Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:59, 17 November 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper

A dispute has popped up at the dispute resolution noticeboard (thread link) involving SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) and Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), among other users. The disputes themselves can be found here and here. As part of the DRN post, Serge Woodzing requested an interaction ban between himself and Pieter Kuiper. I have been involved in informal mediation between these two users before on Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years, and so I am familiar with the issues involved; I thought that Serge's request was reasonable, and so I have forwarded it here. The disputes between these two users have appeared on ANI many times before, as can be seen from these ANI threads: (also see that last link for links to six more). Recently, Pieter has also voluntarily agreed to an interaction ban with Serge on commons.

At the previous ANI discussions there wasn't any consensus for an interaction ban, and it was felt that there were also problems with Serge's edits that Pieter was legitimately correcting. I think that the issues this time round are much the same, and that there are legitimate concerns with the content involved. However, both users are also showing well-worn patterns of behaviour with respect to each other, with Pieter being pointy/abrasive regarding Serge's edits, and Serge being defensive and asking Pieter to leave him alone, coupled with pleas to outside editors. I see no changes in these interaction patterns despite various reasoned attempts to get them to cooperate with each other over the years, and I don't think either editor is capable of being neutral in interactions with the other. Because of this, I think some sort of interaction ban is warranted just to prevent further drama. I would like opinions from the community about whether, and what kind, of restrictions may be necessary. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 04:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

They've clashed at Commons also. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on some earlier SW-PK disputes. My suggestion is that SW branch out for a while into topics that PK hasn't shown interest in. 1RR for each of them towards the other's edits might help, with encouragement to discuss issues civilly. Some informal mentoring for SW might also help. I'm not sure I can get behind an interaction since SW has done some rather poor editing in areas where not many editors other than PK have the knowledge to notice the errors. We might instead have to consider a topic restriction against SW, if lesser approaches don't decrease the hostilities. However, that view is based on diffs that I looked at almost a year ago, so maybe things have changed since then. 69.111.194.36 (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never actually needed to "branch out for a while into topics that PK hasn't shown interest in" (though I appreciate the idea in principle), simply because I never seek him out, stalk him, check on what he's up to or edit anything that he is involved in without my being there first. Never. Ever.

He has very often gotten involved in topics that I already have shown interest in. Kuiper's history on enWP shows that one of his his main interests is trying to police me, and the way he has stalked me to try to do so shows the same abrasive, vindictive behavior he has shown on Commons. He is the one that is usually found wrong here (as statistics will show) and his main objective is to bug me and start fights, not to contribute in a valuable manner to enWP.

Accusations against me of "rather poor editing" cannot be substantiated in fact, and Kuiper has no expertise whatsoever in the areas where I usually work, such as Swedish history. I do. If enWP doesn't want to appreciate that, it would be sad for me and for WP. Please note that I am the one requesting this, not Kuiper, just like the one that was negotiated with him on Commons, where it was documemnted how he stalks and bugs other editors too. He always has a personal, not a helpfully informational, agenda.

I make a lot of mistakes, like we all do, and as I said at Commons, I am always very interested in all civil, constructrive help in correcting them. I am not interested, though, in being hounded by Kuiper for several more years, or in agreeing to his being given free reign to add more things like the huge penis image to articles about people like Queen Sophia Magdalena of Sweden to slur her reputation posthumously, as I see it, in an article where the image isn't that relevant to her life story.

I try very hard to edit in a neutral and balanced manner and to add valuable info, but I have added a few personal-name exonyms at times which I knew of as factual, but in a very few caess was not able to source properly. If it can be shown that I have done any other "poor editing" than that, or that I have ever stalked anyone or been sarcastic and rude to anyone who has been civil to me, please show me those errors, so that I may mend my ways!

The ban on Commons had the prerequisite that Kuiper, if he sees that I have made any mistakes that need correcting, could inform another neutral editor to deal with that rather than acting on it himself. Excellent solution. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I would love to have a mentor. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I also like the mentoring + 1RR suggestion. This might be too much to ask, but I don't suppose we have any Swedish-speaking mentors willing to take this on? I don't think speaking Swedish is essential to the task by any means, but it would help in a few areas such as sourcing, and in the two editors' dealings on the Swedish Misplaced Pages. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What is "1RR"? And could we please have a natural English-speaking mentor rather than a Swede, as the questions are more often about the English language than about matters Swedish? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found "1RR". Since PK always reverts me first, whereas I never revert him first, it seems he'd be free to bug me, but I'd be hampered in trying to correct it. Am I wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: of course it can be important at times that an English editor understand a short passus of Swedish in order to be able to decide something. I always try to provide computer generated translations when necessary, through websites generally available, and have never found them too unclear or faulty. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1RR means that you are only allowed to revert the other's edits once in every 24-hour period on a given article. Adding content is not a revert - unless it is content that the other editor has removed at some point in the past. So if you added some new content, then Pieter could revert you one time (he then reaches 1RR), then you could revert his reversion (you then reach 1RR), but neither of you could revert any more until 24 hours is up. Of course, it would be better to just take it to the talk page without reverting, and find a consensus there; but 1RR allows you the freedom to revert when you absolutely have to, while still keeping things tightly controlled. With consensus here we could also change the time period for any 1RR rule, from one revert every 24 hours to, say, one revert every week. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! 24 hrs fine with me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A note: SergeWoodzing claims to have expertise in Swedish history. He feels that enwp should appreciate him and his expertise. But he does not offer any credentials. Just rhetoric. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kuiper does not disclose here that long ago he received a list of 500+ valuable and rare historical biographies and other books, the vast majority being academic work, a private collection that I have daily access to when needed to try to provide reliable sources. Shall I post it here again? I also usually have access to Sweden's National Library as I stay only a few blocks from there when in Stockholm, where I usually am, and I have done quite bit of research there to find good references for WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Jacob Truedson Demitz collection! But there are more people with a few meters worth of books on history. Access to books does not imply expertise. As an example: Demitz is a retired hotel manager, with Swedish royalty as a hobby. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the so-called "huge penis image" is a cartoon that was drawn in 1770, it apparently has at least some historical notability, and it's still in the article. According to the talk page there was a big debate on Swedish Misplaced Pages about whether to include it in the sv.wp article, and consensus was to include it. I don't have an opinion on that point, other than that its inclusion or non-inclusion is a legitimate editorial question (i.e. its original inclusion wasn't vandalism or anything like that). I'm not aware of PK having had much involvement in that particular decision (he got into the en.wp talkpage discussion later), though I made no attempt to check on sv.wp and may have missed stuff elsewhere. By my examination here (Dec 2010), SW had at that time concentrated in a fairly narrow range of topics (almost all related to European royals), thus my suggestion that he explore some other areas for a while. 69.111.194.36 (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if I just quit, rather than "explore some other areas for a while" where I have less knowledge and less ready access to reliable sources, not to mention less interest? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I think the voluntary interaction ban solution found on commons might work well for us here as well. We could have a similar stipulation that if Pieter finds anything wrong with Serge's edits he can make those issues known to a third party, who can then bring up the issue with Serge. So, Pieter, would you be willing to submit to a voluntary restriction like this? I would be willing to act as the go-between if you want, but if you would rather it be someone else then I quite understand. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 06:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not see why I should. Woodzing has developed an allergy against me. But I have done nothing wrong. I have now caught him misrepresenting the position of Svanberg. Woodzing does not like to be exposed like that. He should not escape scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The rationale for for restricting interactions between you and Serge has little, if anything, to do with the actual content involved. It is to do with the interactions themselves, which tend to become very hostile, and turn into time sinks for other editors who have to deal with them. This is not about letting Serge "escape scrutiny", which is why both I and the IP above have proposed restrictions where you would still be able to voice your concerns indirectly. This is about keeping Misplaced Pages a cooperative and collegial environment so that people can get on with building an encyclopaedia.

