply to me to and I will not use aggresive language from now on. For my part, i will not accuse people of "pro western POV", and others should not be able to bring up the straw man of the chinese communist party, especially since none of the sources in the article are chinese, and i have harshly criticized the use of Chinese government sources.

That would be like me calling for tobacco to be banned, yet another person slams me for spreading pro Tobacco POV, which makes no sense.Дунгане (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• You will get a much faster response if you make your situation brief but clear, and not 22 paragraphs long. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Background:
    • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:Дунгане and questionable edits
    • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Boxer Rebellion
    • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#Дунгане/Arilang1234
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• I won't add too much to this as I think the situation is self evident to anyone doing an overall check of Дунгане's history and to our conversations and to the general negative response he gets from the community at large. This in my mind is a highly disruptive individual who adds little positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. He seems to persistently get into conflicts and abuse the system to silence editors. He has also posted numerous diatribe personal attacks on many talk pages. I also have suspicions (but I need time to research further) that he may have created puppet accounts to get previous users silenced.

  For my part however, I will say I was too confrontational in dealing with him and I need to take more time to study Misplaced Pages policies so I can acclimate to how things are done here and respond more effectively. My only purpose is to ensure Misplaced Pages reflects reality and does not try to influence it. I don't hope to see referenced information being twisted to suit a narrowed POV, whatever that POV may be. If that means championing a neglected article to get it cleaned up, I am happy to do what I can and welcome any criticisms that could improve my effectiveness at that purpose. I really did try to empathize, compromise, and see from his point of view, but some people just make a habit of missing the point. Binesi (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I know this is a huge block of text already. I just want to add that I read something just now that seemed appropriate:

"In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor." Binesi (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i can't ignore the fact that Binesi is essentially copying my comments and repeating exactly what i said to him, over here

In addition, Arilang1234, the user whom i had a dispute with in the ANI threats Binesi has just brought up, has a terrible track record of insulting Manchus and Mongols, insisting that they were barbaric because they were not chinese. Even other Chinese editors like HongQiGong harshly berated Arilang1234 for his comments.

Binesi claims that i "persistently" get into conflicts, yet most of them have been with Arilang1234, whom I have pointed out above has spread anti Manchu and anti Mongol POV.

User:Binesi has failed to point out any POV twisting in the references, and failed to justify his edits to the article, which twisted and misrepresented sources, go see one of his "edits" to the article.Дунгане (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why are you claiming I am one of your previous targets of conflict on my talk page? How many have there been? I am not going to research every page you have posted on, but how many personal attacks are there? You linked these to me. I see it mentioned a few times and someone more experience then I can probably pull up a list. Behaviors usually do form patterns in my experience. Also, why is the article you heavily edited now flagged as being biased among other things? User Smallchief also says something rather concerning: "deletions of inaccurate text are undone and the inaccurate text re-posted". BTW, you undone my efforts at trying to give a NPOV so don't claim I haven't mentioned your misrepresentations. There is more explanation on each related talk page. You know, I rather wish you would quite wasting my (and how many others too I don't know) time with this and just submit any future article changes you wish to make on talk pages for general consensus rather than making direct edits. Is that just not going to work for you? And yes, thanks for the reference. I did find that ironic, and now you complain I can read it and was enlightened to your tactic? Odd. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself. Binesi (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and the reference for that edit he writes in the last sentence is this ]. He would rather claim they where drinking tea with their victims when the reference is mentioned. Major twisting of the reference. That sounded so ridiculous when I first read it I had to check for myself. I mean.. these are troops in the rear and the article turns into a focused propaganda piece about them. I've never even heard of them (not that that's relevant but it made me check). Binesi (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor i warred with on Second Sino Japanese War was using sockpuppets, and was blocked, if people look at the logs. It had nothing to do with incivility or personal attacks, and i did not complain of any, yet that editor was bordering on obnoxious, User:Benlisquare noted on the the talk page of Second Sino Japanese War that he personally attacked me.

Its odd since you were the one who initiated the baiting and name calling, in an attempt to lure me into lashing back out at you

Smallchief's concerns dealt with the usage of nianhua as a source in the article. your edits never touched upon this, instead, you deleted text referenced from reliable book sources. What i actually want here is not for you to get blocked, but for your sarcastically toned and insult ridden comments to stop. If you have anything to say, cut the garbage iyt and get straight to the point in answering questions about your deletions etc, rather than toning insulting comments set in a "concilliatory" manner. By the way, i am not interested in spending my entire time on wiki at boxer rebellionДунгане (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already requested and agreed to the removal of the nianhua POV on the article, and because of Smallchief's concerns, i already added notes to the nianhua images in the article that the events were "alleged", and that the author was not present at the battle

User:Blackmane is doing a fine job cleaning up grammar, and we came to an agreement that content referenced from nianhua was to be deleted.

If Binesi has any concerns, i hope he will discuss them in a civil manner, and not attack and try to defame editors by claiming they are "wu mao dang" (communist agent). I find it offensive to suggest that i am linked to the Communist party of China.Дунгане (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

see Wumaodang for more information.Дунгане (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Your comment about nianhuas is just attempting to confuse, but its a good example of what you have tried to do to the article. I hope it's not a show and you will really cooperate with others now. Maybe we don't even need an admin to look at this. But no, lets first look at your name Дунгане. You use the name of the Dungan/Дунган as your alias. The same Hui Chinese you glorify in your article. Do you not feel your position might be just a little bit biased? And you can't read English if you think what you just linked accuses you of anything. But thanks for getting it in the open that you also have a bias against the government of the people you write about. BTW if you keep writing "communist agent" over and over again you are going to get Misplaced Pages blocked in China. In fact it just happened a few minutes ago and now I have to use a proxy. Great. Binesi (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to explain why Binesi wrote insulting messages on the talk page accusing me of doing things which did not even happen. Binesi claimed that i accused him of legal threats, and that i claimed the word slander was a legal threat

If anyone goes to see for themselves, i have posted no such claim.

Binesi insults me, claiming i am copying other people's language-

"I see your pattern of copying the language of others. Congratulations for repeating the term "ad hominem". If you continue to copy and learn maybe you could even understand my posts and stop being so defensive. I hope you have come to understand the real meaning of slander too while you are at it. You no longer accuse me of it, but you continue to commit it."

Yet, I used the word ad hominem weeks before Binesi came onto the article, and before anyone else used the word, on the talk page of Boxer rebellion here.Дунгане (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Where did I accuse you of legal threats? Without being insulting at all.. are you sure you read what I write? I admit my language can be a bit subtle, but it still has clear meaning. And yes, that was a kind of insult about the "ad hominem" because I noticed you used it directly after resident used it to describe the errors you make. You also wrongly accuse me of using slander after I confronted you with the same quite legitimately. You also call my words disgusting after I said I felt that way when I saw your reference twisting. I noticed you do this kind of parroting, so I pointed it out. I am not a robot and it is pretty hard to be super nice to someone when they keep using personal attacks. Anyway, I see you are running out of steam, so can we wrap this up so I can get back to more important personal business? Binesi (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would like to notify administrators of a very relevent discussion happening here --> Nice of you to defend vandals. Binesi (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Binesi apparently thinks we are blind and cannot read what he wrote- "Also, for the record, since I started some interesting reading about Misplaced Pages's more obscure policies - my usage of the word "slander" does not represent a legal threat. You can write as much unsubstantiated crap about other editors as you like Дунгане"

• Ya... can you actually read that? Read it again. Seriously. Read it carefully. If I was really giving you the benefit of the doubt this might explain the twisting of references... It is like you read, but you interpret what you think something says and not what it actually says. Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Binesi also made a false claim regarding one of his edits- "In the linked East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History it says "Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as Western troops ran amok for three days in a an orgy of looting, rape, and murder." It does not say that Japanese did not commit rape. What they did during and in between periods of amazement is not covered so I removed the unsupported assumption."

• Yes, that is exactly what it says. I was not discussing any additional sources. If you have some, give them. Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Binesi has just dug himself into a deeper hole, one of the references, right next to where it said there was no Japanese rape in the article, said "He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape"

this was the edit in which he removed the part about japanese forces. The reference i mentioned above was right next to it.

• What you just linked talks about fires breaking out all over the city. Will you please link what to you are referring about? If you want to link a reference, do it properly so we can all check it. That could save everyone a lot of time and prevent your edits from being deleted for being unreferenced. That's on you. Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do indeed want this thread to be closed, either nobody edits this section for several days, and a bot automatically archives it, or its closed when an admin decides to write off this thread.Дунгане (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• You still ignore all my other claims and fail to respond to why you use repeated personal attacks on myself and other editors. Why did you write that the Boxers did not rape foreigners when the claim was Boxers did not rape Chinese? Why did you post pictures of many battles being won by Dong Fuxiang when he could not possibly be at each one and it does not reflect the consensus of events? These are just two examples in repeated small twists to support a personal POV. Please state your purpose here and can you address each issue and the bad referencing of the article in general? Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Abusive mail thru wikipedia by user:Don Zaloog & probability of sockpuppets

I have received quite disturbing mail from User:Don Zaloog, the mail was sent to me thru wikipedia. I'll classify his words as personal attacks based on religion/creed, religion, nationality. Following is the content of the mail:

To an Indian Muslim Moron:

Stop the edit wars! Stop deleting my edits and additions you biased Shia loving idiot. I demand you cease and desist from deleting my edits without any reasons, or I will report to the Misplaced Pages administration! Hazrat Abu Bakr was the prophet Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وسلم‎) closest and dearest companion. Closer than Hazrat Ali. Relative or no relative. Period. Abu Bakr was the rightful successor to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and that is final. Ali accepted it. Every respectable person accepted it. Indeed, Ali had no greed to become caliph, he was in full agreement with the appointment of the greatest of the Sahaba: Hazrat Abu Bakr, as calioh. This fact is present in the authentic works of the great pious commentators (e.g. Ibn Kathir): Muhammad, during his last days, prayed behind Abu Bakr. This was related by Aisha, Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وسلم‎) wife, and many other close companions. You can deny the truth, but it will not change it. Stop your fallacious statements, you wretched liar, you malevolent hypocrite. Abu Bakr was the rightful successor to the caliphate. Also, what's with the title "Sayed" in your name. Don't tell me you claim to be related to the most pious human of all time! You fully know your ancestry and your genealogy. You are of the lineage of brown Dravidians and indigenous Indians who converted to Islam upon the arrival of the great Muslim conquerors (e.g. Timur, Babar, Muhammad bin Qasim). Stop your lies, you are by no means related to the greatest of the prophets himself. In other words, stop interfering with my edits, you dummy.

With Great Contempt,

Abrar Ahmed Kissana

I don't remember having any interaction with User:Don Zaloog, on Talk:Aisha (or as matter of fact anywhere) another User:Ibn Katthir was active in the discussion. User:Don Zaloog has not done a single edit on article Aisha. IMO User:Don Zaloog, User:Ibn kathir, User:Ahmed Ghazi, User:Sahil45n, User:Filoofo, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, User:Fabbo10, etc. are one and the same (or at least few of them) and an investigation for them being sockpuppet should be taken into consideration.

Please let me know if any further action from my part is required.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User notified. «CharlieEchoTango» 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing is right, especially with all the "Peace be upon him" honorifics added after Mohummad's name. It's a racist e-mail, and the wording gives the impression that he is threatening violence (at least it gives that impression to me). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am looking at this person's contributions, and I mostly see attempts to add his own religious beliefs to the encyclopedia. Add that to the harassment, and I would really like to block this person. So I did. If you disagree... I respect that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I only blocked for 31 hours, though. Now I wonder if it should have been much longer. If someone disagrees and wants to change it to indefinite... I respect that, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If I had the tools I would block indefinitely - the user clearly has no intention of contributing constructively. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In view of the statement of intent in this edit summary, I would support an indef block. Favonian (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

His userpage also contains false Misplaced Pages service awards ("Tutnum", etc). See the count. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef. We have no need for this vitriol, and this risks spilling over into other articles. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I'd do it myself, but maybe someone has another idea.

According to his userpage, he's thirteen. Perhaps we could get his mummy to spank him? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef. Regardless of age, he's acting like a religious zealot and obviously doesn't intend to do anything except jihad. Block the clown, and let the Masqued Prophet (saw) sort him out. (Note: This user is not particularly religious and equates all forms of overt religious zealotry and jingoism as intent to refuse to contribute in a collegial manner.) —Jeremy 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have changed the blocking to indef. I almost never block indef, but there are times when it is necessary. Given the situation, I am also changing to indef the block on editing the talk page and on email access. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• IANAA, but support indef. Saebvn (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. Has anyone taken care of the socks? Dlohcierekim 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Popups say "No". —Jeremy 02:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef- currently this user is obviously nothing but a disruptive influence and a major annoyance. But we shouldn't interpret indefinite as infinite; this user is thirteen and he might still grow up. Reyk _YO! 02:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Honestly, this reads like elaborate trolling to me rather than a true "13 year old jihadist". Tijfo098 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter either way. Trolling is just as much a blockable offense as suffocating others with your beliefs. —Jeremy 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More eyes please.

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please.

I dunno if this would necessarily be considered an "incident", but since YMMV, and imho, more eyes is almost always a good thing, I thought I'd note it here as well. - jc37

Counter-revolutionary unblocked at a bad time

Alison has released User:Counter-revolutionary from his indefinite block, noting the background to the block on his page: "C-R was proven to have colluded with David Lauder and co., about two years ago. While technically not a 'sock', per se, he gave access to his account to the LauderHorde and they used it to try to sink Giano's ArbCom bid." The timing of this unblock seems atrocious to me. Giano has made two ArbCom bids altogether: in 2008—attacked by David Lauder and co by means of the good offices of Counter-revolutionary—and one running now, in 2010. I suppose I needn't elaborate on what's wrong with the idea of giving Counter-revolutionary another opportunity to try to sink Giano's ArbCom bid, at a time when a little less than half of the rather brief voting period has passed (voting runs from Friday 26 November to Sunday 5 December). I have so much trouble understanding this unblock—right now? After two years, it couldn't wait another five days? — that I can only suppose I'm somehow misunderstanding what has happened. Alison, could you explain your reasoning, please? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

I understand what you are saying, but how could User:Counter-revolutionary sink Giano at this juncture? Why did Alison unblock now? Dlohcierekim 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not familiar with the Giano incident, although Alison makes specific reference to it, but I'm not keen on the wikilawyering on that talkpage (C-R claims he was not blocked for abusing multiple accounts - indeed he was allowed to continue editing, but was blocked indefinitely and no admin would unblock for a single comment made by one of the multiple accounts which he claims was not actually him typing the words in the edit box. So there doesn't seem to be any recognition that abusing multiple accounts is bad unless you get caught doing it. I don't see why there was a refusal to come to the community with this, particularly as there wasn't even a majority on the talkpage for this action, although I totally accept that Alison was keen to avoid drama. given that the dramah llama had already arrived, I think it might have been better to take this to a wider discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• sigh - well, I was hoping for little drama here on the Counter-revolutionary case but I see Giano's already in my inbox and is upset :( I've said pretty-much everything on C-R's talk page already. C-R will not be votestacking at ArbCom, nor will he be handing the keys of the car over to User:David Lauder and his sockfarm. I'm already checkuser volunteer for the ArbCom elections and am available if there are any suspicions of votestacking. Indeed, it was I who caught the LauderHorde in the act last time, as well as Vintagekits, his counterpart on the 'other side' of the Troubles debacle. I did not choose the timing around this matter - I was made aware of it some days ago. Per process, I contacted the blocking admin from two years ago who gave his assent to unblock. C-R was not blocked for the Lauder affair. That had already been dealt with by ArbCom back then, and he was already editing again. He was blocked as he was associated with an account that made two abusive edits. Given all that, and the fact that he has never been formally banned - not even close - I certainly didn't see the need to start Troubles Arbcom II - Electric Boogaloo - nobody wants that. In short; this editor was blocked for over two years on a socking charge which he denies and which, in retrospect, was flimsy indeed. He'd already copped to the Lauder affair and it had already been dealt with. He will not be interfering with the ArbCom elections nor will he be abusing multiple accounts. I'll see that he doesn't - Alison 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I reckon, with Arb-elections (and Giacomo a candidate) taking place now, this would be a great test for CR to proove himself. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and if he tries anything, I'll be more than happy to indef block his account again & would not be unblocking - Alison 05:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a period of a few days between the request for unblocking and it being granted. Giano, certainly, was aware of the request soon after it was posted and plenty of others commented (including a number unsympathetic to C-R's request). If the coincident timing with ArbCom elections was such an obvious concern, or indeed a risk, surely on-wiki representations to that effect would have been made prior to the unblock? The fact they weren't suggests to me the "atrociousness" of this block unblock is very much in the eye of the beholder. Rockpocket 16:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I expect it does. Did you mean "this unblock"? Bishonen | talk 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I did. Sorry if that was confusing. Rockpocket 11:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting views, on the one hand "this editor was blocked for over two years on a socking charge which he denies and which, in retrospect, was flimsy indeed" according to Alison, and CR were they they admit it. CR says that he was not blocked on the socking charge, but for a comment on Alisons talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All correct. He was initially blocked on the Lauder socking charge, then unblocked after a discussion on ANI. After that, some months passed then his final block was for the edit to my talk page. This final block is the one we're discussing here. The other one is done and dusted and he copped to that one already - Alison 08:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, here's the ban discussion from 2008 where User:David Lauder was community-banned (and rightly so). It should be noted that C-R was explicitly not banned and there was no consensus to ban his account. In fact, quite the opposite, and his indef block was lifted later that day - Alison 08:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• If this is what we can expect to see entirely support unblock. I'm guessing this editor will be watched by a few for misbehaviour. Any attempt to scupper Giano is unlikely to work at this point and even attempting it is likely to be caught quickly. Blocks are preventative not punitive; better to have an editor than not where possible :) --Errant 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

CfD continues to exceed its remit

Notice to user page of User:Explicit;

Despite a bold warning on the CfD page, Category:Music, mind and body has been summarily deleted. This has resulted (per the warning) in the entire loss of categorisation of many music articles. Similarly, the deletion of Category:Musical memes has resulted in unknown losses of musical articles and the review of this category's contents is now impossible. The delete decision seems to have been taken in response to non-specialist comment on the CfD on the validity of (a) psychological and physiological studies and applications of music and (b) the psychological theory of memes and its applicability to music. No consultation was attempted with music projects, psychology and physiology projects or contributing editors, and I consider this deletion - not on any grounds defined on the CfD pages but simply, as I stated, because a small group of CfD activists consider such matters "airy-fairy" or think some articles in those categories are unsuitable - a reportable incident, since damage has been done and work wasted for trivial reasons beyond the remit of the CfD page. I therefore request you undo these deletions pending evaluation and recategorisation of these "lost" articles, and that you engage those editors who have called for this decategorisation to decide upon and implement an alternative means of categorising these articles so that they are not completely lost to the category under which they belong. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The community has spoken. The clear consensus was delete. WP:DRV is the only place where this case can be taken, there is no point raising it here as no action will be taken because of what is on here. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Take it to DRV - this does not require administrator intervention at this time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think one of the complaints that is being made is that by deleting this category is it's mucked up the "tree system" for those categories that existed below it and I think some of the concern is that this should be sorted before the category is deleted. This isn't the place to ask even for a temporary undeletion to sort that out but neither is DRV the place to discuss the wider issue as to whether this should have happened in the first place for which I would suggest WT:CfD. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To begin, I certainly will not restore the categories. Consensus was very clear, and restoring the categories would clearly be out of process. Redheylin's assertion that the deletion of these categories "resulted in unknown losses" is misleading and untrue—Cydebot (talk · contribs) removed these categories from articles and deleted the categories, and this can be found in the bot's contributions. As stated above, administrative intervention is not required nor merited, and DRV will likely endorse the results of the two CFD discussions. — ξ 23:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So the real locus of complaint here is that parent categories were deleted and thereby subordinate categories were effectively undone? Or am I still not understanding the complaint? Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That was my understanding from the user's comments above but having reviewed the bot's edits that doesn't appear to be the case so I'm not equally confused. Dpmuk (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Actually no I'm not. I think what they're suggesting is that when the bot removed the articles from a category they should have automatically been added to the parent category - which makes some sense. Dpmuk (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Which applied nearly to no page, because it was such a broad category. I went through Cydebot's contributions, which start here nearly at the bottom of the page. I didn't check many, but the only page that needed the be categorized was Category:Music therapy, where Redheylin originally removed one category to add the other. Naturally, I went back and fixed that. Categories like Category:Music education and Category:Music cognition were simply added into Category:Music, mind and body without another category being removed, so no categorization was lost in these instances. — ξ 00:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so in this case it was rare but I can see how it may, more generally, be something worth discussing, but here is not the appropriate venue. Dpmuk (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This kind of tomfoolery and constant screwing around with categories is the reason I basically don't use them. Every article needs a category. Fine. If I create a baseball article, I call it category:baseball. If I create an article about a cartoon, I call it category:cartoons. Then let the category zealots have at it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately, people use categorization to send a message. witness the earlier removal of categories on ethnicity and the current attempt to remove the analogous articles, or the attempts to change the names of parts of a certain group of islands, or a particular area in the middle east. BBB, substitute an article on football , and you'll see the problem. what CfD needs is more attention, and a greater willingness to reverse possibly unrepresentative decisions there at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And the above two replies are perfect examples of how to positively contribute to a discussion without derailing it from the issue at hand and turning it to a completely different direction. Imagine, this thread of on specific CFD log turning into criticizing the entire CFD venue? Never. These is exactly what ANI needs in order to keep it from one day becoming a drama-infested board—let's pray that day never comes. Keep up the good work, you two. — ξ 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors here have correctly divined the problem and the reason that I bring it here. Now that user Explicit has declined to restore the category I can take it to review, but this does not address the broader issue. I posted this alert to the CfD;

ATTENTION. Nested categories have been removed from performing arts articles. Summary deletion of a category may result in complete loss of categorisation of many performing arts articles under Category:Performing arts.

Still, User:Explicit deleted. The results are plain. Check Category:Music therapy. It is no longer categorised under Category:Music. So, as User:Dpmuk and User:jclemens say; "it's mucked up the "tree system" for those categories that existed below it" and so "parent categories were deleted and thereby subordinate categories were effectively undone". The adding of the top parent category by the bot is the very least that should have been done.

However User Explicit says; "Redheylin's assertion that the deletion of these categories "resulted in unknown losses" is misleading and untrue—Cydebot (talk · contribs) removed these categories from articles and deleted the categories, and this can be found in the bot's contributions." Well, that is helpful, and the fact that an ANI has extracted this information somewhat mitigates the gross incivility of his actions and remarks. Still, User:Explicit has a clear choice - he can admit that "Music therapy" should be categorised under "Music" - and that he has therefore negligently damaged the category system - or else he can continue down the way currently favoured at CfD, of bullying, allegation and abritrary pronouncements that (perhaps) "music therapy is bullshit, it reminds me of Oprah Winfrey and you have some vested interest". I am amazed by the hostility at this page, during which I was accused of sockpuppetry, reviled, mocked and "warned" by users who simply ignored and refused to engage with facts and information put before them, many of whom appear to spend a good deal of time hanging out at CfD and voting "delete".

It has been asserted that there was a clear consensus for delete. That may appear true on a cursory inspection: a closer look shows, for example, that two such votes occurred before any explanation had been given; one said "I do not know what to put in it" and another said it was a "catch-all". I then explained that one "puts in it" articles on music also categorisable under "Human body/Physiology" or "Mind/Psychology", that there are a significant number of such articles and more are being found but that the categorisation in this interdisciplinary area is currently poor and being improved. Point answered.

I then explained about the loss of categorisation, so that three editors supported my call for renaming or recategorisation. The remainder did not respond in any way to the explanation or the warning. A "consensus" requires some broad agreement: there has been no such thing. Musicological issues were raised and dropped: I requested proposers seek the opinion of interested editors or that the music and the psychology project be consulted - nothing happened.

User:Baseballbugs is correct to call this sort of goings-on "tomfoolery" that threatens the utility of the category system. However categories have their uses; after thousands of edits I have redirect-merged dozens of duplicate or even triplicate articles and old WP:NOTDIC stubs, applied consistent orthographies to hundreds of foreign-language titles, improved see-alsos and citations, added pics, rescued orphans and untangled countless category-gaps, such as "amplifiers" under music and under electronics, with consequent improvements in cross-referencing and wikilinking, enhanced utility of categories as directories, unification of tree-structure etc. This regularly involves clearing some 300 articles from a top category like "Music" - and now I know who did it! It takes days and it's boring, and I do it because I am a teacher of these subjects and I want wikipedia to be reliable and readable and good - no other reason. I am looking for slight signs of civility from anybody who decides to tear down days of hard work. I am not finding it. I am not even getting an intelligent conversation. If CfD can do this, it's just not worth it.

User:Explicit says; "Imagine, this thread of on specific CFD log turning into criticizing the entire CFD venue? Never." But this is exactly why this is here - because this has happened before. I believe it was Category:Folk and traditional music worldwide - the dozens of articles that were left uncatgorised have still not been picked up. Weeks of work, involving the reading and referencing of every article, to unify and distinguish between "folk" and "traditional" and "world" music arbitratily so classified by editors on the ground. But CfD knew what to do about that! All folk and traditional music articles of the developing world remain uncategorised. Nobody is ready to spend days again when the work can be undone in a second for no good reason.

"Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas." That's what CfD is for - and only by the widest interpretation of the last can we deal with a situation in which a group of non-specialists casually determine, say, that the discussion of "Musical memes" in psychology is meaningless and erase the concept from wikipedia with as much hostility and incivility as they can muster. I am therefore looking for a way to ensure that CfD voters do not continue to inflict such damage for reasons which go far beyond the intent of the CfD process. Redheylin (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see "bullying" or "gross incivility" in either the CFD or here, unless you consider the sarcasm above as such, which I personally find to be a stretch. I also fail to see what immediate action needs to be taken here right now. As far as I know, you clearly disagree with the category's deletion, but you also refused to discuss this with the deleting admin, instead complaining directly to ANI. Stuff like this is precisely what deletion review is for; in my opinion, if this is a mere technicality, then I'm sure something can be worked out as far as recategorization under different categories is concerned, but contesting the deletion simply because you don't like the CFD result or how CFD works is not going to get you much anywhere. –MuZemike 15:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike - You say I refused to discuss - I certainly contacted User:Explicit first, but I have also made it clear that this is not an isolated problem but an ongoing situation that requires intervention; first, that the CfD page exceeds its remit clearly stated on its page, that CfD editors seek to decide (in this case) musicological matters, second that no care is taken for the destruction of work and order caused by deletion of categories. Quite simple - is "Music therapy" classifiable under "Music" or not? User:Explicit has decided that it will not be and simply leaves others to pick up the pieces, once he has been forced to admit this is possible. I am saying this declassification is destructive, that it brings no advantage but simply damges wikipedia. There was no consensus since consensus requires that all voters have heard and considered all the arguments. Here, people did not change their vote or respond when their points were answered, voted for reasons outside CfD remit, voted without giving remits, voted then took no further interest, voted without knowing what the category was or what it contained. And at some arbitrary point, despite a civil and reasonable request for warning of impending deletion, "Music therapy" suddenly ceased to be categorised as "Music". Now, if you've got a reason in mind WHY "Music therapy" (just one example of dozens) should not be classified under "Music" - then take it to Psychology, take it to Music, but don't bring it here and don't bring it to CfD. Those pages are not for that. This action was negligent, destructive and incivil, and the perpetrator can manage nothing here but arrogant posturing and a run for cover. If this situation is not fixed, the category system will break - who wants days of work destroyed because "the name of the category sounds like Oprah Winfrey" (whatever that means)? It is entirely unacceptable - it is not what CfD is for. I did not write its remit. Redheylin (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really no admin intervention that can or will come in regards to this. WP:DRV is thataway, plain and simple. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As another user pointed out above, review cannot deal with the ongoing problem of non-policy decisions at CfD. Remember, in the case of Category:Musical memes, nothing at all was heard from any contributing editor. I pointed out that many pieces are discussed by psychologists as "memes", so the category can be populated. It was then demanded of me that I provide citations showing that all current members of the category had been so discussed, and it was widely stated that the idea was meaningless.

CfD is not there to decide upon the validity of psychological theories, nor to discuss the contents of categories, nor to demand that work be done, nor to de-categorise articles entirely. "Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas." Where does it say "decide to exclude subjects you do not like, do damage and then tell others to pick up the pieces of their work"? Certainly intervention is needed on a permananent basis, to ensure this page sticks to its job. Redheylin (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a diff of my "gross incivility of his actions and remarks"? Accusations like this without providing any evidence is a clear-cut personal attack. Of my three years here, this is the first time I can recall being accused of anything near incivility, and I certainly don't appreciate this tarnishing. And yes, to reiterate, I will not restore the categories. Consensus was extremely clear and it went with "delete". As for discussions themselves, I see no bullying, threatening, nor were you accused of being a sockpuppet—the last point is being completely taken out of context. Good Olfactory simply stated that "Qwazzerman appears to be a SPA, so I'm not sure what's going on here." He did not point fingers nor accuse you (or anyone else, for that matter) of any wrongdoing, you're coming to conclusions by yourself. If you consider other editors refuting the points you made at the discussions as bullying and threats, then I don't know what to tell you. In fact, several editors did reply to your comments were not swayed by arguments. Smerus was actually quite persuasive, and that editors happens to be an editor I hardly see at CFD.

As I stated, Category:Music, mind and body only effected one page negatively. One, which I quickly fixed. Any type of merging that required more than two targets, that Category:Musical memes would have probably required, can not be done by Cydebot; it only deals with moving contents from one category to another, not one category into two or more. There's even a section at WP:CFDWM dedicated for multiple merge targets, which is done by regular editors. Any editor who was up for the task needed to "pick up the pieces" regardless.