You may not think there is anything wrong with comments like this one which Serge pointed out above, but in my opinion this kind of comment only sours the atmosphere and prevents people from getting real work done. I am guessing that there is a constructive message somewhere behind that edit that could be used to benefit the encyclopaedia; however, I'm afraid that that message got lost, because your comment comes across as accusatory and inflammatory. Ideally, the way we would deal with this is for you to simply point out any problems with Serge's edits in a nice way, to keep the conversation calm and avoid making him defensive. However, at this stage, I think any interaction between you would probably be taken in bad faith by the other, hence the suggestion of restricting your interactions somehow. It would be great to have your cooperation so that we can settle this in the most amicable way possible. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 13:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In my world, words like these are inflammatory when they are done a minute after edit warring. Look, I show restraint. I could use words that are a lot stronger than what I did about Woodzing misrepresenting the position of Svanberg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone get Kuiper to refrain from making false, insulting accusations like that here too? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Woodzing has now withdrawn some of his claims because there was no support for that in the reference to Svanberg's book; see also Talk:Duchies in Sweden#Svanberg's opinions. That was after I had borrowed to book from the town library. Before that, Woodzing stated repeatedly and very emphatically that his claims were supported by Svanberg. He could not accept a scholarly review as a reason to reconsider his reading of Svanberg, and he called my objections "insulting accusations", etcetera. This kind of behaviour makes collaborative editing difficult. Not everybody has access to the sources that Woodzing refers to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

These commenst are obsolete by now. Everything has now been properly sourced in that paragraph, and there are many more references available if needed. The only thing that has not been referenced is Kuiper's misquote of the article text about the first duke, where it says one of the first dukes. I never cite anything that has not been properly published and is available through public libraries. The arguing goes on and on to take up our time over and over and over, , merely out of spite towardc me, and Kuiper keeps ending up wrong at every turn. When we began this latest spat Dr Kuiper (Physics, not History) he didn't even know of Svanberg's famous photo of Birger Jarl wearing his ducal coronet. So tedious! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal voluntary mandatory interaction ban as otherwise specified as per by Mr. Stradivarius above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support some kind of interaction ban. Either these two get a room, or they are made to stop bitching up the drama boards. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• After briefly looking over this thread, I would support an interaction ban between the two. It seems that they cannot work together without arguing - an interaction ban would probably benefit both of them, as well as Misplaced Pages. ItsZippy 20:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support a mandatory interaction ban, as the user that forwarded the request here. I also recommend that the users be allowed to communicate via a trusted third party/third parties as happened on commons, with the proviso that this privilege be taken away if it is abused. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  Leaving a time stamp to prevent automatic archiving today, as it would be nice to have more input on this from neutral editors first. If anyone thinks this should be archived today instead, feel free to remove this comment. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I guess there's not really much choice about the interaction ban. Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion seems ok to me. I wish PK would tone down his hostility, as I've said several times before. There is all kinds of unspeakably bad and often evilly motivated editing on Misplaced Pages, but that's not what we're dealing with here. SW's editing is just a bit unskillful some of the time. In dispute resolution I think it's best to treat bad editing as a scientific phenomenon that one can observe and describe neutrally instead of personalizing it. I wish PK would consider that approach.

  To SW regarding switching topics for a while: yes, editing areas that you find interesting but don't have much knowledge in is often better than editing areas were you know a lot but are also deeply invested. 67.119.3.194 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, IP 67.119.3.194, and assume it's based on good experience you've had, but I am not able to understand such advice. To me that's like telling someone interested in certain topics, and able to provide valuable info and reliable references on those topics to quit. Sort of like work on something you find boring, dearie! - WP will love you for that, and we really don't care if you're bored. Contribute, that's the only thing we care about. Or go away!. That's pretty exactly how it feels, to me.

Perhaps, with all due respect, you should consider for a moment that that advice probably often can be taken as a polite and artfully considerate exhortation to quit? It certainly isn't inspiring to me, for me to try to continue to contribute valuably, in areas where I am able to do so.

I'd much rather be questioned constructively in the work I feel like doing, in case I've made more mistakes, but not attacked over and over and over in such a vindictinve, spiteful manner as what is being discussed here. I respond quite well to constructive criticism of my work, but it's rather sad to be limited to clearly boring assignments when you are taking up your time doing charity work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS perhaps I should have clarified that interested and qualified go together like a horse and carriage for many people when they choose to do work they really do not need to do. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can only support this interaction ban as long as the problem doesn't simply transfer to whomever is next to address the issues with Serge's edits. This thread, in which Pieter Kuiper plays no part, does not bode well.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would it "transfer to whomever is next to address the issues with Serge's edits"? Is the any evidence to suggest that? I have never complained to anyone about User:OpenFuture have I? We had a lively discussion and finally agreed. Don't we all do that? Is every lively discussion supposed to be held against me here, where the case actually is about years of stalking with all kind of ridicule and insults? Are intercation bans only approved if requested by editors who never have had lively discussions (that ended up in agreement)? I think I can guarantee, after all these years, that that would not happen, anywhere as serious as here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS OK, yes, I have questioned the qualifications of User:Andejons at times when I feel he has gone overboard in posing as a (1) history expert and (2) expert on the English language. I have also reacted poorly to his sarcasm at times. I don't like sarcasm. Even so, he and I have managed, often with difficulty, to cooperate in adjusting several texts beneficially. I don't see any major problem between him and me in the future, unless (as I have suspected on occasion) his fellow academic Physics friend Kuiper calls upon him to do some of his dirty work. Andejons is not all ego. Neither am I. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS2 And Andejons makes many very valuable contributions to historical articles here and at svWP, so it's worthwhile to try to work with him. After all these years, I cannot honestly say the same about Kuiper. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

SW (re above): no I'm not trying to get you to quit and I don't want you to quit. If I did, I'd have opposed the interaction ban so PK could keep hassling you until you couldn't stand it any more. I supported the ban in the end because I don't want for us to lose you. But as encyclopedists, we usually consider it a healthy thing to edit in multiple areas. Someone who edits exclusively in a narrow topic and gets in friction with other editors in it is called an SPA (single-purpose account) and it is often (not always) associated with editors causing problems due to being wrapped up in their subject enough that they can't edit neutrally in it without first acquiring the skills some other way. So I'm not suggesting doing stuff you find boring, but rather, that you take an opportunity to explore new and interesting things. Misplaced Pages is full of fascinating corners that generally don't require much specialized knowledge to edit, and visiting them can be very enjoyable. 67.119.3.194 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 67.119.3.194! I do at times, and it is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

History merge of Rometty articles is needed

I'm not sure if I am in the right place;according to WP:RFAA, since this is about a "redirect or page move issue" I should take it to WP:ANB. When I went there, the page notice says "If your post is about a specific problem you have..." and points me here. I don't know if my predicament is an "incident", but I'll assume this is the right place.

My issue is this: Eustress (t · c · b · p · d · m · r), after creating Ginni Rometty a few weeks ago, realized that I and others had been editing Virginia M. Rometty since 2008. Since he felt the article should be called Ginni Rometty, he (apologies in advance if I am guessing wrong about the gender) should have set aside the Ginni Rometty he had just created, moved Virginia M. Rometty to Ginni Rometty, then apply any changes he wanted after that. Instead, he turned three years of edit history into a single edit, and turned Virginia M. Rometty, the original article, into a redirect. Setting aside the open question (discussed here) as to whether the WP:COMMONNAME in this case should be Ginni Rometty, I feel it is incumbent upon Eustress to either do the history merge, or if as he says WP:INVOLVED is a issue, should help another admin do the merge. I used {{db-histmerge}} to request that the situation be rectified, but Anthony Appleyard declined, due to the intervening changes. I asked at Talk:Ginni Rometty if he would be willing to help with the merge, waited a week then asked him again to reply; I learned he thinks I've been disruptive (see User talk:Eustress and/or User talk:Eustress/Archive 2) and has chosen not to indicate whether he would help with the history merge.