Lastly, if this was not an isolated problem but an ongoing situation that requires intervention, why does it require admin intervention? Are regular editors not able to initiate discussions? If CFD is as broken as some claim it is, why is nothing being done about it? Why do we ignore the thousands of categories that regularly go through CFD each year with no complaints, why is CFD not broken then? The hundreds of categories created by the CFD regulars and the countless of pages being added to these categories, why does this work go unnoticed? Why is CFD only broken when the result of a discussion rubs someone the wrong way, but their completely negligence of the venue in the first place was the problem? — ξ 08:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pandrzejczak

Pandrzejczak (talk · contribs) has authored Niesamowity Wyscig 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Niesamowity Wyscig 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which are amalgamations and blatant contrived content based on actual versions of The Amazing Race. For example, this section is a very blatant copy-paste of an older version of this section. There is no Polish language version of the TV show (it certainly has no coverage on the Polish Misplaced Pages) and Pandrzejczak does not realize what he has done is wrong (or I may not be explaining it clearly enough).

Basically, I don't think Pandrzejczak should be permitted to edit this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what Ryulong or whatever your "name" is i am sick of that you are like that school bully that thinks is the smartest and greatest so the one that needs to stop is you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandrzejczak (talk • contribs) 03:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just for illustrative reasons, I've taken the liberty of copy pasting from deleted and not deleted versions here.

from deleted version (Leg 3 (Finland → Kazakhstan))--

In this leg's roadblock one team member from each team had to search among 30,000 chickens for one of seven golden eggs to receive their next clue. In this leg's Fast Forward teams travel to a restaurant and eat Korduk, a local Kazakh delicacy, which includes fat from the rear end of a sheep, when they finished, that team would win the Fast Forward. In this leg's detour teams had to chose between Act Like Fools or Play Like Mad. In Act Like Fools, teams had to put on a two-person cow costume at the Almaty State Puppet Theater and travel across town to a milk stand and drink an entire glass of milk. At the bottom of the glass was the name of their next destination - the Zelyony Bazar (Green Market); they should receive their next clue in the meat section thirteen. They then had to bring either the dombra or the cow costume head with them to the Pit Stop. In Play Like Mad, teams had travel to the State Museum of National Musical Instruments and learn to play a traditional folk tune on the dombra and the shang-kobuz which later they had to repeat it ro receive their next clue.

from not deleted version (Leg 8 (India → Kazakhstan))--

The Roadblock required one team member from each team to search among 30,000 chickens for one of seven golden eggs to get their next clue. The last Fast Forward on this race had teams travel to Alasha Restaurant and eat Korduk, a local Kazakh delicacy, which includes fat from the rear end of a sheep, when they finished, that team would win the Fast Forward. The Detour was a choice between Act Like Fools or Play Like Mad. In Act Like Fools, teams had to put on a two-person cow costume at the Almaty State Puppet Theater and travel across town to a milk stand and drink an entire glass of milk. At the bottom of the glass was the name of their next destination - the Zelyony Bazar (Green Market); they should receive their next clue in the meat section there. They then had to bring either the dombra or the cow costume head with them to the Pit Stop. In Play Like Mad, teams had travel to the State Museum of National Musical Instruments and learn to play a traditional folk tune on the dombra and the shang-kobuz which they then play for locals and earn tips totalling 200 tenge (about the equivalent of $1.50) in a park to receive their next clue."

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pandrzejczak (talk · contribs) is also Kacper95 (talk · contribs) and an anon which has also been warned several times for similar reasons. I've blocked the accounts. John Vandenberg 12:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Krishnashuraa

User:Krishnashuraa is continuing to add spam to his talk page after being blocked. Can the block be extended to the talk page? . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned the user in question. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 10:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the only edits post-block have been to spam his TP up, a warning ain't gonna cut it. Blocking NTP will be more effective. —Jeremy 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he hasn't edited since his block. 06:09 last edit; 06:12 block. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Conduct of User talk:Ilvon

This user has been very active in recent days, making a significant number of unreferenced additions to a large number of articles, mostly (as far as I can tell) the common thread being individual stars (in the astronomical sense). The user has been advised not to make these kinds of changes before (and again), and by me again this morning, and now by another user today. I have reverted a dozen or so of their efforts, but there appear to be a couple of hundred at issue, not all of which I am expert to comment on. I don't think the message is getting through. I will alert the user to this notification, and hopefully someone else can monitor and, if necessary, act to block - I'm going to be offline for a little while. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Fanatic sockpuppets

Baseball62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created Nov 22, blocked by HJMitchell on Nov 30 at 20:52 for harassment
Smiley4541 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created about Nov 20, blocked by Jpgordon on Dec 1 at 02:26 for block evasion
66.167.61.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dallas-based, blocked by MuZemike on Dec 1 at 14:51 for block evasion
Baseball Fanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created Jan 28, first entry April 1. Now blocked (see below)

Nov 20 at 20:37, Nihonjoe renamed Smiley4541 to Baseball Fanatic. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Two of his sockpuppets have been blocked (Baseball62 and Smiley4541 (note: usurped user), but Baseball Fanatic has not been blocked yet. Thank you. Perseus (t • c • g) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, sockmasters aren't always blocked unless its deemed necessary to prevent further disruption. Maybe the admin decided it wasn't required in this case?--Korruski 14:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's one obvious reason to block, and that is the admission that his account may have been compromised. Either that point was overlooked, or there's something else going on. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I don't think he's admitting that his account may have been compromised, but that his computer (or WiFi, since he seems to have changed his story) could have been accessed, which is an attempt to explain why another user has the same ip address.--Korruski 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I think his current account should be indef'd "without prejudice" and he should create a start-over account. Although if his wi-fi has actually been breached, wikipedia accounts are the least of his worries. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern: Baseball Fanatic welcomed Baseball62. He warned him too. So, he just might be him. Perseus (t • c • g) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very peculiar behavior. Like he created a straw-man vandal or something. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The 3 blocks were done by 3 separate admins. I have asked them to come here and enlighten us as to what's going on, if they are at liberty to do so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My (informed) guess is that they're sitting next to each other in a classroom or internet cafe or something. --jpgordon 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the vandal, Baseball62 (talk · contribs). I don't know anything about the socking and I would guess that the other two admins are in the same position. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I need to also ask Nihonjoe, who did the renaming. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

←While Jpgordon raises a valid point, I fail to see how the usernames followed by the fact that they are technically  Confirmed is simply a coincidence. I will note that one of the ranges these accounts are on are very busy with everything from serial spammers to administrators. That said, I am confident Baseball Fanatic (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sockmaster and have blocked it as such. Tiptoety 18:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP mass blanking has begun

The Blitz quote removed

The quoted says he was misquoted and wishes to stop receiving calls about the quote, which he gets from people reading the article. Will inform of thread.Cracked acorns (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me in the least that The Mail could get this wrong, but the quote is referenced to a... um... 'reliable' source, so I don't think that just removing it is ok. Maybe a good compromise would be to remove the name and make the quote simply 'a spokesman'. If they have since refuted the statement in a reliable source, then that information could be added as well. Either way, isn't this better off discussed on the talk page? I'm not seeing a need for admin intervention here?--Korruski 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. As an issue raised by an anon claiming to be an injured party in real life from a Misplaced Pages article?Cracked acorns (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok, but it's still a content dispute regardless of who they are or claim to be. As long as they don't start making legal threats, I don't personally think there is anything an admin needs to do that an ordinary user couldn't do.--Korruski 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the anon has a serious beef, they can contact WP:OTRS with some identification. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Did as you suggested above. No further contact as yet from the anon. Perhaps he thought removing and politely explaining his reasons would settle it. Not sure if the line is really worth putting back, but I'm just a passer by.Cracked acorns (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just went to WP:OTRS so I could give the IP clear instructions on how to contact them, only to find that there are no clear instructions there. Can anyone help? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTRS suggests you go to wikipedia:contact_us, which then seems to suggest Misplaced Pages:Contact_us/Article_problem for this sort of thing. However, if you follow that through, the answer is essentially that if they disagree with content, they should go through the same process as any other user.--Korruski 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

<-- I too have found frustration rather than OTRS. Dlohcierekim 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS? over at commons I'm still waiting for them to act on stuff I e-mailed 2 months ago.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK this is ridiculous. I know commons OTRS is backlogged on picture copyrights, but the advice we are supposed to give to people who are the subject of BLPs is to contact OTRS. I'll see if Chase me ladies is about - he works in OTRS.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What we would do at OTRS is one of two things:

1. Tell him to discuss it on the talk page
2. Remove the quote ourselves after he complained, explain why on the talk page, and hope no-one kicks up too much of a fuss about it

In this case I think it's pretty clear: we should just remove the quote as the chap concerned says he's been misquoted. It's only polite and we can leave a record of it on the talk page - it's not as if the Oxford Mail is particularly reliable. OTRS don't really need to get involved - we're primarily for people who can't work out how to solve their problems on-wiki. Hope this helps. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Strawberrywalruslane

If what this user wrote on my talk page is true, then we have a teacher who is trying to game this system. I'm wondering if a CU and rangeblock are necessary. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a prank, but if they're looking for a rangeblock, then perhaps we should oblige. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that, especially if it comes up as a school IP. Here we slave to make this site a valuable resource and some idiot with a teaching credential tells his/her class to destroy and disrupt it. Great thing to teach kids. Bugs, you're the best. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) But I'm not a checkuser, so I can only offer a viewpoint. :( I still suspect (or at least hope) that this is a student prank and not an actual teacher's assignment. Some have suggested automatically blocking school IP's and only unblocking them on a case-by-case basis. That idea kind of runs counter to wikipedia principles, but it might well get the approval of school principals. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right; the account has been quiet and there haven't been any further creations of articles on phony British toys.  :) Thanks for the insight. I agree with your sentiment regarding school IPs.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know about other countries, but most UK schools teach modules on Web 2.0 in Key Stage 4 (or earlier) these days. I have seen many schemes of work that involve the teacher or the students introducing fake or false information in order to test how robust the systems are - after all, it's a clear demonstration of the concepts. Indeed, I've read lesson plans that suggest that students should introduce negative (false) information into the biography of both a very well-known and very obscure person to see how long it takes to revert; the learning target is that subtle inaccuracy often goes unnoticed whilst clear violations don't. It's something we'll have to put up with I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, some low-key vandalisms can take years to uncover. Then the fun begins, of finding out who entered it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heck, if someone with CU privileges has a moment, please run one. If this is a school IP with an assignment such as this, we really may be faced with some problems. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it. I've read the "against Misplaced Pages principles argument" for years. First and foremost, though, we need to protect the Work. And I've seen mostly trouble-- years of it per IP-- from school IP's. Dlohcierekim 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is an extraordinary situation of an organizational campaign against the Project. Dlohcierekim 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear! The first priority should be to serve the reading public. Hence the intentional loophole called IAR. If it does turn out to be an organized campaign, if it were me I would indeed notify the school principal and ask him to have a friendly chat with the teacher. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm going to formally request a CU. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always said school-IPs should be at least soft-blocked. I have yet to see a single school-IP being used legitimately. It's gotten to the point where I can practically identify whether a new IP is from a school or not simply by the vandalism pattern. "Good Faith" or not, leaving ourselves open to this is simply stupid. School-IPs are a problem and school-IPs always will be a problem. Soft-blocking them would probably drop vandalism by a third. HalfShadow 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You might be where I saw that idea. Soft-blocking wouldn't totally fix the problem, but at least it would compel someone to take the time to create an ID. Although, ironically, a CU then has to be run in order to pinpoint the IP. I have actually seen an occasional useful edit from a school IP, and the fact it caught my attention suggests how rare it seems to be. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Indeed. Perhaps the office needs to discuss this with the appropriate school board. Dlohcierekim 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would start with the school principal in order to make a determination if any teacher really was the source of it. It's an area where we have to be careful, because if we make any false accusations or come on too strong, it could cause wikipedia more harm than a boatload of belligerent IP's can cause. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Slight problem there; most UK schools edit through a consortium ISP arrangement; my school has the same IP address as 347 others. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there some lesson plan that encourages this? If so, we should find it. We just went through this with Cjpmiller (talk · contribs), who was a teacher vandalizing Misplaced Pages as a demo. See User talk:DMacks#Hey, DMacks for the dialogue between the teacher and an admin. --John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: The account is editing from a school (that is all the information I will give). Take appropriate actions as needed and as relevant to this situation. –MuZemike 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just a heads up: since many educational IP ranges are blocked from anon editing, most lesson plans will encourage students to introduce such information as homework, i.e. they'll edit from random locations. I have to admit my surprise that numerous editors think this is an unusual situation, to be honest; working in education myself, lessons are very clear - don't tell students what happens if they edit wikis, show and encourage them to do it themselves. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment): Appears PMDrive1061 is offline. If an admin (doesn't have to be uninvolved) would put the range block in place and block the account, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous. Wonderful. I wonder if any of these teachers encourage their kids to go through the neighborhood breaking windows and keying cars to see how long the owners take to fix them or to demonstrate that glass is not impervious to rocks or that automobile paint is not so durable that it can't be scratched off. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From my personal experience, it's the teachers' cars that end up getting keyed by the students, if anything. Breaking windows, exploding mailboxes with cherry bombs, etc., that's another story. All I know is, it's those who have to repair their own property who have to pay for everything, insurance be damned. –MuZemike 07:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page use

I just blanked User talk:Ryute, after having left a "notsocialnetwork" warning. User has no edits besides that talk page, and after I posted the template, I saw that some of the content (dealing with sex, underwear, and slaves) was highly inappropriate. Most of it is in Spanish and looks like a rambling sort of autobiography or blog. Anyway, there's also an email address in there, and I wonder if any of you (the ones with the powerful buttons) will have a look, to see if a. I acted appropriately and b. if the content (history) needs to be deleted entirely. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It reads like amateur porn. The major issue might be various names he brings up. Probably best to revdel the whole thing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I've directed them to WP:OUT. If they come back and do it again a block would be warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Amateur porn? Pity I didn't have Google translate the whole thing. Thanks to both of you! Drmies (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. All the objectionable material is still there unless someone gets rid of this revision. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Now  Done T. Canens (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights

Request for admin help at this AfD. No blocking or banning required. Should be obvious what the request is for when you read the most recent posts. Apologies if this should have been posted elsewhere.Dingo1729 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous. Why not just wait for the AfD to end and then figure out what needs to be done? I see no reason to close it early, unless perhaps you can get the nominator and everyone who !voted to Delete to agree with you. The closing admin should be bright enough to figure out the most appropriate action when the time comes. SnottyWong  22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add fun to the mess there was a content fork AND cut/paste move issue with Oxford Street Christmas Lights and Oxford Street Christmas lights - I redirected both of those to Oxford Street#Christmas lights which is, I think, where it came from (with the list of people appended) --Errant 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact I think those articles were cut/paste from this list in the first place. --Errant 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock required