I contend that given the minor number and limited scope of the intervening changes that editors other than Eustress have made to Ginni Rometty even at this point (see & and ), and given that Eustress, an admin confronted with this version of Ginni Rometty and this version of Virginia M. Rometty, should not have turned three years of edit history into a single edit, the right thing is for Eustress to do or help with the history merge. Thanks. 67.101.5.149 (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, ANI volunteers. Here are the facts:

• I created Ginni Rometty and, with the help of others, significantly expanded it.
• When we learned Virginia M. Rometty existed, I merged it into Ginni Rometty per WP:COMMONNAME. (It was my editorial mistake for not having spotted the Virginia article at the outset -- for that I have already apologized (diff).)
• Anon requested the histories of the two articles be merged, and an uninvolved admin (User:Anthony Appleyard) declined the request (diff) per WP:Parallel histories.
• Anon has been pushing me to overturn Anthony's decision (WP:Wheel war), when I am also an involved editor in the article (WP:INVOLVED)
• I instructed anon twice (diff 1, diff 2) to reach out to uninvolved admin Anthony for clarification regarding the decision, which he has failed to do

Hence, since anon has failed to seek understanding from the uninvolved admin and continues to insist that I take administrative action when I am involved, I feel anon is being disruptive and that this issue has been inappropriately escalated to ANI. Even so, it's here, and I trust the community's judgment on the matter. Cheers! —Eustress 13:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page Ginni Rometty started at "21:52, 25 October 2011‎ Eustress (talk | contribs | block)‎ (1,005 bytes) (Create as stub)"; after that Virginia M. Rometty was edited 4 more times. User:Eustress seems to have cut-and-pasted the text of page Virginia M. Rometty into page Ginni Rometty gradually over 7 edits of page Ginni Rometty around 05:00, 26 October 2011, not a total tidy single cut-and-paste that could have been histmerged easily. Regrettably, this is one of those untidy cases where all we can do it to put a history note in its talk page explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I believe all my interactions on talk pages have been civil and appropriate. I also think they were not disruptive, but Eustress' parenthetical reference to WP:Wheel war at least helps me understand why he suddenly started using the term. To be clear, I brought this up here as a step toward a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision" (WP:WW) and in no way should this be considered a criticism of Anthony Appleyard.

As Ginni Rometty's revision history makes clear, the use of "we" by Eustress in his summary of the facts should be consider as the author's plural, and not literally. It was he (not "they") who noticed Virginia M. Rometty already existed, and he (not "they") chose to merge content instead of preserving the history by moving Virginia M. Rometty first. It is that culpability, combined with the limited number and scope of the non-Eustress changes to Ginni Rometty, that make me think Eustress should do (or help do) the nitty-gritty work of producing a combined version of the two Rometty articles that better reflects, however imperfectly, the history of the article since 2008. 67.101.5.123 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• The history of these articles is that: Article A = Virginia M. Rometty existed for a long time. Then someone started a parallel article B = Ginni Rometty. Then around 05:00, 26 October 2011‎ someone text-merged A into B and not vice-versa. History-merge after text-merge is not a good idea: see WP:Parallel histories. Shuffling lengths of edit history about here would serve largely to obscure the history of these two articles. Also, I would have to cut one article's history at the text-merge point to relink the other history, as when two articles are text-merged, their histories run together and become one history after that. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• I added {{Copied}}s to Talk:Virginia M. Rometty and Talk:Ginni Rometty. After the duplication had been discovered, using G7 on Ginni Rometty and contributing directly to Virginia M. Rometty instead of merging would have been much cleaner. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility

The civility at Talk:pregnancy is descending further as in these edits by User:Dreadstar --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked. Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the page history, and especially considering that Dreadstar is an administrator, I am in agreement that Dreadstar's behavior was inappropriate. I support Risker's block. --Elonka 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur also. Calling people names is never appropriate, neither is using heated language designed to denigrate or enflame other users involved in a discussion. Administrators especially should know better. Repeatedly calling someone a "liar" does nothing to move a dispute towards resolution; it is unseemly for any user and doubly so for an administrator who is often expected themselves to make decisions regarding the behavior of others. --Jayron32 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Regrettable situation. Why was he blocked for a week? He's never been blocked before and I would have thought that it would have been for a lesser time period.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • If he requests an unblock and indicates that he has no intention of calling people liars anymore, the block could be lifted, and I would also support that. Alas, his first edit post-block was this, which is to repeat the same offense which got them blocked; do you suspect, based on that, that Dreadstar would stop calling people liars if it was a shorter block? --Jayron32 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I've been following the situation, and am in agreement with Jayron32. I too had questions about why a 1-week block was necessary, but upon a more detailed review, I support it. It's worth noting that at Talk:Pregnancy, Dreadstar attempted to close a discussion in which they were involved, used the "liar" language multiple times, then reacted to the block with a {{retired}} template, and (possibly) coming back in as an anon to post the same on their userpage (I see that the anon is now blocked as well). There appears to be more going on here than a simple case of one-time namecalling, so the 1-week block seems to be a reasonable course of action at this point. --Elonka 06:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole lot more going on here than you can see in a few hours of reading. An editor, also an admin, manipulated process multiple times to achieve his desired outcome, and further at times was not honest about the things he had said or aspects of the RfC. While an image in an article is not a big issue in my mind , honesty and manipulation are. Do not drag through the mud of implication an admin-Dreadstar who had no blocks, and who most of the time was exemplary in how he dealt with other editors, in his helpfulness and kindness, and lets not start creating a narrative around an editor based on assumptions gleaned from a long, convoluted RfC which followed on the heels of reams of discussion on an almost identical RfC. Further, actually the accusation had nothing to do with James beliefs, it had to do with an editor saying he hadn't done something when he clearly had. I didn't intend to get into this, but really, some of this goes too far.(olive (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

That may or may not mean anything, how can any of us tell if you don't present evidence and provide diffs as to your reading of the situation? That can be done without calling anyone a liar, n'est ce pas? The core issue is whether one does the effective thing in ending disputes of this nature (presenting evidence to neutral parties for review) or one does the harmful thing (resorts to namecalling and personal attacks). This situation actually highlights the problem with trying to resolve disputes by calling people liars: Let's say, purely hypothetically, (and I don't say that this is reality, merely a supposition for the sake of making a point) that Dreadstar's position in this dispute is the right one; that is Misplaced Pages would have been better off had Dreadstar's position been the one that prevailed. By calling the other party in the dispute a liar, what Dreadstar has done it ruined the opportunity for Misplaced Pages to benefit because it now makes it harder for the right thing to be done. Had he handled this the proper way, the correct side of the dispute would have prevailed. This is why civility matters; Not just for its own sake, but because when people defending the proper outcome act incivilly, it harms Misplaced Pages in that such incivility prevents Misplaced Pages from enacting the proper outcomes. In simpler terms; If you are right and incivil, the right thing never gets done because the incivility gets in the way. This has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages rules, it has to do with human nature: people don't like to agree with rude people, even if they are correct. --Jayron32 19:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, block is wrong. Someone who lies is a liar; if Dreadstar can show it, then he can say it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No, calling someone a liar does not act to move a discussion towards resolution. Even if it can be demonstrated that someone said something which it turns out was inaccurate, the act of namecalling is not, of itself, a productive means to move forward. He doesn't get to call people names no matter what he can "prove". Comment on the contributions, not the editor... --Jayron32 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayron. You confuse in your language someone who is generally polite and helpful with, people who are rude, people who call other people liars. I have experinced abusive language against me that makes Dreadstar's comment look like a ripple compared to a tidal wave, and that language was ignored by admins as if it was every day language I could point out right now multiple comments all over Misplaced Pages that cross the line in a big way, and which make Dreadstar's single worded comment seem trivial. There are fire lighting words in our language that can ignite us to defend, and there are ways of burying abusive words in language so it seem on the surface to be more palatable, but underneath is infinitely more damaging. Dreadstar seems to be standing by what he said and that in itself is a strong statement given his general propensity to be friendly and civil. People let go every now and then and say what they are thinking in the words they are thinking it. This seems to be what happened. Sooner we allow that and understand it when a block record is unblemished then ignore the festering abusive language and behaviours which harm other people day in and day out on Misplaced Pages. And is there anybody on this page who has not let go every now and then. A warning would have been as effective and appropriate per the admin in question with far less fallout. An admin's record, years long, has to stand for something and in this case it didn't. Misplaced Pages is not punitive, and a warning would have alerted Dreadstar and not put his back up in a situation which he felt strongly about. I'm afraid the block looked a lot like a punishment. I respect Risker, but think she made a mistake. And no this did not seem like the time for diffs and an explanation. If its needed and in a venue where that is appropriate I can present them.(olive (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