Mclaudt (talk · contribs)

This discussion (link fixed) shows community consensus to unblock the editor in question but the block has not yet been lifted, and the thread has been archived. Can some admin please perform the unblock? I don't think it would be fair for the editor to be inadvertently forgotten. Reyk _YO! 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

here is the link. There was sort of weak support and a proposal to make the "standard offer". Fainites scribs 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was a "community ban" makes it complicated (needlessly, IMHO) in discussion without clear consensus like this; since I can't overrule the community, I feel my hands are tied in coming up with a compromise without having a whole new discussion. I suggest something that was toyed with before during the community ban discussion: a topic ban from Linux or any other free software topic. Plus, he needs to know he's on his ninth life as far as insulting other editors is concerned. If he goes for those terms, I'd unblock. Any objections? Do we need to notify the opposers in the previous unban discussion? I hate community bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. There are more supports than opposes but it's all very thin and weak. I'd go with a ban from Linux/free software for 6 months and then reviewed, with an understanding of a swift re-block if there's any repeat of previous problematic behaviour.Fainites scribs 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the definition has changed at some point, a community ban has always been simply a block that no administrator is willing to lift. That language continues to exist on the Blocking Policy. Obviously if theres strong community consensus that someone should not be unblocked that should greatly influence your willingness to lift, but with a roughly even split, as long as you're convinced he wont be too much trouble and is at least making an attempt, you're hands aren't tied at all. -- ۩ Mask 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, what you pointed out is a discrepancy in 2 different policies. In blocking policy, it did state that "if no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community". However, on the banning policy, ban can be imposed when the subject "exhausted the community's patience". And right now this scenario fits into both sides. What happens when there's no clear consensus but there're admins (i.e. me and maybe others) who're willing to unblock? OhanaUnited 04:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would probably say the original, but im biased towards what im used to. The wordings been tweaked a bit over the years, but is largely as I remember it. There was an Arbcom case the first time there was literally a single admin willing to unblock who actually did. Basic result of the case was, as far as I remember, going against consensus is a BAD idea, but reblocking without a new offense is wheel-warring, and if the user effs up in the slightest a new indefinite block is not wheel-warring. A kind of slowly evolved organic social contract developed with it that if your the only one willing to spring them then they're your responsibility. All this dates back to like 2007 though, hence my prefacing all of this with references to whether or not it still applies. I largely lapsed out of the wiki for 3 years or so, things like the exhausting the patience of the community came about during that time, so I dont know if they supersede that or not. -- ۩ Mask 05:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is silly. I saw a very weak willingness to unblock; I've gone ahead and offered him the topic ban option, which might win over those weakly opposed to the unblock. We'll see what he has to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the restrictions you've offered as conditions for an on Mclaudt's talk page are fair. If Mclaudt agrees to them they will do a lot to keep him out of the areas that got him into trouble before without being so restrictive that it makes an eventual slip-up inevitable. I appreciate you spending some time with this. Reyk _YO! 08:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Mclaudt, based on his acceptance of the topic ban and other restrictions that can be seen on his talk page. Consensus was relatively weak, but I suppose detectable enough to provide me with cover against accusations I'm a cowboy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

This is a frequently-contentious article, even by those of us who get along in general, because of the strict standards we attempt to impose on it to prevent its being too much of a hodge-podge. We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so. He was doing this a couple of weeks ago, and is now getting into an edit war about it.

Since the user won't pay attention to those of us who comprise the Great Unwashed, I wonder if one of the admins with a good way with words would share one or two of those words with the user.

The user has edited under both the registered ID TheThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the logged-out IP 72.187.199.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no accusation of sockpuppetry here, as he has freely admitted jumping from one to the other. The issue is strictly that his behavior is getting excessively disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me echo Baseball Bugs' concerns. This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing. He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary. When called on that, he waited a couple of weeks, then restored the same contentious material (again with a "consensus" of one person), stating "Added back in due to lack of consensus". Note also that the same editor has tried to add a variety of items to the same page over a period of the last couple of months. Some were accepted without serious objection. So we have taken the time to consider his edits and, when needed, discuss them. But he can't seem to accept the absence of consensus (or any support, for that matter) on this particular item that he has repeatedly restored. Cresix (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He's also issued a gratuitous "edit-warring" warning to me due to the fact that I removed the blatant falsehood that "birds are dinosaurs". That's a minor issue, but an example of the user's disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the same to me after I reverted him one time. Cresix (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Most appropriate place for this is the edit warring noticeboard Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. He hasn't violated 3RR that I know of. His biggest transgression is not respecting the consensus process, not edit warring per se. Cresix (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Informed TheThomas of this discussion. Please remember that you must notify the subject(s) of ANI threads. GiftigerWunsch 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified him before I posted here. He deleted it. And this is not just about edit warring. Take a look at his little user page manifesto which is largely about being confrontational. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was careful to check the history for that before notifying him; I noticed you mentioned that you would be taking it to ANI, but not that you had done so. It's important to notify users that there is an ongoing discussion about them at ANI so that they may contribute / defend themselves as necessary. In any case it's done now. GiftigerWunsch 01:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here I told him that I was just about to post at ANI. That was after I had warned him that if he reverted again I was going to do so; and it was before I posted here. So I informed him, and you informed him. So hopefully he's sufficiently informed, at least on that particular point. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought Birds were Dinosaurs? Possibly this is a misconception. Wouldn't the Ref. Desk be a better venue to hash this out? 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are considered "an extant clade of dinosaurs". That doesn't mean that birds are dinosaurs. In any case, the editor refuses to discuss it. That's an interesting idea about posting to the ref desk, though. I'll give that a try and see what the opinions are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon 108, sorry if I am misunderstanding your comment. The issue in this ANI report isn't about birds and dinosaurs. It's about repeatedly adding contentious information (which itself has nothing to do with birds and dinosaurs) without consensus. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(@ BaseBall Bugs:) I've never heard of a "Clade of Dinosaurs", but then again I only recently heard that it is called a "Kettle of Vultures". Hope the Ref. Desk sorts all that out for you. 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to turn this into a list of cute phrases, but I thought "Murder of crows" should get the absurd phrase award until I saw your "Kettle of vultures". Cresix (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See here Clade, applies to all organisms, not just dinosaurs, is a term for classifying an organism and its descendants. Heiro 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"A Clade of Organisms/Dinosaurs". Just found "a Battery of Barracudas" as well. Does Misplaced Pages have an article on the names of gathered animals? 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse,or have you not read clade. I is not a name specific to dinosaurs. It is a term describing the relationship between different species. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for help on this point at the science ref desk. My question is solely "are birds dinosaurs?" I'll be glad to restore that point to the misconceptions article IF it's considered to be true by the experts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of birds. Heiro 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it calls it "a contentious topic" is sufficient to keep it out of the misconceptions article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(@Grumpy) I found the article: Lists of collective nouns It is quite extensive. 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it tad strange, that an IP (108.121.139.247) which has only been on line for less the an hour, knew exactly where WP:ANI was? I sense a block evader amongst us. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's assume good faith here. There hasn't been any misbehavior, and there is such a thing as a dynamic IP. Cresix (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A newbie shows up & comes directly here? something is fishy, but I'll leave it up to you folks. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, definitely suspicious, but he hasn't overtly violated any rules that we know of.

      Regarding the dinosaurs-birds issue, I think the "misconception" needs to be reworded. Would that the subject of this section would address that point. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well I've been spit on enough for tonight, but I will make one last comment. In response to GoodDay's less than polite comments here and at my original IP talk: AGF should not be too far of a stretch for those that understand Dynamic IP's. If you don't understand them, or on IP's being allowed to edit, you might want to do more reading and less typing for awhile. In fact I have been here for several years editing anonymously. And yes, I do know my way around a bit. When policy dictates that I can no longer edit as an IP, I won't. When my ISP assigns me a permanent address, continuity of my edits will be apparent. Until one of those things happens, I may appear to have no history, or I may appear to have the history that is in fact that of another/others. GoodDay's edits to/about me could be construed as both rude and as a personal attack. Do you have a diff from me that warranted your comments? Looks like I might have pointed Bugs in the right direction with the Ref. Desk. He seems to be making good progress on the Bird/Dinosaur issue. Sorry about the drama. 108.111.90.165 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If you had created an account & signed in, I wouldn't have become suspicious. Anyways, do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You look on him differently because he has no account? You do realize that's admitting to violating a couple policies, right? WP:AGF and WP:BITE to name a couple. Grow up please, having an account or not means nothing to the quality or ability of an editor and saying it does is being childish. -- ۩ Mask 06:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • As I've accepted the IP's status as not being a block-evading editor, my previous concerns are irrelevant. As for growing-up? I'm 6ft in height & in my late 30's - therefore I can't grow any further. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume this was a newcomer in the first place, especially when ANI is the very first venue. That being said, using dynamic IPs which are assigned out of the user's control is very much possible. –MuZemike 07:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you need to read and digest Misplaced Pages:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. This noticeboard has made the newspapers long since. It's not exactly an unknown little corner of Misplaced Pages. You need to eliminate from your thinking the notion that people who don't create accounts are automatically third-class citizens contributing in bad faith. That thinking is something that regularly gets people into trouble, from people who get de-Twinkled for erroneously treating edits as vandalism to people who find themselves heavily criticized for excluding policy-based and cogent arguments for no good reason. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:Epeefleche

Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has recently posted a notification on the talk pages of 65 different editors regarding the existence of six Judiasm-related AfD's. This is an example of the typical notification. I attempted to engage Epeefleche to figure out why this had been done, but Epee was largely evasive and eventually deleted the discussion, citing some apparently imaginary personal attack. I decided to take the discussion here to determine whether this was disruptive, and if so, to communicate that to Epeefleche so that future incidents can be avoided. There are several reasons why this is concerning to me:

1. While it was a neutral message, it still violates the "Scale" criterion of WP:CANVAS. Even neutral messages posted to a huge number of editors is a violation of WP:CANVAS. I think we can all agree that 65 editors is absolutely an unreasonable number. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IZAK#Principles, where Arbcom notes that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice. Excessive cross-posting goes against current Misplaced Pages community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. Misplaced Pages editors make use of a variety of methods to avoid excessive cross-posting." This particular case involved an editor who, at the most, sent messages to 39 users during any one event, which pales in comparison to the 65 users who were notified here. Clearly, ArbCom would not view these actions favorably.
2. According to some editors (and this is not something I've seen firsthand), Epeefleche has a history of pushing a POV when it comes to articles about Jews or Judaism.
3. Epeefleche has a history of canvassing problems, as a search through the ANI archives would reveal. He also been blocked for sockpuppeting at AfD's in the past (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive).
4. Epeefleche also tagged each of the articles for rescue. This is not problematic in and of itself. However, the point of rescue-tagging an article (in my opinion, anyway) is to point out articles which clearly need work done to them (i.e. sources need to be added, copyedits, etc.) to address the concerns of the nominator, in the hopes that when that work is complete, the nomination rationale will no longer be valid, and the article will be kept. The nominations of these articles, however, clearly focus on the fact that the subjects of the lists themselves are unencyclopedic. There is no amount of work or "rescuing" which is going to fix that problem. Therefore, I think it can reasonably be assumed that the rescue-tagging effort by Epee in this instance was more about notifying inclusionists about the AfD rather than notifying those who might fix the perceived problems with the articles. So, in addition to the 65 editors that Epee notified manually, 100+ more editors were notified through the use of the {{rescue}} template. Which brings me to my next point:
5. This is highly disruptive to the AfD process. It's well known (even documented at Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors under "Too many cooks") that any discussion on Misplaced Pages which involves too many editors is all but guaranteed to not result in a clear consensus. Since "no consensus" defaults to "keep" at AfD, all one needs to do to increase the chances that the article is kept is to ensure that a maximal number of editors vote at the AfD. This is exactly what Epee is doing, intentionally or otherwise, by posting an excessive number of talk page spam notices. I'm not suggesting that we limit the number of people who can contribute to an AfD, however I think it is clearly disruptive to artificially inflate the number of editors who are contributing to a discussion. If an AfD is going to have 100 people contribute to it, that's fine, but that shouldn't happen as a result of someone posting a bunch of messages (neutrally worded or otherwise) to 50+ editors. Take a look at any of these six AfD's and you'll see that Epee's tactics have largely succeeded. None of the AfD's have less than about 30 !votes, and a few of them likely have over 100.

Can we come to an agreement on whether or not this was a disruptive action? SnottyWong  00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also believe this to be a disruptive action for the reasons detailed above. Yworo (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sad that he did this, but I would have to agree. 65 editors is a ridiculous amount to notify. Silverseren 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In real life it is best to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. If I were involved in a number of issues and someone tipped me off that something that may interest me was occurring, I would appreciate that. So I might do the same myself.

With Epeefleche, he said to people, apparently 65 of them, "As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic...", then he informed him about this or that. Had he left me such a message, I would have appreciated that if I was indeed on a closely related topic. I have to give Epeefleche credit for being willing to include others in conversation.

I am noticing on pages I edit that some people who seek to control pages also seek to limit the discussion or the people involved. Whether by removing neutrality tags, using personal attacks, filing WP:LAME procedural manoeuvers, archiving Talk pages the moment discussion slows down, what have you, the goal is to shut down conversation.

Epeefleche has done the exact opposite. He is opening conversation to many. That is laudable.

If he only did that for people who only supported his view of things, that would be a problem. But I see no such allegation of that here.