• • • • Hmmm. Assuming that he can, I'd give him the chance to prove it. Our policy on incivility clearly labels lying as uncivil. We call people sock puppets which is effectively calling them liars. It is only name-calling if it is untrue and gratuitous. If he can not prove it then that is another matter. Let's hear his evidence.
        ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • No, it would still be namecalling, and still be a bad way to resolve a dispute. Look, I have children, ergo I have fucked in my life (at least twice). That doesn't mean you get to call me a fucker. Same situation here. Even if it turns out that an inaccurate statement was made, and even if it was made intentionally, you don't get to call people names. There are ways to proceed which reduce tensions and gain consensus, and calling someone else a liar is not it. --Jayron32 06:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Hey, having fucked twice, that's not bad for an administrator! Congrats--I hope it was worth it. I have two as well, and man! they're expensive and a strain on the lower back. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Now we're just paraphrasing Robert Benchley. As for me, no children, though it's pleasant enough to go through the motions. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I would respectfully disagree, Seb. I would think that if Dreadstar were correct, the proper method is to come here, bring diffs demonstrating the issue, and ask for extra eyes to help the problem. Baldly calling someone a liar is neither appropriate nor helpful. I believe that there are enough ways to demonstrate issues with a given editors edits without being inflammatory. If Dreadstar has evidence of prevarication when it comes to wiki editing, bringing the appropriate diffs will almost certainly bring the "wrath of ANI" down on the editor in question. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • He was advised to point out that the user was "repeatedly incorrect". Is that now coded language for "liar," and will a future instance of saying that someone was "repeatedly incorrect" lead to a block? I just want to know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't act obtuse. If you find a statement is incorrect, provide diffs or evidence which show the statement is incorrect. Don't call people names, and ideally don't comment on people, comment on actions. Why is that hard to understand? --Jayron32 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Seb, I would say that there is a difference between coming to ANI and saying "We are having an issue with editor X. Please look at the following diffs in which editor X has violated the following wiki principles…" and saying (anywhere) "I say editor X is a liar". Even if someone first said A and then B, it is possible that they changed their mind. Focusing on the content (the violations) and not the editor (the violator) is pretty much always preferable, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • • • "you have been repeatedly incorrect" is commenting on the person (as is "(you) don't be obtuse", by the way). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Seb, I've never called you "obtuse". Please check the attribution of the edits (they are coming in fast and furious, I know ). Yes, "you have been repeatedly incorrect" comments on the editor as well, but it is still less inflammatory than saying "you are a liar", and asking for an impartial third opinion, and bringing supporting documentation, is better, at least in my opinion, than unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • • There's a significant difference between saying that someone is making incorrect statements, while giving evidence to prove it, and calling someone a liar without any evidence. I support this block. WP:CIVIL is a key behavior policy.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: The block is for making personal attacks, not for violating the civility policy. Risker (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The section heading is "Civility", so I made an assumption. I tend to think of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as being so closely aligned that they mostly cover the same ground. Either way, calling someone a liar repeatedly is outside of community norms.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So one can personally attack another civilly? Interesting... --Jayron32 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I am pointing out that the block was under WP:NPA, a more stringent and clearcut policy than WP:CIVIL. Risker (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You see my point now, Jayron? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen and understand your point all along. I disagree with it. Merely because I see your point doesn't mean I think it is correct. --Jayron32 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know that. This is where I have problems with this civility-blocking anyways. I don't see "liar" as an attack, esp. not when it's potentially true. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar should not have used the words "liar" and some form of block/warning was in order. Risker's block, however, seems precipitous; she has subsequently expressed her bemusement at Dreadstar's sudden retirement. Underlying this episode and the report here by Doc James (without informing Dreadstar), there were (and still are) unresolved issues concerning the legitimacy and timing of the present RfC on Talk:pregnancy in the wake of the very recently closed previous RfC. I would not be surprised if this results in an ArbCom case (for conduct and procedural reasons, not because of actual issues involving images). Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you see "bemusement", Mathsci. I am saddened that Dreadstar has opted to retire. To me the key issue was Dreadstar calling Jmh649 a liar because he believes that Jmh649 has a different opinion than Jmh649 professes. It is a straw man argument, to start with, as it has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issue at dispute; what Jmh649 believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the position that each editor takes, and the policy-based reasons for their position. One can misinterpret policy, but one cannot "lie" about it. Risker (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You wrote on your talk page, "Nonetheless, I know that Dreadstar has done a lot of positive work in the project, and I am saddened that he feels he needs to leave." I took that juxtaposition of phrases to represent bemusement; I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I have not condoned the use of the word "liar", but thanks for this further clarification. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me from the original comment that Risker is saying they feel their blocking Dreadstar was justified but are saddened that Dreadstar decided to leave as they had done a lot of positive work for the project. I don't see how that's bemusement. Im fact, I think it's fairly common admins feel their blocking was justified but are saddened if the person blocked decided to leave whether as a direct result, or as a contributing reason, except perhaps when the person blocked is the sort of person a lot of people were hoping would just leave rather then continue down a path likely to lead to an indefinite block or even a community ban.Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• He had never been blocked, wasn't given a warning and wasn't advised of this thread. This doesn't seem right.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh that happens here sometimes... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• According to the policy on personal attacks, particularly What is a personal attack, an accusation isn't necessarily an attack. An attack may be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users."
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bearean, given that Dreadstar accused Jmh649 of lying about his own (Jmh649's) personal beliefs, and he did it not once but twice, I don't think there's much here to be "proved". Risker (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is "son of a bitch" (in the edit summary) a personal attack? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• A one week block for civility, hmmmm... that may be unprecedented, but its now a precedent, so everybody play nice of you'll have a week off to think about your naughtiness....LOL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Even though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking an established contributor for a whole week just because he called someone a liar. Yes, it was quite rude, and Dreadstar should have known better. But still, it's a very lengthy period for something that strikes me as relatively mild. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that per above, the block was for violating NPA not civility. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but making personal attacks is a form of incivility. I don't think it really matters which policy is cited. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well not everything incivil is a personal attack. Arguably all personal attacks are incivil, but there is a reason why we have a seperate policy against personal attack. Related examples, making a legal threat is arguably always incivil as well as is outing, harassment and death threats. There's IMO a good reason we would nearly always say on ANI someone was guilty of one of those rather then simply being rude or guilty of incivility (and death threats isn't even a seperate policy), it helps to be specific on what the problem was. (I mean if you want to push it, edit warring, vandalism, basically anything blockable could be considered incivil, it would be rather confusing if all we ever talked about were people being rude or incivil.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember, I said "a form of incivility", not "synonymous with incivility". But I understand where you're coming from. In my mind, it doesn't really matter what you call it. A spade is a spade. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, my point is in you original comment you say 'though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site' which misses a key point that while we expect civility, we particularly expect certain things like people don't make personal attacks, not simply because these are incivil, but because they can cause particular ill will. (Even more so with outing, harassment and death threats.) I'm not of course saying all personal attacks are the same. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Apropros or nonapropros, and aimed as it is at AfD, WP:LIARLIAR might be worth a read. FWIW I say good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem with calling someone a "liar" is that lying means intent, and it's very hard to be certain about that wihtout getting inside the person's head. That's why "inaccurate" or "not a fact" or whatever are more appropriate to use, since these things are much easier to demonstrate.

    BTW, my favorite circumlocution for correcting a Very Important Person who says something patently stupid comes from The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle: "Regrettably, that turns out not to be the case." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Calling someone a liar is only "relatively mild" when you compare it to some of the worse stuff that editors get away with here. It is not actually "relatively mild" in terms of what would IRL be considered civil discourse; indeed it would be grounds for a very strong rebuke indeed in most areas of debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. It is mild relative to some of the nastier diction editors have used to describe each other without getting anything more than a reprimand. I certainly don't condone anyone calling someone else a liar, but I don't really support blocking a long time contributor with an otherwise spotless block log for a whole week because they called someone a liar. At most, I'd support a 36 hour block for making a personal attack. I don't know, I guess I'm just more lenient than the average person. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• If you have an environment which is not punitive, and in which our purpose is to keep good editors working we must apply what will accomplish that in the best way. An editor with a clean block log was pushed for some reason to use language (liar) he probably never has before. What does one do in that situation. What action will accomplish the best result, to move past the frustration or to punish. I'd suggest that one talks to the editor. If I had a child, and I do, who was "good" but who behaved every now and then in a way that needs help, I can tell you that that human being benefitted from the act of good faith which I extended when I talked it out but did not punish. And I believe that kind of action created the strong young woman I have today. I'm not saying anyone in this situation is a child. But human nature is human nature. (olive (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages is not therapy.

Admins are not "pushed for some reason to use language" which they otherwise shouldn't use. Admins should be in control of themselves when dealing with other editors. This isn't the first time Dreadstar has made personal attacks. Further, he knows that accusing others of being liars is a personal attack:

• .. you are accusing other editors of vandalism and being liars. That's not only uncivil, it is a personal attack. If you continue making such accusations, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Also, there is no excuse for incivility, even if you feel you were "attacked or feel attacked". Dreadstar † 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• You're in charge of your own actions and you cannot place blame on others for what you do. Dreadstar † 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, I undersand the situation, but Yami was uncivil in calling you a liar, that's the point of the diff. A civil response would have been to say that you were mistaken and explain why, calling someone a liar is personalized instead of being directed at content and actions rather than people. Dreadstar † 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Provocation is no excuse for incivility, no matter what the provocation is. Dreadstar ☥ 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comments such as that, this, this and this are uncivil and cross the line into personal attacks and will lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar † 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Accusing a living person of being a "liar," “fraudulent” and “disingenuous” as you did here does indeed violate WP:BLP, and forgive me if I don’t repeat the violation by quoting your exact wording. Dreadstar † 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but it is indeed bad faith for you to accuse other editors of being "disingenuous" and claiming that the reasons they gave are just "ridiculous..excuses" to hide the "real" reason behind their objections. Not only bad faith, but a personal attack as well - you're in essence calling people liars, that's a blatant personal attack, period. Again, I strongly recommend you not make further comments about editors and restrict yourself to commenting on the editorial content of the article, per the Misplaced Pages Policy, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. If you persist in attacking other editors you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He's told me to "fuck off". Yet elsewhere he has set the threshold for personal attacks very low.

In 2008, Littleolive oil posted a comment about an admin who had called Dreadstar a liar, and at that time she said:

• No editor or administrator should consider himself judge and jury as in these opinionated comments: “You are a liar and serial copy right offender” Judging another editor, and then based on that judgment assuming that that this now gives one the right to name call and threaten can only cause escalation of the initial problems. I would like to suggest that an administrator must show better judgment - must be able to clearly understand an individual judgment is opinion and not fact. At no time by our own standards on civility, are name-calling and threatening even remotely appropriate. An administrator who thinks that the personal analysis and judgment of a situation gives the right to treat another editor in a way that is less than respectful might consider taking a break from such situations for awhile.

In short, Dreadstar knows that calling someone a "liar' is a personal attack and that editors making personal attacks may be blocked.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The comments above are mine. Don't attribute them or the ideas there to anyone else. I could easily put together the same kind of 'script' on anyone else including you, to show that you should have known something or should have behaved in a different way than you did.You've missed my point but I'm not surprised. And I chose not to bring diffs here, not to turn this into a quid pro quo environment. I'm sorry you didn't do the same. (olive (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

• Recommend closing thread by uninvolved party. Several have made good points - particularly Jayron's excellent point and Will Beback's well-researched and diligent list of comments above. As no further admin action is forthcoming, I recommend that this thread be closed.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed. You seem to be suggesting by supporting Jayron's comment that diffs should have been presented against Doc James. I didn't want the mess, know this is much more complex than presenting a few diffs and didn't feel this was an RfC or arbitration where one set of diffs spawns another and another and so on. I'll note that Dreadstar has never suggested he wasn't uncivil he simply said that what he said was true, and stood by that claim. The comments and thoughts posted here on this are mine, and in no way reflect how he may or may not be feeling about this. I'll note also that Will's comments lack context which might or might not make a difference in how they are viewed. I stand by my comments and in the pertinence they have to this situation. (olive (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

I think the key point is Dreadstar clear knew his or her comments were not only incivil but personal attacks, and as he oor she f course also knew, as any admin should, that personal attacks are not tolerated on wikipedia. Trying to defend against a block for personal attacks by saying they are the truth and you're getting blocked for saying the truth, is not on, and frankly a little silly if you yourself have in the past acknowledged that what you're now saying is an unacceptable personal attack that will result in a block. Perhaps Dreadstar has since changed his or her mind but it does at least illustrate that they once understood and agreed with their block. I do agree an uninvolved user might as well close this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour

I am reporting KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for problematic behavior, repeated violation of WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I understand that this is a new user but I have tried everything and assumed good faith. The problematic article is Michael the Brave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• As it can be seen from the talk page, I have tried to explain several times why the changes this user wants to introduce are not appropriate: ; ; ; .
• All responses were confusing (3 km long and not refuting the central point) and in almost all of his comments derogatory remarks and personal attacks. Ex: and in all previous links.
• I have tried to inform this user of all the problems on his talk page (since it is a new user): ; ; ; but this only aggravated the problem..
• I have talked about this problem with another editor on my talk page also and easily reached an agreement .
• I have talked to an administrator but no solution has been provided.
• Also I don`t want this to be a bad faith accusation, but since I saw the IP address of this user and the articles he edited, I am wondering if this user is connected to User:Stubes99 since his IP address has been 84.0.xxx.xxx, 84.1.xxx.xxx and 84.2.xxx.xxx. ; .

The point is that all this edit warring and the removal of referenced text before is not a big problem but the fact that he refuses to respect the WP:SOURCE and the need to "correct" this article to reflect (I quote) facts has no direct connection to my personal opinion, since these were facts long before I was born :) and to tell the "truth" which he isn`t giving up. . Adrian (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dear" Adrian,

you're wrong again, since my registration is really has no connection to any other account banned in the past or so, if the "firm" will ban me, don't worry, my next username will be KIENGIR2. Furthermore, I will nor repeat myself. Anyone, who deals with a little bit history, can easily understand my claim an understand THE PROBLEM (after you, it had to told unfortunately 40km long more times, but still you don't get it). Facts are facts. The claimed changes are obvious. If the page remains so, itt will mislead users. If you "reinforce" a falsity with an unreliable source, it can't be taken as a good aim. If you pretend you are a victim and you identify the other who wants only correct mistakes cannot be held longer, it is also not a good aim. You can't provide reliable and valid (contemporary) source, because it not exist. The page also admits this fact in a later section, thus the page is self-controversial, etc. I am sure, Misplaced Pages policies were (is being) formed) to serve the "good". Thus Misplaced Pages can only thank me I do so many effort to have a truthful, valid encyclopedia. Otherwise I think something is wrong, if evidential facts are denied. The agreement you made with an other editor was a good beginning, but you applied it only one, instead to correct the all three statements. This debate has elementary importance if can we present anything that has no (contemporary) source (using the the designation "Romanian" in an anachronistic way), or stating an union (as well a false designation used by a more hundred year later histography and having only a formal meaning by it's own desired interpretation, but never had a LEGAL form) although it haven't been accomplished the time then. This is an announcement for every user, editor, administrator, in order to emphasize the importance we can only STATE something (if it's not indicated as an other view or theory or equal) if it is correspondent with the contemporary EVIDENCE and since no counter-evidence or any proof exist that would prove it wrong (impossible). Consider could someone state "three Iraqi lands made an union in 4000 BC", altough the "Iraqi" is anachronistic, the term "Iraqi" is missing and never been used in contemporary evidence, they haven't made an union (and missing as well from contemporary evidence), but i.e. a millenia later someone would interpret the leadership of Sumerian lands as the precursor of modern Iraq, and most of it's national and other international works would refer and use this concept and would consistently citate it. If we are no in a joke site, it cannot be afford. Thank You for (hopefully) understanding it.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Kiengir ... I haven't looked at the rest, but did you honestly just suggest that if the community either WP:BLOCK or WP:BANS you, that you will intentionally and willfully WP:EVADE a validly-imposed block? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The really regrettable thing here is that at least some of the content-related points Kiengir has been making appear to have a certain amount of merit. If he would only assume good faith and work collaboratively with others (as opposed to being confrontational, condescending, and paranoid), he could make valuable contributions here. A sad waste of talent. It looks like we may have to manage as best we can without his assistance. — Richwales (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that User:KIENGIR obviously challenged some data from the article after which I added 3 reliable references to the article and 2 more on the talk page(If needed I can find more references) and he still wants to "correct" the article to reflect the "truth". From WP:SOURCE - The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.. I am not really interested in personal attacks he made, but on the long run, and looking at this problem from all sides, this kind of behavior can`t be ignored and that is the reason I have written this report. Adrian (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I will answer all of your questions:

->Dear BWilkins & Blackmane (his message can be read on my talk page)

Continously accusing me about personal attacks, etc. and last but not least accusing me with a kind of "(post) sock puppetry" is not the reperesentation of the "good faith" principle, regarding Adrian. The claimed changes were not revolutionary, but necessary and this all kind of mess could be avoided if Adrian wouldn't tried to make a provocation of discrediting everything and pretend no understanding, just speaking about rules and policies. This was the cause, this was not a "collaborative work" from his side. I can only suggest he felt itself ashamed about so big slips the page are peresent, and better continued to accuse me about behavior than be calm and find a real consense (later someone on its tak page convinced him about some necessary changes) If the citations Adrian added are regarded RELIABLE although they are not this case (only reliable for that today's histography speaking about union, but UNRELIABLE if we see pure history and contemporary evidence), then there's some problem with the policy and rules I think. However this case will be a good precedent. The "bad faith accusation" was awful from Adrian, since this kind of IP address is used by approx. 3 million people in the country, since the ISP distributes a random generated address to every users who connect. That's why I made this kind of irony, assuring everybody I am not the one who would alter or hinder it's true identity!

->Dear Richwales

"The show will go on", I will always try to do my best, and keep all policies and rules, but if somebody consistently discrediting facts and evidence, then I have no choice....I have to make all efforts in order have a good, realiable encyclopedia, otherwise I would deny myself. Regards (KIENGIR (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but accusing me of bad faith and "not being calm" (especially from you) at this point is just ridiculous. Repeating again and again the WP:SOURCE has no sense anymore since clearly you don`t respect it. Again and again you are using wikipedia as some kind of forum. Wikipedians don`t use wikipedia to talk with people about their opinion on some matter but facts that can be checked at any time. Since this discussion is always going toward "the truth" some user believes, I am asking for an administrator to review this and solve this problem.Adrian (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are established dispute resolution procedures on Misplaced Pages. Vowing to wage an endless "edit war" in defence of truth is not one of these established procedures. Deal with these problems as the content disputes which they evidently are; direct and restrict your comments to the issues and not to personalities; and find and propose high-quality reliable sources to support any proposed changes or additions. The fact that you're sure something is true is not good enough here; you've got to verify it with suitable sources, so that other people can confirm that it's true and don't need to take your word (or the word of any of us) for it. The reason people are complaining about you is not because of any conspiracy by the Misplaced Pages "firm" to suppress the truth; it's a matter of your conduct, not the content as such. The show will indeed go on, and it would be nice to have it go on with your assistance, but that is only going to happen if you respect the established procedures and work with others in a constructive manner. — Richwales (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh Adrian, you're funny thinking you repeat the same arguments cannot be held longer...about your "bad faith": everyone can see the part your first reaction: "which is not an accurate statement as that the unification of the three Romanian principalities. " THIS THE POINT!!! You agreed at the first time the unification is not an accurate statement, but THOUGH instead to have a good faith and resolve the problem, you REINFORCED the false allegation with more citations can be regarded in a point of view a verifiable source, but cannot be accepted because it is announcing an obvious lie. If you really had a good faith, you wouldn't do that. What a nice coming out! Ooooops...and you try to play again the "personal opinion" card, although this case as well it has no direct connection to the hapennings between 1599-1601 :) Verifiability is important but since you could citate any web page with any statement, their content cannot be accepted always valid. Sorry, you are caught heavily...Try harder next time! From now on everybody can think about is is really the "wolf wanted to eat grandma", or maybe the opposite is true? Is it really somehow paranoid? Dear Richwales, we could not call it a real edit war since I have stopped editing on my own will for a period the case discussed on higher level. I hope you can understand, regarding Adrian's behavior he is really suspicious why will he reinforce something he as well do not agree...Finally again about verifiability: I think is not good, if any kind of false statement could be advertized in an article because there are "verifiable" sources announcing them, without PROOF, and it should be held as long as the true statement we don't present a source again, if claiming this source is enquestionable, because this case we should present a counter-evidence of something NEVER happened, although the normal way we have to have a PROOF on what really HAPPPENED. This case is not an easy case! Consider if many sources state: "At the times of Michael The Brave purple frogs have fallen from the sky", then this statement should be advertized so long you don't present a source "fulfilling" Misplaced Pages's rules would say "The allegation at the times of Michael The Brave purple frogs have fallen from the sky is wrong"???? Normally such obvious counter-citation/reference won't exist, because it is never needed in a normal society...(I have to repeat, if we are not in a joke site) So long we won't present a citation about Michael The Brave haven't made an union, despite all of the contemporary documents and 400 years of research were unable to prove it will be regarded as automatically invalid??? In a normal jurisdictonal case, the one who accuse HAVE TO prove it's theory, if the correspondent and contemporary evidence proving it's opposite! In this case, Adrian have to prove a union was made (although as we could see he don't even believes in it, and can only present citations reinforcing a falsity), for that he should provide contemporary documents reinforcing him. So long the word union/join/etc. cannot be used on the page (and the fact the false information was present on the page EARLIER, has really no effect, in this case it is IRRELEVANT) I ask all adminsitrators, editors, users to really think and concern about this kind of problem, otherwise the encyclopedia's content will not be reliable, and most of the average people just read wikipedia and not verify every statements and it's sources, de facto they would mostly accept what is presented) Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Kiengir, no, it's not about proving anything. We are an encyclopaedia - we reflect what the best sources say. You are right that sources which are low quality should be avoided - the article should be using good quality academic sources. However, if good quality academic sources say that it rained purple frogs, then that is what will go in the article. If there is a difference of opinion between scholars (some say the frogs were blue), then the article should reflect the difference of opinion between scholars. I note that you said at one point "All of the statements I mentioned here can be citated IF NECESSARY, but the reality and the truth is independent of simple citations" Actually, no. The rules of Misplaced Pages are very clear. You must provide sources. Go back to the article talkpage, and cite the sources that support a different interpretation of Michael's achievements. Then all the article editors can discuss how to include this new information. If you do not cite sources but continue to assert that the whole world knows different to all the sources currently in the article, all that will happen is that you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Curious multiple account attack on CueCat

Over the past couple of months, there has been a round of attempts to whitewash the marketing disaster that was the CueCat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), featuring a series of WP:SPAs editing it and a couple of related articles. My impression is that this is all related to some real-world project of one J. Hutton Pulitzer, who, as J. Jovan Philyaw, was the inventor of the device. He was also he host of Net Talk Live!, which is being edited by some of the same people editing CueCat and which is presently at AFD here. All of these edits appear aimed at rehabilitating his reputation.