I see no disruption here. I see only an effort to open conversation to more voices. That is the very purpose for which Misplaced Pages was created. Cheerio. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Legit. No harm, no foul. IronDuke 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that the ArbCom case referenced above is invalid, and the part of WP:CANVAS which relates to "Scope" is ok to ignore, as long as the message is neutral? Would it be ok if I (or Epee, or anyone) notified all 100+ editors who have contributed to these six AfD's whenever any AfD about a Judaism-related subject is started in the future? Or just a Judaism-list-related subject?? SnottyWong  00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe 65 is a large number -- that's routinely exceeded in RfA thankspam. Again: harm? None that I can see. IronDuke 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankspam could never be canvassing per WP:CANVAS because it is not an attempt to make users aware of an ongoing discussion; you're taking this completely out of context. GiftigerWunsch 01:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think thankspam could be thought of as deprecated in WP:CANVAS. If memory serves, it was that way when I named it. And most importantly, I still don't see the harm. IronDuke 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Apparently you need to read the WP:CANVAS guideline, specifically mass posting. 65 is simply a blatantly excessive number. In any case this is a blatant violation of the guideline, and this isn't the place to dispute the validity of the guidelines. I sense the inevitable WP:IAR argument coming, but personally I fail to see how informing 65 vaguely-involved parties of a series of AfDs is going to benefit the project, especially to the extent that it should overrule an accepted guideline. GiftigerWunsch 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Addressed to the both of you: However, Snottywong has a point in terms of the fact that, in a good amount of cases, getting this many people involved in a discussion ends with it being a no consensus decision. This is actually the exact problem with the fact that he notified both sides (as is proper, I am not saying notifying both sides is wrong). A huge number of both sides have entered these AfDs and they have become a muddled mess that will, very very likely, be closed as a no consensus decision. In a manner of speaking, making this many notifications seems to be a way of gaming the system (the AfD system, that is). Silverseren 00:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I was one of the 65 editors canvassed by Epeefleche, who contacted me because I'd commented on one of the Jewish list AfDs. While I agree that the distribution of editors canvassed in neutral (nobody who was angling for only keep votes on a dubiously sourced article with big question marks over notability would dream of canvassing me), I think it's obvious that the sheer scale of the mass posting makes any outcome other than a default keep through no consensus impossible. I also think that Epee's experience, and the fact that they previously used the "rescue" tag to canvass the Inclusionist Voting Block, makes it likely that this was the aim of the exercise from the start. That's disruptive behaviour; it undermines the AfD process and makes a joke out of the whole concept of consensus. Epeefleche should be strongly discouraged from doing anything like this again. By block if necessary, though I hope it won't come to that. Reyk _YO! 00:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users...." I do not agree 65 is "an excessively large number". Then to claim he is being disruptive? Come on. Is 50 acceptable? Then he's 15 over the line. Is that disruptive? Come on. People keep using procedural means to restrict others. Can't we all just get along? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't get it. If ArbCom comes to a resolution that a user who posted 39 notices is "excessive", then how could 65 not be seen as excessive? This isn't about getting along or using the bureaucracy to restrict other users. I have no problem with Epee, I can't even recall if we've ever even run into each other before. This is about gaming the system. If someone wants their article to be kept at AfD, all they have to do is go notify 200 editors of the AfD's existence, which will create a cacophony at the AfD and almost certainly result in a No Consensus close. That's not right, and I can't see why you would choose to defend such actions. SnottyWong  00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. So much for WP:AGF. I did not read the arbcom 39 thing. That might have made a difference. But, assume the 39 thing set a bright line for the future. 1) Why wasn't the canvassing page updated with that number, and 2) why is Epee disruptive if perhaps he too missed the 39 arbcom thing that's not on the canvassing page? People are so quick to assume others are gaming the system. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no bright line here, it's just common sense; 39 is an enormous number, and 65 is simply ridiculous. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person could consider 65 users to not be excessive in the context of AfD discussions. IMO anything much about 5 notifications is starting to push into the grey area, but 65 is well and truly beyond "grey". GiftigerWunsch 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced by arguments based on numbers alone; each case is different, and if it is shown that there is bias in the alleged canvassing, fair enough. But we cannot assume that interested editors are here 24/7, and thus neutrally referring potentially interested editors to issues in which they may wish to contribute should not necessarily be assumed to be canvassing. That is perhaps better than a watchlist for editors who contribute less frequently. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Smith Jones i was one of the people he spoke to regarding those aritcles. I do not understand why he isbeing the subject of an attack here. he was perfectly fair and evenhanded, posting to me not at random but because iw was someone who had previously been involved in editing several of the related articles or involved in the deletion discussions at WP:AFD. he was not improper or forceful in anyway in his comment, merely asking me respectfuly and without pressure to consider participating in JUST the articles that were similar to the ones that i had on my own already been involved with. he did not tell me how to vote or even reveal his own position on any of thes issues. i dont see why he should be blocked or subject to an indefinite ban over this extremely minor and remakably fair case of making sure that all intersted parties were avialable. in fact, i feel that he should be commended for his willingess to do more than just canvass people he thinks are supporters of his AFDs and actually try to build a fair consensus instead of doing the usual wikisneaking and quickly wrapping up a "conesnsus" without input from anyone who was involved who might disagree. if he violated some adhoc policy, then tell him not to so do in the future but please dont exterminate an honest editor over a content dispute. User:Smith Jones 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Smith Jones, you hit the nail right on the head. You're a hero. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• The 65-userpage notice in neutral terms by Epeefleche on Dec. 1 was sent out to a broad group of users AFTER Epeefleche had been publicly chided for two previous targeted notifications concerning the same AfDs. There was an initial email outreach, which would have remained secret except that one user chose to reveal that he had been canvassed -- we have no way of knowing how many others received that email and how that group was chosen. The user who got the email has commented extensively in support of Epeefleche's positions at Articles for deletion: List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Another Nov. 30 outreach by Epeefleche to a respected admin, who has now joined Epeefleche in a strong concern that Jewish lists are being "targeted", was far from a neutral outreach or notification: "There is currently an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews. Some of the lists have withstood such efforts in the past. This is taking place even where there are articles and entire books about the intersections...Some current such AfDs are efforts to delete the lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians." (And never mind that all but one of these AfDs were filed by, or at the urging of, people who are fighting against the first AfD filed.) Both Epeefleche's earlier efforts at (I think) canvassing were publicly reported just before the wider, public, more neutrally worded 65-user message that is referenced above. A forest is a good place to hide a stick. betsythedevine (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I should say that as the user referenced above, while I voted keep, I don't regard myself as having supported Epeefleche's position. Our arguments are based on quite different policy grounds. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so there is also evidence that Epee conducted off-wiki canvassing with respect to these AfD's? The plot thickens. Epee, would you be interested in telling us who you sent emails to regarding this AfD? Is there any way for a checkuser-like admin to look up a record of emails that were sent from WP? SnottyWong  01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WHATE EVIDENCE is there of these socalled emails!? User:Smith Jones 01:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This was already explained above in Betsythedevine's comments, which you apparently haven't read. User:DustFormsWords came forward and admitted that he/she was notified of the AfD's by an email from Epeefleche. See here. SnottyWong  01:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. the email that DustFormsWords relates as only a neutral notification. Just the one? Or were there two? Three? Because thee was no transparency, the emails were a bad choice. However, it is quite decent that DustFormsWords relates that even then, Epeefleche's notifcation was neutral. For one or two polite and neutral emails, I might advise Epeefleche to never do so again. Schmidt, 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "neutral" notification sent to a POV compatriot about an AfD related to the POV one shares with said compatriot. Any notification is a clear attempt to drum up votes that support said POV. Any notification done to gain votes is against the point of WP:CANVASS. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DustFormsWords

For heaven's sake people. Look, once again, here is the email I received from Epeefleche yesterday:

Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors Best

This was presumably referring to Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates in which I voted Keep, but it may have been referring to Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_heavy_metal_musicians in which I voted Delete. I was not comfortable that this email was allowable canvassing and after receiving it I declined to participate in any further Jewish list AfDs. All of those list AfDs have been visited by a wide range of intelligent editors on both sides of the debate and I have no reason to believe that any of the debates have been unduly influenced by Epeefleche's actions. Certainly those that still remain open are unlikley to close in any way other than "no consensus", and for good reason. Now, whether or not Epeefleche has been canvassing is irrelevant. This ANI is, whether intentionally or not, serving as a collateral attack on the list AfDs, which to my mind results in a greater practical abuse of process than any canvassing that may have occurred. You're all intelligent people - hurry up and close this so we can return to the substantive business of improving Misplaced Pages. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Now, whether or not Epeefleche has been canvassing is irrelevant." Really? Under what circumstances is it ok to temporarily ignore long-standing policies and guidelines? This particular instance of canvassing was clearly disruptive. For an editor who has a history of canvassing problems and has exhibited a pattern of disruptive canvassing behavior, I think it is entirely appropriate to bring this to the attention of the community for further discussion. I disagree that Epee's actions didn't significantly change the end result of the AfD's, and my reasons for disagreeing are clearly stated above. SnottyWong  01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because there's no action to be taken. What are you going to do? It doesn't merit a permanent block. A slap on the wrist block wouldn't benefit the project because it would bar him from making his otherwise constructive contributions to the ongoing Jewish list issues. Tampering with or restarting the list debates is hugely disrespectful to the huge number of editors who have contributed to those, and in any case is unlikely to produce a different result than the current likelihood of "no consensus". Seriously - what do you want DONE? That's why it's irrelevant. Feel free to point out WP:CANVASS to Epeefleche again - it wouldn't hurt - but otherwise, please use your very considerable energy and talent to keep improving the project as I've known you to do in the past, rather than wasting time at AN:I. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to this ANI

Let's see... did Epeefleche try to bring anyone into these discussion who had not already showed an interest in closely related topics? No. With these notices did he try to encourage anyone to support his own poiunt of view? No. Did he contact interested parties with total neutrality and invite input from editors he might well know would not suport his views? Yes. Evidence indicates that there was no intent to abuse WP:CANVAS in order to gain support to one way of thnking or to sway opinion. 65 editors as excessive? In this case, no, as we are not speaking about one AFD and someone rabble-rousing to gain advantage. We are speaking about number of long and contentious AFDs... and in considering the number of AFDs and the sheer number of folks that were/are involved in the discussions, I can see this only as a neutral request for input from others who had already commented elsewhere... specially as in each of those AFDs a number of editors, including their nominators, indicated that their concern with these Jewish List articles reflects a broader concern... and reasonably, this broader concern should have as much input as possible... Maybe meriting a future RFC about BLP lists... and I sure hope someone would have the courtesy to notify me when the BLP RFC happens.

More cogent perhaps, is that Epeefleche's request for input from other's was only after Bulldog123 boilerplated a notice of canvassing at each of the Jewish list discussions... claiming that Epeefleche's single instance of asking for clarification on DGG's talk page was canvassing, and then Bulldog123's including in his complaint old issues from several years ago to bolster his weak argument about the one instance. Might such boilerplating be seen as something intended to negatively color the courteous comments Epeefleche had made at those AFDs? One might even consider that by making sure ALL interested parties were made aware, Epeefleche did Misplaced Pages a service by maintaining balance. And it actually bit him in the arse... and I do not mean by this ANI being filed... but by his notice actually bringing more delete !votes to these discussions. Canvassing? Not when considering the number of AFDs being discussed and the number of editors in those AFDs. Schmidt, 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You, Schmidt, have no idea how many users - and what type of users - Epee contacted by email. The 65 user-comments came AFTERWARDS as an attempt to muddy the waters and make his intents look more neutral. Your opinion that it was all in good faith is frankly laughable - given the long history of this user's WP:CANVASSing attempts. Bulldog123 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The "long history" isn't yet the subject of this ANI and no significant analysis or debate of it has occurred in this discussion. If you genuinely feel that it's the interests of the project to raise it, I'd invite you to take the time to set out these previous matters under a separate heading so they can be fairly scrutinised. That's an "if", in the interests of good process. Please don't take it as actual encouragement to spend your time in that way; I think the energy expended here is already disproportionate to the potential benefit to the project in preventing any further canvassing by this user. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And Bulldog, please, try to maintain WP:CIV, as the email DustFormsWords shared shows complete neutrality, and no intent to sway opinion. Can you say the same of the accusation you boilerplated accross the several AFDs? I do not believe anyone can read Epeefleche's mind to presume an unproven and unprovable evil intent today... specially based upon something from "several years ago". And your belief toward muddying notwithstanding, it is still worth noting is that his neutral talk page notices followed your attempt to denigrate him with your boilerplated accusation set at all of thse AFDs. They did not preceed it. So what culpability do you assign yourself for your actions instigating his very recent reaction? Schmidt, 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And the circus continues. 1) The guy canvassed at least three editors that we know of. Neutral wording means nothing, btw when you know someone shares you're POV. 2) Someone called him out on it publicly. 3) In reaction to this he then disruptively posted 60+ "neutral" messages about the various AfDs to editors of every opinion. Can we give the white washing a rest here? I'm happy to accept that some are of the opinion that this was a minor offense and requires no action, but the idea that he did nothing wrong, or that this is someone else's fault, is bound to infuriate the rest of us who didn't engage in this disruptive behavior. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have two neutrally worded emails and one request for clarification on a talk page. While the two emails are of concern due to lack of transparecny (though the recipiants stated they were neutral) the talk page is not canvassing. Epee placed the 65 talk page notices only AFTER he was specifically accused of canvassing due to his ONE talk page dicussion with DGG. shared and neutral email and with the inclusion of edits from "some years ago" to bolster that accusation. The chain of 65 events began with an accusation based upon the ONE talk page neutral email and some "years old edits". Schmidt, 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please review the chronology here. Bulldog's initial complaint was based on the disclosure (now deleted from history) by DustMakesWords that he had been canvassed via email. After Bulldog's initial statement, I asked if the comment on DGG's talk page was also canvassing. betsythedevine (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Timeline: Email canvassing by Epeefleche revealed 17:09 Nov 30 Bulldog responds 21:43 Nov 30 I ask if the userpage comment by Epeefleche is also canvassing 22:06 Nov 30 betsythedevine (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected above. As you point out, it was the one neutral email that initiated Bulldog's concerns and then his inclusion of edits from "some years ago" to bolster the boilerplated accusation across multiple AFDs. Schmidt, 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

People seem to be missing one crucial point: neutrality isn't the primary issue, it's scale. We all know that if you bring enough editors to an AFD, consensus becomes impossible. Epeefleche is well aware of that, and, since he wants the articles kept, "no consensus" is a win. I'm seriously considering just issuing the indef block until he apologizes and agrees to follow WP:CANVASS myself if no one is going to step up to the plate. This is a ridiculously obvious case of canvassing, including off-wiki canvasssing.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I miight hope that you not... but if you do, I would suggest that Bulldog123 might merit that same punative block until he apologizes, as his initial accusation boilerplated accross 5 different AFDs, an as-then-unfounded accusation based upon ONE talk page discussiion with DGG, neutral email and then supported with cries of doom because of something "several years ago", was the starting gun, as the boilerplating was unneccessary and acted to denigrate an editor with whom he disagreed. Schmidt, 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, see above -- your factual claim here about what started Bulldog's concern is mistaken. betsythedevine (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected above. As you point out, it was the one neutral email that began Buldog's concerns and his edits from "some years ago" to bolster his boilerplated accusation across multiple AFDs.Schmidt, 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also find it interesting (and predictable) that MQS is bringing up the point that the canvassing wasn't for one AfD, it was for six, as if that makes it less of a problem. In my opinion, that makes it six times worse. Instead of soliciting 65 comments at AfD, he has actually solicited 390 comments (65 * 6). There is also evidence that he sent at least one message off-wiki, and we don't have any way of verifying how many other messages he sent, whether the other messages were neutrally worded, and whether the other people he sent it to were neutrally selected or if they were all likely to vote to keep the articles. I don't think I'd be violating AGF by assuming that he sent more than one email notification. Since he has refused to comment here, we're left to guess for ourselves. Given his past history, if he is unable to show us that he is aware that what he did was disruptive, then I think the proposed topic ban is the least that should happen, although Kww's idea would certainly send a much more clear message. The absence of any comments by Epee at this ANI (and his deletion of my comments on his talk page) is disrespectful in my opinion, and essentially an admission of guilt. He is more than aware of the presence of this thread, and he was online and making other edits for at least the first hour that this thread was up. SnottyWong  04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find my willingness to assume good faith interesting and predictable. If we had one AFD with 8 participants, and one of those editors felt that some new comment or information might merit being discussed by the other 7, I doubt that any would call it canvassing if the one sent a carefully neutral note to the already involved 7, inviting them to revisit the discussion. If we had 3 AFDs bundled into one, and had 12 editors partcpating, if one were to use a neutral note to invite the other 11 to discussion, is it now canvassing because of the number of editors? It would seem that what would be logical and reasonable for a single AFD with only a few particpants should be equally applicable to a larger AFD and a few more participants. BUt our conundrum is that we have 6 seperate but almost inseperably related AFDs, with (then) 66 editors particpating... and while best to have refrained entirely, once he invited one or two, it was almost mandatory that he fairly and neutrally invite them all... opposers and supporters alike... else be called out for canvassing based upon those few initial invitations... neutral or not. Schmidt, 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• The 65 userpage notification occurred after Bulldog123 boilerplated a message accusing Epeefleche of WPCANVASSing, what Bulldog123 failed to mention was that he was himself Canvassing support from other users during the AFD: User_talk:NickCT#Nominations , and had canvassed support in advance of the AFD occurring User_talk:Gladsmile#AFD: List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners and these are just the on wiki examples we now about. Epeefleche has expressed concern in the past that his actions on WP are often watched to the extent that having sent a neutral message such as the one to DustFormsWords may have affected the neutrality of the AfD, so whilst he may be guilty of neutrally informing DFW through email he probably felt he was doing the right thing by the "Specific reason not to use Talk Pages" caveat of WP:CANVAS, Once the boilerplate by Bulldog was applied, Epeefleche tried to abide by the section of WP:CANVASS which says "On the talk pages of individual users, such as those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.", I do not see 65 as too many users particularly in comparison to the 13million users who he could have potentially messaged . This ban, this ANI,and the ANI against Bus Stop, and the threats of RFC/U against both Epeefleche and Bus Stop all seem designed to derail the AfD's rather than having any appropriate measure of action against these editors. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

Because of Epeefleche's continuing pattern of inappropriate on-wiki and off-wiki canvassing, he is banned from notifying any editors about currently active AfD discussions. Any evidence of on-wiki or off-wiki notifications about active AfD's will result in a block, the length of which will be up to an administrator's discretion.

• Support SnottyWong  02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Stifling consensual communication between editors does nothing to improve the project or any portion of the project. (To be clear, I'm not saying Epeefleche has or hasn't contravened policy, just that Misplaced Pages doesn't benefit from imposing a sanction.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per DustFormsWords. And if this is the relief Snottywong is seeking, then this entire matter should be dropped immediately, again per DustFormsWords. It appears Snottywong keeps pushing without consideration of other viewpoints, like those of DustFormsWords. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No intent to sway opinion by abusing canvassing has been shown... quite the contrary. Schmidt, 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Epeefleche should be firmly warned that he shouldn't do something like this again, but I don't believe it is something that a Topic Ban is currently necessary for. Silverseren 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is not the first time - by a long shot - Epee has attempted numerous backdoor tactics to get a Jewish AfD saved. Had this only been his first err, I would not support a topic ban. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." He's fooled people dozens of times. It's seriously time to get him out of here. Bulldog123 02:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Suggestion is utterly without merit. IronDuke 02:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Even if his intent wasn't to sway the AfD's his way (and I'm unconvinced), he knew that his actions were likely to be seen as contravening policy. This 'ban' amounts to a slightly-more-restrictive interpretation of the same policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure there was a pattern of disruption by the initial presentation, and was leaning more toward SilverSeren's position, but I have been convinced of the merit of this proposal by the disgusting bloc-voting and facile, manipulative arguments of many of its detractors. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• It seems that there was canvassing done by email? Is that right? If so it is a matter of some gravity, whether or not it was done with the intent of affecting the outcome of a debate. I think we should let Epeefleche have his/her say, however, before considering bans and the like. The on-wiki canvassing seems relatively harmless to me.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would consider other remedies that are less harsh as well, but something needs to be done about this. I was also "notified" after this user had been accused of canvassing.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor has done absolutely nothing wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, my observation of this editor indicates that they clearly use strategy and tactics on a regular basis. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and rather than trying to "win" in these ways we should be letting policy and consensus guide the development of articles and the necessary pruning associated with building a winning encyclopedia. Yworo (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I was "canvassed" and look what happened. We disagreed and part of my reasoning was mentioned in the closing that resulted in delete.Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish heavy metal musicians One cool thing about it though is that if he or Jalapeños wants to start an article/list as suggested then it has my full support. Hooray community and it is nice to be on decent terms with people even if you do not always agree. (And BTW, I saw this on my watchlist)Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A comment on what DustFormsWords writes regarding 'consensual communication between editors' above, can I state that as one of those who received Epeefleche's posting on my talk page (after the issue of him possibly being engaged in canvassing came up), I certainly don't consider it 'consensual'. I would never 'consent' to such communications, particularly when they seem to have been sent as a diversionary tactic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • He may be referring to the fact that many editors have an "email this user" link on their userpages, and that by having it such editors "consent" to receiving email. AGF and all. Schmidt, 03:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • And also that there's no value in banning him from non-consensual communication as he's already banned from that per WP:HARASS, as is every editor. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for over a certain number of users. There is no harm in notifying a few (i.e. less than ten?) users, but 65 is sort of over-the-top. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The details provided here hardly justify a topic ban for Epeefleche, who has been a productive editor on the area in question. As one of the individuals "canvassed", I had already known of the AfDs under discussion and my opinion on the mater was unaffected by the notification, which is in an area in which the notification was both appropriate and helpful. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Too often, editors involved in religious- or terrorism-related articles find themselves embroiled in flamewars just because passions run high. Worse still, some of the articles that Epeefleche is active in, such as *List of Jewish * are obscure and it’s hard to get anything done because sometimes a total of three editors might be active on some of these articles’ talk pages. I’m troubled by the complainant’s citing the "Scale" criterion of Misplaced Pages:CANVAS when, in fact, “Scale” is just one of four factors that must be taken as a whole to paint a picture of propriety. When I look at the benign messages Epeefleche was actually leaving and examine, for instance, the “neutral / bias” criteria as well as the other criteria, it is clear to me there is no violation violation of WP:CANVAS. I find this cherry-picking of just one factor by the complainant to be deeply troubling. When it comes to religious and terrorism-related articles, there are “POV-pushing” claims flying both ways. I’ve seen Epeefleche’s work and it isn’t scandalously biased at all. What shortcomings there are are easily identified and corrected. Epeefleche does a lot of heavy lifting on large, complex articles and is a valued contributor. This is just some wikidrama borne out of editwarring and hard feelings that has been blow out of proportion. The better remedy is to separate the combatants. Greg L (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but perhaps you are unaware that by Nov. 30 when the email canvassing was revealed, there were literally hundreds of edits by many different Wikipedians at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates. Is it your belief that by adding 65 new editors on Dec. 1 Epeefleche hoped to improve the chance of reaching meaningful consensus? betsythedevine (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Actually this is incorrect. He managed to hit 3 of the 4 in this episode. Two emails, that we know of, were sent to people who share his POV, making them both 1) partisan (audience) and 2) secret (transparency). A third on wiki message to DGG was also partisan. The 60+ messages disruptively posted after being accused of canvassing because of the initial three known messages fall under "mass posting" (scale). So he actually violated 1) audience, 2) transparency and 3) scale.Griswaldo (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. 65 is far beyond the pale and seems a clear attempt to game the system by trying to ensure a no-consensus keep. There's no point in a slap on the wrist which would just encourages him to find other ways to game AFD. Just topic ban and end the drama. Quale (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: The evidence presented just isn't strong enough to convince me that this was some diabolical scheme on the part of Epee. 65 is an extreme number, to be sure, but Jew-related articles are, as I have discovered by reading ANI in the last few days, just as extremely contentious. That several of this ban's main proponents—in particular, Snotty and Bulldog—have consistently throughout the discussion assumed bad faith, on top of borderline violations of WP:CIV, does nothing to bolster their arguments. I say throw out the whole thing, and just warn him that informing 60+ editors of an AFD in the future will probably result in another such ANI debacle. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• support- per Griswaldo, who is correct in pointing out that Epee's actions actually ticked three of the four boxes. I'd also like a clarification. Would this proposed topic ban also cover the ARS's rescue template? Reyk _YO! 05:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is so obviously over the line I can barely believe it's controversial. Let's all stop kidding ourselves that we don't know what Epeefleche's intent was with this. I know what his intent was the same way I would know what someone's intent was if I saw him point a gun at someone's head and pull the trigger (that being to blow his brains out). I know that because reasonable people know what the result of such actions are and don't engage in them unless their intent is to bring about such results. Because I've been here a while, I know that, since no consensus defaults to keep at AfD, I can get any article I want kept if I can create sufficient noise at the AfD. Epeefleche, who has also been here a while, knows this too; he's not a fool. The reason he engaged in actions that he knew were highly likely to bring about that result is because he wanted to bring about that result. Note I'm !voting here even thought Epee has already been blocked because there's a chance he could be unblocked and I believe these sanctions should be imposed if he is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Although it really does not resolve the problem since Epeefleche has long preferred the use of off-wiki means to garner support for their position, and this proposal will do nothing to stop that. _wjemather 08:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Epeefleche acted in good faith when accused of breaking WP:CANVASS and clarified the neutrallity of his message by copting it to "those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)", and ensured that notices were sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, and to those who supported keeping it. this is Per WP:CANVASS, the only question was if 65 was excessive which I do not believe it was. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - A topic ban is uncalled for. Subjects Epee deals with are highly controversial. JimmyBlackwing speaks for me as well: this is a campaign by Epeefleche's enemies. Now, in light of Kww's absurd block, even more so. What the hell is happening here? Looks like a witch hunt. Jusdafax 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose 65 editors is not an excessively large number. RFAs are commonly attended by more editors than this and this is not thought to be a bad thing. AFDs, on the other hand, are poorly attended and many discussions have to be extended for lack of response. A good consensus requires a substantial number of participating editors to be credible. Epeefleche should therefore be commended for his efforts to drum up some interest in these discussions. The alternative conception - that we should quietly do away with substantial topics - seems neither proper nor efficient and brings to mind disreputable tactics. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal (2)

Indef blocked

Despite the open ANI discussion one admin has taken it upon themselves to indef block Epeefleche (talk · contribs).--Cube lurker (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In a sense of full disclosure about this block, people should know that this discussion took place. *adds to list of proof of existence of the Admin Cabal* (Kidding, just kidding!...maybe.) Silverseren 05:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Open ANI discussion is one thing. Epeefleche committed a flagrant violation of WP:CANVASS by making an inordinate number of notifications, including off-wiki notifications. He doesn't show the slightest understanding that what he did was wrong. He's blocked until he shows some understanding of the wrongness of his actions.—Kww(talk) 05:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Swift unblock, please - WP:BLOCK, as you well know, provides blocks are ONLY "used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages". There's no suggestion Epeefleche had ever damaged the project, and no suggestion he was engaged in ongoing disruption. There's a clear consensus at this discussion that whether he canvassed, blocking is not an appropriate response. Kww, this is a far worse breach of policy than any canvassing and a massive lapse in your normal good judgment. Unblock Epeefleche and let the discussion run its course. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Off-wiki canvassing is immediately actionable. I would have waited for Epeefleche to explain himself but I really can't argue with this block. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• It may be, but the "immediate action" required isn't a block. See WP:BLOCK for acceptable uses of blocking. Also, it's "immediate" in order to prevent further disruption. Some two days later, it's no longer an "immediate" situation and there's no evidence that Epeefleche is still actively canvassing or inflaming the situation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that he won't do it again, because he has not so much as admitted to having done it the first time. As I said below, this is a perfectly legit preventative measure. He could do this again at anytime as far as anyone knows. Convince him to own up to it and this is over.Griswaldo (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Surely you can see that that's not a logical argument? It's like saying, "We can't let this man out on bail pending trial for theft, because he hasn't admitted to the theft so there's no assurance he won't do it again." Canvassing isn't like vandalism - the harm is to process, not to the project directly, and in practice there's very rarely even harm to the process. AfD admins are sharp at spotting this kind of thing. The chance of him canvassing in the near future is small, and the potential harm if he does is also small. A block is a totally disproportionate response. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dust, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Epee treats wikipedia like a vehicle for ethnic pride and spends most of his time spinning POV under the radar. He does little else on this encyclopedia. You've had no experience with this user outside the AfD. You don't understand how overdo this block is. Bulldog123 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• But that is not what the block is for. If blocking for Canvassing was unjustified, then it's not good enough to just turn around and say "ah yeah, but he's done loads of other stuff wrong, so let's block him anyway". If you think he's breaking rules, you need to deal with that according to the proper process.--Korruski 10:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Dust; block was completely uncalled for, given the state of the discussion. Jumping the gun in this situation serves absolutely no purpose. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thing is - both you and Dust are looking at this through a keyhole. Epee's indefban has been long, long overdo for his mass-scale WP:NPOV editing and e-mail based votestacking attempt. This is not merely just because he canvassed a few people now. Bulldog123 06:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• When he acknowledges the policy violation and disruption while promising to behave in the future he'll get unblocked. This is a perfectly viable preventative block. Someone who doesn't admit to wrong doing clearly gives the community no sign that he wont do it again. The solution here is simple. Why don't you (DFW or JB) convince him to say, "ok my bad, I'm sorry", instead of complaining about a good block. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Because he's entitled to say - as he has - "I don't consider it canvassing, but I've stopped doing anything similar while I wait for the community to decide". Personally, I think it probably was canvassing, but other editors here disagree, and as long as he's not inflaming the situation he's entitled to the benefit of their defence. No one here is seriously alleging he's actively making the situation worse, so there's no rationale for a preventative ban. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• And where has he said that? Diffs please? I see no assurances that he wont do this again anywhere. When this conversation was mentioned on his talk page he called the allegations "baseless" and apparently decided not to participate.Griswaldo (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Full Support - It's about time. Epee has been a massive WP:NPOV editor for years now, making wikipedia little more than WP:BATTLEGROUND for "Is he a Jew"/"Is he not a Jew" discussions. Bulldog123 06:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - For the record I support this until he owns up to his canvassing and tells the community he wont do it again.Griswaldo (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block I've seen folks be blocked for less. We don't need zealotry disrupting Misplaced Pages. --Confession0791 06:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to hold back on the accusations of zealotry because that is very close if not over the line of a personal attack. Silverseren 06:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think you need to do a little history on this user before jumping to conclusions. "Zealotry" is hardly a baseless accusation. All you need to do is look at diffs like this to see the "Us vs Them" mentality this user continually spins. Bulldog123 06:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what the history is or the assumptions made for them. That doesn't justify or vindicate making personal attacks against another user. And calling someone a zealot is definitely a personal attack. Silverseren 06:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lift the block and lift it now It is an abuse of administrative tools. There's no support even for a topic ban, leave alone block, leave alone indefinite block. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Lift block After considering the words spoken by the blocking admin and the reactions from others in response, I agree that there is no consensus for this block and it was actually an out of process block, considering the discussion that was going on here in the first place. Silverseren 06:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock immediately this was a terrible block. Perhaps an admin should block Kww until he shows that he understands WP:Consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a vote. You don't need "user consensus" to block a disruptive editor - and an editor who's had a long stint of disruptive behavior. Bulldog123 06:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Pray tell, what policy states that an admin needs to ask for consensus before blocking someone for a policy violation? The above discussion concerned a topic ban. Kww blocked as a preventative measure for a policy violation. You see no policy violation? Great then argue for an unblock, but this drama about Kww doing something inappropriate is just that ... drama.Griswaldo (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What policy states that it is acceptable to block a user for X when the community consensus is against a topic ban for X?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And I don't believe that a block is proper to be applied on a user's actions when there is an ongoing discussion on whether those actions were right or not. We had yet to develop a consensus in this discussion, so applying a block seems to be going over the head of the discussion itself, which I would consider to be against process. Silverseren 06:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is: Does an administrator have the right to disregard an ANI discussion? --Confession0791 06:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean, does an admin has a right to ignore a consensus (or go over one that is trying to be developed)? Um...no? We all have to follow consensus. I mean, even Jimbo does, as we learned with that whole founder flag thing. Silverseren 06:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new. I know about that South African restaurant thing, but do you have a link to what you're talking about? --Confession0791 06:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's not really a consolidated place where the discussion happened, it was all over. And on Commons a lot. This entry in the Signpost might help you. In a short summary, during the whole children pornography image fluster that happened a while back, Jimbo went and deleted a number of categories and the corresponding images on Commons. As an example, one of those categories was filled with a bunch of lithographs from the 1800s. So, a lot of people got really upset (myself included) and started a campaign to have Jimbo's founder priviledges revoked (commonly referred to as a founder flag). He acquiesced and the flag was removed. That's essentially it. Obviously, there was a lot more drama involved, but that's it in a nutshell. Kinda off-topic though with this discussion. Silverseren 07:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block- I think Kww is in the right. Reyk _YO! 06:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for such a helpful comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Very well. I think Kww was in the right to block Epeefleche because E's canvassing went well beyond anything that could be regarded as appropriate. 65 people contacted, plus the secret email campaign, plus several instances of partisan canvassing make this a fairly substantial breach of WP:CANVAS. What Epeefleche did was make consensus at these AfDs impossible- and that is disruptive. Now, in other circumstances I might say that it was unintentional disruption- but, you know, users can be blocked for stuff they do in good faith if in actual fact it breaks things. Of course, this wasn't unintentional disruption at all. Epeefleche has been here long enough, and been called out for canvassing often enough, that I'm 100% certain he knows better. As for the argument that this block is punitive rather than preventive because the objectionable behaviour has abated, I don't buy that at all. Kww has rightly sent the clear message that if Epeefleche pulls this kind of shit there will be consequences. Contrast this with the other impression Epeefleche might have gotted: that if he pulls this kind of shit there will be a long and meandering ANI thread where his defenders will miss the point at the top of their lungs, argue that black is white and up is down, muddy the waters with frivolous litigation against the guy who raised the ANI thread and attempt to change the subject at every opportunity, until finally the whole discussion grinds to a shuddering halt and Epeefleche emerges unscathed and free to continue canvassing and pushing his POV. I prefer what Kww did, frankly. Finally, I'd just like to point out that it's a bad idea to mock a short and vague opinion you don't agree with because the other guy might be provoked into a much longer and more detailed explanation. Cheerio. Reyk _YO! 07:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Reyk, on making the most cogent concise summary of what's actually going on here that's been made in this entire thread. Epee is obviously just trying to brazen this out. If he succeeds, his conduct will probably be worse than ever. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, obviously. The community was not "against" the topic ban. At best, there was no consensus. The topic ban and the block are unrelated. The topic ban would have been a long-term restriction. The block is likely going to be a short term preventive measure that will be lifted once Epee shows everyone that he is aware of his disruptive actions. The blocking admin left simple instructions regarding when the block should be lifted; once Epee shows us that he understands WP:CANVAS. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask, and it is not a difficult task for Epee to perform. SnottyWong  06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  From WP:CANVASS:

"The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary."

Was the user actively engaged in canvassing when blocked? No. Was the action deemed necessary because of prior history? No.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, William, but your comment stands the guideline on its head. When another user found out about the canvassing Epee was engaged in (by e-mail) and spoke to him about it (per guideline) his next move was to do more canvassing (by posting to 65 separate user talk pages). Clearly, this was ineffective. Do the words "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." mean nothing to you?

• Support block especially since indefinite doesn't mean infinite. We have an experienced user who did some canvassing, albeit with a neutral statement. Canvassing in an attempt to have AfDs closed as no consensus, as seems likely with this many opinion solicited, is disruptive. If the user agrees not to continue the behavior, I'll lift the block myself. AniMate 07:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

albeit with a neutral statement Um... maybe the in-wiki canvassing was done with a neutral statement... but certainly not his intra-email canvassing. Before his "neutral" CANVASS spree (which was only cover), Epee was specifically targeting well-known inclusionists to come participate. Bulldog123 07:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate's proposal. --Confession0791 07:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You already voted support above. Bolding this support in response to Animate makes it seem like you're voting again. You should unbold your support and indent your line so it's a direct reply to what Animate said. Silverseren 07:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I also received an email as well as a talk page notice. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support block. I was severely criticised not long ago for unblocking a user when an ANI discussion was in progress; this is somewhat the mirror image, but worse, because it removes the ability of the user to participate in the discussion. And of course there was no current disruption, and no clear consensus in the topic ban proposal. Sounds like I'm opposing the block? No, just being clear. The reason the block is fine in these circumstances nonetheless is that this is an editor in a particularly controversial topic area, which makes ANI more vulnerable to tribalism (than usual). The canvassing violation is clear, even if the editor genuinely thought what they did was OK. As I've noted, the fact that issues are spread across related AFDs strongly suggests the need for an RFC, not for asking editors previously involved in a TLDR "no consensus", "going round in circles" AFD to participate in similar ones. Rd232 07:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This block is very unfair and unneeded to say the least, and it was posted in a violation of blocking policy. What Epeefleche has done to deserve it? Let assume he is guilty in canvasing. Then a topic ban, if it is to pass, will take care of this. What was the reason for such an urgent block? A block should be used to prevent any future disruption. Is Epeefleche going to make any disruptions? Of course they are not. They are a great content contributor. I cannot believe that there's no single fair and unafraid administrator, who will use a common sense and will lift the block. --Mbz1 (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)" Is Epeefleche going to make any disruptions? Of course they are not. " - unless the user demonstrates clearly that they've understood that what they did was wrong (as the block message indicates), then you have no way of knowing that. And "great content contributor" is wonderful, but it's never an excuse. Rd232 08:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely correct. If the only thing that had resulted from this had been a lot of ANI chatter, the great likelihood is that he would have repeated his disruptions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AniMate offered to lift the block, if said user understands that what they did was wrong and promises not to do it again. --Confession0791 08:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From Kww's block message: "Any admin can lift when Epeefleche demonstrates an understanding that posting 65 messages related to AFDs is case of indiscriminate messaging, especially after it has been demonstrated that he was using off-wiki messaging related to the same AFDs." Rd232 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block (of Kww): Although your blocking reason has some merit (basically: admit mistake, ensure it stops) the manner in which you did this will probably not receive a response that is nearly so cute. How do you think he is going to react? How would you react? He should be pretty upset and you severely hampered the possibility of a cleaner resolution. Furthermore, there has already been some drama in this ANI and you just made it so much worse. Way to go.Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block - Way over the top. No support for a topic ban, so you just block? This is patent abuse of the admin tools. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative. This action by Kww is clearly the latter. Shocking that this block is in force. Something rotten going on here, and it makes me feel sick. For shame, Kww and community! Jusdafax 08:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• In summary: the block was ludicrous; lift it. There is no possible justification for it—not in policies, guidelines or even common sense. It has derailed the discussion—of a topic ban, I might add—and created absurd amounts of unnecessary drama. There was no reason to do this; Kww clearly acted without considering the consequences. Regardless, it needs to be lifted immediately, either by Kww or by any other admin who will hear reason. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block in the strongest possible terms Clearly warranted. Clearly necessary. Without this block, Epee would have been perfectly justified in drawing the conclusion that he can get by with this kind of bullshit as much as he wants. That said, I'm absolutely dumbstruck by the number of editors here whose reading comprehension seems to have abandoned them whilst perusing WP:CANVASS. This is obviously exactly the kind of conduct the guideline was meant to discourage. I mean, seriously, do you know how to read or don't you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block: 65 notifications is at best a blatant disregard for WP:CANVAS (and the user has made it clear they feel there is no violation and will likely do so again in future), and at worst an attempt to game the system by forcing a no-consensus close of the AfDs. Until the user recognises that they did very blatantly break WP:CANVAS and that doing so in future is not acceptable, yes, the block should remain indefinitely. The fact that this discussion is being bombarded with "votes" which simply scream zOMG ADMIN ABUSE and don't give any policy-based reason why the block was inappropriate also makes me suspect that further canvassing may be going on, but I will reserve judgement on that. I do urge any closing admin to be careful to assess the policy-based reasoning proffered here rather than blind cries of "OH NOES BAD BLOCK", however. GiftigerWunsch 08:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Baseless accusations do nothing to help your argument. I came here without prompt, and posted my opinion based on my analysis of the discussion; I have had no prior knowledge or involvement with any of this. Claiming that I, or anyone else here, was canvassed into this is not constructive. And, to Steven Anderson above, I'd like point you toward a policy page, as well: WP:CIV. I don't appreciate being insulted over my view of this matter. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Block I have to echo the sentiments above particularly those of Cptnono. The whole Canvass accusation was raised by an editor who was equally canvassing opinion in the opposite direction. It has now been taken to an unacceptable level. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Whoa! This is the first I've heard of Snottywong canvassing. Nobody's mentioned it before in this ANI thread as far as I can see, nor can I see anything in Snotty's recent edit history that even comes close. Can you clarify, please? Reyk _YO! 09:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Snottywong brought the accusation here, but he did not originally raise it - that was Bulldog123. My comment above refers to Bulldog123 canvassing User:NickCT which occurred before Epeefleche made any reference to the AfD's that could be considered canvassing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. I'd assumed because SW started this ANI thread that you were talking about him. If Bulldog has been canvassing then they also need to cease and desist and, if like Epeefleche, they've made a habit of it and shown no inclination to stop then Bulldog should be treated the same way. However I do not think you can excuse one editor's bad behaviour by pointing at another who has done the same thing. Reyk _YO! 12:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block for the only reason of canvassing, as shown by previous comments, regardless if others did or not do the same. In my opinion any canvassing warrants a block, regardless of one's views or if others did the same, etc. «CharlieEchoTango» 09:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: After looking at much of the relevant evidence, I must conclude that this situation is:
  1. An attempt by Snotty, and possibly other involved editors, to bully Epeefleche. This and this tell a pretty clear story.
  2. A few miscalculations by Epeefleche, whose attempt to alleviate canvassing concerns, by ensuring that an unbiased discussion took place, backfired horribly. This is why 65 editors were notified, in regard to the 6 AfDs—not 1, as certain users here have been trying to insinuate. Here is his explanation of his actions.
  3. An extremely erroneous block on the part of Kww.
  4. A continued attack (following the similar persecution of User:Bus stop) on a group of editors by a second group of editors, who happen to disagree with the first group.
• Unlike a few others here, I am not accusing the editors who were not previously involved with this, and who happen to disagree with my own assessment of Epeefleche's innocence, of being stupid or part of a conspiracy. Everyone is free to have a different opinion on this. However, I believe that Snotty, and possibly Bulldog and Yworo, are attempting to use ANI to directly attack other users, in order to achieve specific goals. I continue to greatly disagree with the block that is currently in place, and ask that other editors do so, as well, so that proper discussion may be resumed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. "He does little else on this encyclopedia" (said by BullDog123 somewhere above) is a clearly unacceptable comment because clearly untrue and intended to disparage. Just one example that I encountered by chance is here (read the slightly earlier article history) which clearly has nothing to do with ethnic or religious POV. There may be some or many other examples, I haven't looked. Secondly, contacting 65 editors is clearly wildly inappropriate and excessive. Thirdly, in my experience Epeefleche has a tendency to switch from on-wiki to email communication very quickly when there is any sort of dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. Clear attempt at disruption from an editor with form at this sort of thing. Quantpole (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate FULL SUPPORT of block Good faith or not, Epee is a longstanding editor who knows the rules full well around here. They blantantly disregarded WP:CANVASS in so many ways that I can't personally believe it. The fact that even their unblock request tries to justify their actions is also unbelievable - they show zero remorse, and the current block is a requirement in order to protect the same from happening again. Should Epee ever be unblocked (which I'm sure will happen) it must be under a condition that limits be imposed on how many people they may advise regarding any AfD - (Twinkle only advises the original author, I believe). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support The lack of consensus on a topic ban is due to people who were on the two sides of the earlier content dispute coming here to !Vote in their favorite direction. If you look at comments by uninvolved admins, the consensus was clear that Epee had been canvassing. He has now requested an unblock based on his defense of the 65 talk page nominations, mentions the email to Dust in passing but seems unaware that at least one other person has outed the earlier secret emails. I think he should take some responsibility for those before being unblocked. This is really just a slap on the wrist and a request for a pledge of better behavior, instead of which he submits wikilawyering and likely feels as his supporters do that he has done nothing wrong. Their opinions of Bulldog and SW should have no bearing at all on the issue of whether or not Epee's canvassing should be strongly discouraged. betsythedevine (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocks are not to be used as a 'slap on the wrist'. They are to prevent damage, not to punish. That is clear WP policy, but appears to be being ignored by some contributors to this discussion.--Korruski 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• No they aren't. You're cherry picking phrases to criticize here. For instance Betsy says that it is a "slap on the wrist and a pledge for better behavior". While I understand how the first part of that sounds "punitive" the gist of her comment, as exemplified in the latter part, is clearly in line with the preventative nature of blocks. Let's focus on what Epee did, whether it was wrong, and if so what he should do to get unblocked instead of nitpicking over phrases like "slap on the wrist".Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Suppport block. As BWilkins has pointed out, Epeefleche is a longstanding editor who knows the rules. He has had similar problems in the past, as has been noted; for example, in a block discussion about an editor in June, he contacted, off-wiki, someone who might well support his POV, but who hadn't actually edited for 10 months.. The editor declined on wiki to get involved in the dispute.. As now, Epeefleche did not accept that this as inappropriate canvassing.. I also strongly advise Epeefleche only be unblocked if there are signs that he understands the problem with the on and off-wiki canvassing. --Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. As AniMate says above, I'm sure pretty much any admin including myself would be quite happy to lift the block once Epeefleche admits his error and promises not to repeat the behaviour. At the moment, however, his TLDR unblock request doesn't do either of these things, in fact it is mainly composed of large amounts of wikilawyering in a vain attempt to "prove" he didn't violate any policy or guideline. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock (without necessarily thinking the original block was inappropriate). What some people have described as wikilawyering seems to me to be a legitimate (if insanely wordy) attempt to explain his actions. Contacting interested parties in this matter (including those, like me, who opposed him on the AfD) seems a sensible thing to have done, given the number of related AfDs. So, in so far as he breached guidelines, it was only by contacting too many people. This is, I appreciate, a fault but it is only a particularly serious fault if you assume bad faith and decide that he did this in order to deliberately force a no consensus keep. It worries me that so many people seem to be jumping to this conclusion without evidence. It also worries me that people appear to be looking to prior POV concerns as justification for this block. That smacks of punitive blocking, and is not appropriate. Unblock and clarify the practical limit of what is 'too many' (as it is not at all clear unless you are familiar with arbcom case law - WP:CANVASS only talks about 'indiscriminate' canvassing, which this was not). Then, next time, he will have no excuses.--Korruski 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Epeefleche was blocked because he showed no sign that he understood his actions were way over the top in regards to CANVASS. As long as he continues to not understand this, a block does in fact prevent further damage. If Epeefleche apologizes in some manner, the community also has something to hold him by if he ever shows problems with abiding to CANVASS again. – sgeureka 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Block Epeefleche notified me of some issues and he very much knows that I do not agree with him on everything so I assume he was looking for more traffic on these issues not canvassing. --Luckymelon (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of recent notification on your talk page, are you saying that he contacted you off-wiki but you don't consider it canvassing? betsythedevine (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I will say the same here as I did for Chesdovi a few weeks ago; "Any action that pries yet another tendentious POV warrior off the battleground is a good thing." Tarc (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - clear and willful on and off-wiki canvasing with no apparent understanding of how this is disruptive or why it is wrong. Yworo (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:81.167.16.214