(Fixed bad link to AfD in above text. --John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

The cast of characters is as follows:

• Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited CueCat, created Net Talk Live!, and made both attempts to create an article on Pulitzer
• Proofplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) eventually blocked for spamming
• Factiod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also blocked, first for edit warring and then for talk page abuse
• Technoratti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about to hit that WP:3RR wall

While there is some difference of style among them it is hard not to conclude that they are all either sockpuppets or in some sort of collusion. There is a counterinsurgency effort on the part of several editors (I'm only somewhat peripherally involved, having caught this in the articles for creation phase) who are expending a great deal of what ought to be unnecessary effort keeping these articles in order. Possibly this should have been taken to one of the other noticeboards, but in particular the connection between User:Ran kurosawa and the others only shows up in the editing targets, not in style. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just requested full protection for the article to see if that gets everything moved to the talk page, as well as giving editors the chance to investigate the possibility of sockpuppetry. --McDoobAU93 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is worth a trip to WP:SPI.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, and more are likely to show up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the "counterinsurgency effort", I think that Mangoe has it pretty much right. An earlier sockpuppet investigation of two of these editors found no evidence, but checkuser WilliamH put forward meatpuppetry as the best theory. Proofplus and Technoratti have the interesting quirk of calling Misplaced Pages articles "records" (unusual) and use of CAPS for emphasis (more common, of course). All are SPAs and repeatedly try to use unreliable blogs and the like as references. It seems pretty clear to me that all these accounts are "on assignment", as it were, to enhance the reputation of J. Jovan Philyaw AKA J. Hutton Pulitzer, and his inventions and other ventures. Just yesterday, two of these editors tried to use a Baja California tourism blog as a "reliable source" regarding technology and patent rights. The source that blog cited? Another blog controlled by Philyaw/Pulitzer. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an SPI case needs to happen but I've also semi-protected the page since it appears to be mostly new user accounts. I doubt a SPI will stop them, but it will shed light on whether or not this is an organized effort or a single person.--v/r - TP 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The semi-protection will help, thanks. I reopened the SPI report of Ran kurosawa (). Mangoe has since commented on it. I originally opened it with Ran kurosawa because of the timing of Technoratti's edit, but I added a note about Proofplus because Technoratti's style is much closer to Proofplus's. I might add that Proofplus was indeffed for more than just "spamming". It was a case of escalating blocks with more and more privileges being removed because of her incredibly disruptive behavior before and after the block. There's no doubt in my mind that this is an orchestrated effort. Whether it's sock puppetry, meat puppetry, or some combination of the two, I don't know.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Factoid claimed to be some sort of patent examiner updating stuff for accuracy. Proofplus was some sort of 'researcher' interested in patents . Ran kurosawa was some sort of 'research expert' . I don't know what's going on here but all of these 'experts' suddenly showed up to try and correct the record. As has been mentioned, last check suggested they weren't related. As a note, Ran kurosawa also tried to start a copyvio article at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/J. Hutton Pulitzer copied from what appears to be the official site for JHP and later said (in the now deleted page) that they had permission to use the content in wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing recent promotional efforts for ScanCommerce (bit of an unfortunate name I would have to say, one typo and...) and JHP on the wider internet , so I guess it's not surprising we're at risk of some sort of related promotional activity. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

scancommerce.org is the second blog I mentioned above. These folks seem to have a grudge against Mark Cuban for a passing remark about the CueCat he made 11 years ago. No activity from them on Cuban's page yet, but I've put it on my watch list just in case. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If they're going after Cuban, Dallas Mavericks might be worth watching too assmuing we aren't giving them ideas of course! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Counterinsurgency" makes it sound like I've had a flag flying from my mop. :) I agree with the earlier assessment that there are probably multiple people involved with this editing campaign, due to the differences in editing style. The other commonality in style has been that the editors all seem to feel they're the authoritative source on CueCat, even though they aren't providing reliable sources (and in many cases are going against the sourced information in the article). In my experience, it's the kind of things that's down the path to ownership: when I've seen users editing on behalf of a subject, they tend to feel that they have an exclusive right to edit because they're working on behalf of the subject, even though that's almost the polar opposite of the COI guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the styles are quite smilar (illiterate and phrases like "on the record" or something like that). That's why I think it's a combination of different kinds of puppetry. No matter what it is, it's absolutely disruptive, and, in my view, the only question is how to most efficiently stop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Having been somewhat involved in the 'counterinsurgency' myself (largely by accident - a single revert of mine led to major drama), I'm inclined to think that the solution lies with constraining the article to its topic (an obsolete bar-code reader) rather strictly, and making it clear that the broader issues of vaguely-connected intellectual property rights are of no interest to Misplaced Pages. The CueCat is interesting in its way as an example of internet-bubble-era technology, but the minutiae of patent disputes etc are about as encyclopaedic as a bus timetable, unless and until independent sources say otherwise - which seems unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. People looking for an encyclopedia article about the CueCat want to know about the CueCat, not about the actions of its promotor's crack team of law-ninja. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The SPI case for this can be found here. As I said, I find it  Possible to  Likely that Proofplus is evading their block under the account Technoratti. WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unnessecary deletion of redirects

Drmies(talk, contribs), has deleted two redirects that I have created, "Etlon John" and "Niktia Kruschev", stating that they are implausible. I believe that they iplausible typos, and request that they be recreated. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for notifying me. You're awfully involved on the drama board for such a new editor. Is there no more work left in the smithy? Drmies (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• BusyBlacksmith, just a note - it is interesting to me how you created your userpage with a single userbox/image at first, just like these two socks of Spotfixer, and then built on it later. You're also quite active on this board right off the bat, just like some of his socks were. Coincidence? Calabe1992 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah that's the nice thing about ANI. There's always someone who knows more. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Isn't that the blacksmith who wanted to call the FBI a while ago, and have somebody arrested? This is all as implausible as those redirects. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Taken to SPI. Calabe1992 22:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not a sockpuppet. It's funny, I just watched Being John Malkovich too. I have no idea who Spotfixer is. I just like discussing issues here, nothing special. Susupicion is suspicion, I take no offense. A check will do no harm. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we need a redirect from Susupicion to Suspicion? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bling Crosby? Seriously?--Shirt58 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Who won the Acadmey Award for his role in the 1994 film Giong My Way. –MuZemike 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed sock of User:Shakinglord. Fun Boomerang. Calabe1992 03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages law #42: the person who believes everything is socking...is socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything, Misplaced Pages-style? LadyofShalott 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Vell, he's just zis sock, y'know? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It must be a Tuedsay. I never could get the hang of Tuedsays. LadyofShalott 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Given recent developments, are we still AGFing on the User:ChocolateWolf account, or do we need to reconsider that one too? 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as it hasn't edited recently. Calabe1992 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Back at his talkpage

Shakinglord is now back at his talkpage, asking for us to unblock Kaishu Tachibana, claiming it is his friend. I think this is way beyond us assuming good faith again, and I'm continuing to lean toward the ban I proposed below last evening. Calabe1992 17:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also admitted to two other socks, and claiming a fourth account is another "friend." I've requested the three new ones to be added at SPI for now. Calabe1992 17:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To any administrator who reads this, please consider revoking talk page access. See the posts at the bottom of the page. Calabe1992 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're suppose to AGF. But he/she basically lost the community's trust of AGF by socking and denying socking. It also appears that he/she faked being a bot. I think the statement on his talk page, Yes. We often edit wikipedia toghether., is kind of funny because it doesn't appear true/appears to be another lie. When I performed two separate checks, the IPs that Shakinglord have been editing from have little to no edits, the one IP that did edit vandalized. If they really do often edit together, then there should be more edits. The other accounts present that did edit are basically VoAs, purely disruption accounts or have little to no constructive edits. Based on what I said, I'm not inclined to believe whatever he/she's saying. Furthermore, the group of people here, there are doubts they're even a group, do not seem to be interested in contributing constructively. Competency is also required to edit. I don't see that here either. Elockid 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So the current SPI has been closed, and the "new" admissions have not been blocked as none of them have recently edited (one never has). But User:ChocolateWolf has a confirmed connection to the user and I do not believe at this point that what the user has said (about this being his friend) is true. Should we just be leaving this user alone also unless it edits again, or should the plug be pulled on this one as well? Calabe1992 14:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Shakinglord

Per this user's continued sockpuppet abuse and constant denial of it, I'm hereby proposing an indefinite ban. Calabe1992 03:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per proposal. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C05:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's better to make this official because that makes it easier for other editors to revert them and deny them attention. Hans Adler 18:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing really productive (e.g. article creation > vandalism-reversion) has ever came out of him. HurricaneFan25 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - but the frankly bizzare behavior of this editor leads to the conclusion he's WP:NOTHERE and that Misplaced Pages is better off without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Claims not to be a sock, but then admits. Curious statement about sharing a sock account with another user. Nothing sounds right here. Glrx (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; they seem to be a net negative to wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyrrhus, etc

I am here as I wish to make a complaint about a page move, Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus, and the manner in which it was carried out ( I'm not sure the best place to make it).
This page had been the subject of a request move (Cyrrhus, Turkey to Cyrrhus, Syria); this was resolved on 12th November (See discussion, now here).
On 14th November the page was moved again, without discussion or agreement, to Cyrrhus: this would have involved the deletion of the existing Cyrrhus page (a dab page), which was also done without discussion. One of the pages involved was labelled for a speedy deletion; when I queried this, it was ignored, and the page deleted anyway. I have contacted the editors involved but got no reply, and requested discussion without result, so now am bringing it here in the hope of getting an answer. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The requested move that I see here resulted in a third option, simply renaming to Cyrrhus to remove the geographical conflict ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The other place that was originally included on the disambig page is actually called Kyrros. Cyrrhus is clearly the primary topic and doesn't seem to need any disambiguation to me, and it seems in keeping with naming standards to just call it Cyrrhus and use hatnotes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the DAB in accordance with WP:TWODABS. There is no question that this location is in fact in Syria territory. But as you can see here, other historic locations in Syria do not usually have a "comma-Syria" in their Wiki titles. IMO, it is anachronistic to attach the name of a modern state to a Roman military HQ. Kauffner (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There were several options floated in the discussion but the request was to move to Cyrrhus, Syria, and that’s how the matter resolved itself. I asked if it was OK to close it, and no-one demurred.
Then (Kauffner) you took it upon yourself to move it somewhere else, without the courtesy of floating the idea first. And you presumably didn’t delete the Cyrrhus dab page yourself, but tagged it for CSD, labelling the deletion “uncontroversial”, which seems a little economical with the truth. And when I raised an objection with you, which ought to stop a CSD process, you ignored that and carried on, which I’d say is pretty high-handed.
Also, there are at least six places listed in category you’ve linked that use that format, so there’s nothing cut-and-dried about the move you advocated at all. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All the others using that formula have multiple locations with the same name. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that it should matter, but I was not the editor who moved the talk page, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The article had been moved as described from Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus, Syria along with the talk page on January 5 by Nedim Ardoğa, who reversed the moved on November 11 after it was found to be in error. On November 14, Anthony Bradbury moved the page from Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus where it currently resides. However the talk page was not moved. On November 15, Nyttend mistakenly moved the redirect at Cyrrhus, Syria to Talk:Cyrrhus with the edit summary Move title of talk page to match that of corresponding article page. Later the same day I moved the actual talk page from Talk:Cyrrhus, Syria to Talk:Cyrrhus. I don't think there is much more to discuss other than perhaps a lack of communication. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner:To be clear, Cyrrhus (the dab page) was tagged (presumably by you: "I deleted the DAB") for an “uncontroversial” deletion and move, which was done by an uninvolved admin. You also (presumably) tagged the talk page, which was picked up by another admin; when I queried that with you and him it was deleted and moved anyway (and as it was done in a hurry, and botched, it had to be done again (by a third admin (your link).

So, this “well, it wasn’t me” line is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?

Elen:My complaint isn’t that K had no grounds for his opinion on the matter, it's in the way he went about it. There were five others in the discussion, none of whom took him up on his proposal the first time round, but he never bothered to check; he assumed he was right, and played the system to get what he wanted.

So this “all’s well that ends well” approach doesn’t really cut it; an acknowledgement that this should have been done better probably would. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, an "It all worked out fine, but wasn't done as well as it could have been" situation does not require admin attention or intervention. Specifically, an editor being Bold and implementing a solution that is more in keeping with Wikiedia's naming conventions, MOS, etc than the initially proposed one, is fine. On both counts, complaining about it here is just wasting everyone's time - it really is time to drop the stick now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't see it, you don't see it; fair enough, it's dropped. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides, if you really want to bring the 'shouldn't have done that' in to the discussion, as an involved user you shouldn't have closed the move discussion. There were 2 users in the move discussion supporting a move to Cyrrhus and the fact it was not the original suggested move does not stop a consensus being formed on a move to Cyrrhus. I'm not an admin and I don't close moves but while more discussion would have been ideal I would suggest a close as a move to Cyrrhus was a fair call although a better idea would probably have been relist for more discussion and as a move to Cyrrhus. The only argument against such a move seems to have come from you and to be frank 'either move involves a deletion, and it makes more sense to go back to the original title than to delete the dab page' is not a great policy based argument as there's no reason why deleting an unnecessary disambiguation is wrong or undesirable. The only thing is perhaps the original title would be the default option if there is no consensus, but saying there's no consensus doesn't really influence any consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay….I was advised to drop it, and that’s fine by me; what I don’t need is a parting kick.

The page had already been moved back when I suggested closing, and no-one said “hang on, what about another options” though Kauffner (at least) visited the discussion after I did. So I don’t see what was improper about rounding the discussion off; it’s what the RM tag was saying to so.

And it would have been “a better idea ...to relist for more discussion”? that’s what I’m saying should have been done. So I’m not only being criticized for what I did, but for what the other guy didn’t do as well? Bloody hell! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an ANI issue any more so I'll reply on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues concerning capitalization of some music articles.

There has been an ongoing dispute involving multiple editors concerning capitalization rules. While six users, at various times in the discussions, have been championing the WP:ALBUMCAPS, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (music), and MOS:MUSIC standards and similar standards, one user (and at one point two users) wants to make "exceptions" to those rules. User:Ryulong disagrees with some of the standards, and thinks that pages such as Journey Through the Decade and My Best of My Life should be alternately capitalized from what's displayed here, in favor of "Journey through the Decade" and "My Best Of My Life"; reason being is that sources and media print the titles with the latter capitalizations. These capitalizations, however, conflict with said guidelines of ALBUMCAPS and such, as has been pointed out by other users involved. It's not so much Ryulong's disagreements in themselves that are disruptive, but the style in which they have been delivered. Ryulong has been routinely told to drop the stick about this, but has refused to do so and has refused to take "no" for an answer, or so to speak. Ryulong has started way-too-long discussions in two different WikiProjects about this: one in WikiProject Albums and an RFC in Manual of Style/Japan-related articles; those two links can be viewed for a lot of the important information. Although I donated input in both discussions supporting the guidelines, I decided that enough was enough, and I don't want to donate any further to them, because I had said all that I wanted to. Also, see this exchange on the Journey Through the Decade history log, as well as the talk page of that article, which detail two unsuccessful move requests for recapitalization purposes. These discussions are overly dramatic arguments about something as trivial as capital and lowercase words in titles. That's really all there is to it. The reason I'm reporting this here is because these discussions concerning such triviality and absurdity should be reasonably put to an end, and I don't believe that I alone have the power to do that. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 01:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This general topic, unfortunately, is where wikipedia finds itself in defiance of its own rules against original research / original synthesis. Rather than going with a title of something the way it actually is, wikipedia insists on imposing a "manual of style" to override the actual title if the two versions conflict. If a song is officially titled "Everybody Works But Father", it gets changed to "Everybody Works but Father" based on MOS - despite the lack of any valid source that says the actual title of the song has a lower-case "b". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS recommends a lowercase b in "but"??? --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Koavf (talk · contribs) it does, and he wouldn't budge from that position. I'll ask him I've asked him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. It's my understanding that the capitalization of "but" is contingent on the type of speech in which it is used and I have to admit that I get a little confused on grammar myself... In the case of something like the hypothetical Happy but Stupid, "but" should be lowercase, although it's