81.167.16.214 (talk · contribs) has made a number of edits that paint migrants in an extremely negative light, especially migrants to Norway (note that the IP is Norwegian), almost all their edits have been reverted, and the user has been given several warnings including for edit warring. the user consistently violates WP:3RR and WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. and fails to get consensus for these edits. the edits look suspiciously like banned SameerJaved (talk · contribs). LibStar (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as SJ's underlying IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

Hanukkah really took a beating today. Oldest unresolved threads at RFPP are 3 1/2 hours old. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All caught up now. --Diannaa 07:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dianaa --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman and User:Fusion is the future

• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman
• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold

• Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BandGwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fusion is the future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article Arnold Reisman, about a retired professor, was created by User:Ellen Reisman, and extensively expanded by User:Arnold Reisman using that account and a number of IP sockpuppets. (I believe that User Reisman confirmed his real-world identity as Arnold Reisman to OTRS, but I don't have a link for that.) After discussion on AN/I, both Reisman accounts were indef blocked for extensive self-promotion of Reisman's self-published books, which were spammed into numerous articles. Neither account has ever asked to be unblocked.

In June, an IP attempted to edit in a similar manner to User:Arnold Reisman, and was warned off, , to be replaced by User:BandGwolf, who was also warned off. , ,

In September, User:Fusion is the future is created, and edits productively to jazz-related articles for almost two months, before starting to edit the Arnold Reisman article – which is totally unrealted to jazz – in a manner similar to the editing by Reisman. Once again, I warned the editor, resulting in extensive discussion in which Fusion adamantly denied being in any way connected to Reisman. Fusion reaches out to admin User:Slim Virgin for assistance, , who examines the article and strips it, as a BLP, of all unsourced statements.

Since then, there have been numerous threads on the article's talk page and on the RSN board concerning the article. Fusion persists in attempting to add material to the article using primary sources, ignoring Slim Virgin's request for secondary sources to show the subject's notability. User:Fladrif has indicated that there are some secondary sources, reviews from reliable sources of the professor's self-published books, but Fusion has, as of yet, declined to integrate these into the article.

Uninvolved admin intervention is needed for these reasons:

• Given Fusion's attitude towards this article, his clear self-involvement in the subject, his personal reactions whenever anyone does not agree with what he wants to do, his setting up as first one editor (me) and then another (Slim Virgin) as the "bad guy" preventing him from doing what he wants to with the article, and given that the article's subject is totally disconnected from the subject area Fusion otherwise edits in (jazz), it is nearly impossible not to come to the conclusion that Fusion is in some way connected to Arnold Reisman, either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Arnold Reisman (the editor) has never requested a lifting of the indef block, yet has persisted in attempting to shape the article about him through socks, and this is appears to be yet now another attempt, albeit a somewhat more Wiki-sophisticated one, to do so. An admin should decide whether the behavioral evidence is strong enough that Fusion should be indef blocked as a sock- or meatpuppet of Reisman.

• Regardless of whether Fusion is a sock- or meatpuppet or not, his behavior has become an egregious case of I didn't hear that and his framing of other editors as adversaries is uncivil, uncollegial and indicates a battleground mentality. An uninvolved admin should warn him not to continue editing in this manner.

• Finally, although the article Arnold Reisman has survived two AfDs ,, the most recent one in May of this year, some determination should be made of whether it is sourced sufficiently as a BLP to be kept. If so, then it should probably be taken to AfD again, since, despite over two weeks having passed since Slim Virgin asked for secondary sources, it is still based almost entirely on primary sources, and does not appear as if it fulfills the notability requirements for subjects of this type. (I'd rather not take it to AfD until these other issues are decided.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All named parties have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last of your comments on the subject, my thinking is that if the article were taken to AfD and deleted then it would make much of the rest of the concerns noted moot - especially if User:Fusion is the future confined themselves to editing jazz related articles. Again, if the AfD resulted in good secondary sources being located and added then the other concerns, if not moot, would be of considerably less import. What is your rationale for not moving to AfD, precisely? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess primarily that I'm involved, and that bringing it to AfD might be perceived as a tactic rather than a good faith nomination. I've no objection to filing there, if that's what folks thinks is the best thing to do. Aside from that, I had (and have) no particular objection to the existence of the article per se. This report was provoked by Fusion's most recent comment on the article talk page, which convinced me that we were on a merry-go-round that didn't show signs of stopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, Arnold Reisman seems borderline notable at best. There are others in his field more notable than he who still do not have WP articles written about them. Even so, I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• No objection to an AfD, but to disallow primary sources in an article is inappropriate. If I'm understanding correctly then VS is wrong in preventing them if they are otherwise reliable. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Primary sources are fine, Hobit, so long as the article is based on secondary sources. I don't know what to make of the Arnold Reisman situation. This is the version of the article Reisman himself seems to want, and has tried to insert using various accounts and IPs. Problem is that much of it is unsourced. He appears to be a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. What might make him more notable is a series of books he wrote on Turkey and the Holocaust, listed here on Amazon. But when you look at the publishers, you find they're all self-published. In addition, Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Misplaced Pages, to self-promote books: "My premise is that the Web has made possible a direct relationship between a book’s author, its purchaser and or reader ... What is also significant to the author, is that it’s cost free ..." This was accompanied by someone spamming his book titles into a number of WP articles.

  So at this point it becomes difficult to know what to trust, and for that reason we've been asking Fusion to construct the article out of secondary sources. Fladrif found some book reviews and posted them on the talk page, but all we get from Fusion are long posts complaining about other editors. SlimVirgin 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Using a school's website as evidence that a talk was given at that school is perfectly reasonable. It's a perfectly valid reliable source unless you have evidence otherwise. I'd say it even counts (a very little bit) toward WP:N. No reliable source, primary or otherwise, should be kept out of the article if it improves the article. One can certainly argue if it does improve the article and one can very easily argue this belongs at AfD (heck, it's close enough I'll do it) but I don't think we should be keeping sources out because notability hasn't been established. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, before you make any further comment, I kindly suggest you read the discussions, all of them, from the scratch.

First here, than here. and than here.

Otherwise, you are hurting me with these words:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

This is to me, "Rush to judgment."

@Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it.

As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• You mean you wish me to give the tar baby a good poke? No, thank you. I ran into the Arnold Reisman article a while ago, months before you created your current user profile, and at the time I searched and searched to try and unearth some solid notability reference to help the article stand on its own. I failed, something I am not used to. I do not expect that Reisman has significant new material since this discussion makes no mention of any, so I do not wish to revisit the article's sourcing problems, and I especially do not wish to engage Reisman supporters in debate. I have written more than a hundred Misplaced Pages articles from scratch, and improved hundreds more by adding good cites, and I have never had the kind of trouble finding good sources as I had with Reisman. I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best, and possibly a candidate for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it's now nominated, for the third time. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence, including amongst other things fairly clear evasion of a simple what's-your-source question, is quite compelling at this point. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Obscure answers are something of a speciality of this user; see Talk:Atilla Engin (not for the faint of heart). pablo 12:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I hadn't read that. Ouch! There's more behavioural evidence there, including another diff that tallies with Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs) and adds another brick to the pile. The continued evasion below is fairly transparent, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, although Arnold Reisman appears to be better acquainted with the English language. pablo 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, I guess I was not clear enough. Okay. Please allow me to pass you a not-so-well-kept secret. The honorable and surely most defendable thing to do is to ask me directly, whether I am the above-mentioned subject or do I have any connections to him. Fair enough. Then, you get my answer. Either you assume good-faith and take my word for it, or, if you are not satisfied with my answer, you go ahead and file SPI on me. That's the right way to do it.

Otherwise, saying this will only damage the credibility of the one who says it:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

Again, please read this first, than this. and than this before you make any further comments. The answers are there, including about 15 secondary sources I found on the Internet, after a hard work, which all were rejected by Beyond My Ken. The reason of his rejection was, these references were about self-published books. When he said that, I stopped there, and never added any text nor references to support the subject's book claims. So simple as that.

And, saying "I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best" is an opinionated statement.

Since I encountered this article I found many sources. Did you check them all?

You still have to assume good faith. It's about improving the articles. We can not be opinionated. Being impartial is a must. Don't you think so?

Yesterday is behind us. Today is a new day and you might be surprised when you check the sources I found. And here, the Board of Administrators, is the right place to examine these sources whether they can be used. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Uncle G

What "behavioural evidence?"

What are "amongst other things?"

And, "evation of" what? Please explain. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Evasion" - Uncle G is referring to this series of posts in which Slim Virgin asked you how you know certain personal facts about Arnold Reisman's character, and you avoided answering her question and instead issued her a "warning". The post that preceded her question was full of specific details about Reisman's life and character. What is your source for this information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That post with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations appears enough to put this user up at SPI. If proved to be Reisman, the user will of course be indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To all uninvolved Administrators and Editors

This is incredible that I'm being framed up here, being falsely and openly incriminated.

Now, please go and file an SPI on me now, as I suggested to the admins, two days ago. I mean now.

@SlimVirgin, as you failed to intervene as an admin, despite my outcry, you will live with this for the rest of your life, because you passivly contributed to this false incrimination. As an editor, you made one mistake after another. You did not/never seek consensus. You just did it, as you wanted. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that for all the bluster Fusion has managed to call up, and for all the numerous words that he has posted, he still has not answered the straight-forward question: What is your source for the personal information on Arnold Reisman that you posted?. May I suggest that before he writes another screed, he answer that, and that if he does not answer that, an uninvolved admin should assess what it means that an editor has information about Reisman's character and activities that he's unwilling to share the source of, and is very invested in the article on Reisman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This was archived without action. Since there are behavioral issues still unresolved, I've restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Krishnashuraa talk page self promotion

I'll just let the diffs do the talking...

diff 1

diff 2 Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 09:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Account was already indef for spam, now locked out of own talk page, latest spam rev/deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreseeable article issues

It is apparently the time of year when the newest incarnation of the Super Sentai franchise begins to be leaked to the internet. The name of this incarnation has been known since August as that's when the trademarks were filed in Japan, but earlier tonight scans of some proprietary catalog (at least that's as far as I know the source of these images are) have come online, and I feel that within the next 24 hours there will be a heightened level of activity on the various articles I normally deal with.

I would like to know if it would be proper to protect a few page titles from creation for the next couple of weeks until reliable sources actually make their way to the general public, rather than a leak by a Japanese internet citizen who works in the industry and provides the fans with the information. The titles, as far as I am aware, would be as follows:

• Kaizoku Sentai Goukaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaizoku Sentai Gookaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaizoku Sentai Gōkaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaizoku Sentai Go-kaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goukaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gookaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gokaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gōkaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Go-kaiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have already seen activity announcing the subject as existing, with these edits from earlier tonight and this one from yesterday, as well as edits over the past several months since the name was made publically known in the Japanese language.

So could these 10 page titles be protected from creation for the next two weeks or until reliable sources come out (whichever comes first, of course)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit dodgy to protect never-created article names owing to a fear that good faith but unsourced content will show up under them (this doesn't seem to be a vandalism worry). You might watchlist all of them instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NO-PREEMPT is pretty clear about it I'm afraid :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So what should I do should these pages crop up in the next few days, and they're full founverifiable content based on the speculation and poor translation skills of the English speaking fan community?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create the pages now, as redirects to some heavily-watched relevant super-page? That might serve to direct the edits to that page, where they can be easily caught and properly discussed (important if the editors are acting in good faith: they can be taught), and will also allow any relevant, sourced information to be added to a subsection. 86.161.108.241 (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue still stands that there are no easily accessible reliable sources. I am looking at the trademark registrations for the subject, but the IPDL cannot be linked to easily. I have seen Web Citation used, but I do not know how to use it myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it truly an emergency? I don't see BLP or vandalism worries with this, only a foreseen lag between content and sources, along with some fears of weak writing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for input on what might be an issue given how things have panned out in the past and how they are starting to repeat themselves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:M12390

the aforementioned user was previously blocked for WP:NPA after warnings and acknowledgement by him still went unheeded. He came back and made another attack, following which i warned him again on his page. And he then continued to go back to an old "fixation." (ironic because he accuses me of doing so after i removed the controversial content pending consensus which was then agreed to all users on the page except him). Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This editor's last edit was one week ago. The two diffs you present are even older than that. Even if they are personal attacks, there is very, very little that could be done at this stage that would not be punitive. Courcelles 11:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

um, the edit diffs are supposed to be older (by 2 days) from his last edit. The point he doesnt seem to learn to discuss content instead of editors.Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AP1929 at it again

User:AP1929's back, and after his previous tirade, he's immediately started off with a nice personal attack section on Talk:Ante Pavelić . The user, who derives his username from the founding year of the Croatian Nazi Ustaše movement ("1929") and their leader's initials ("AP"), has seen it fit to publicly denounce me as a "communist lover" who "pushes propaganda" and is being "paid to do so". The user has a history of such behavior, he was already warned and blocked for one week because of this same sort of attacks ("comrade direktor"). Do I really need to take this kind of continuous abuse from this guy? --DIREKTOR 11:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards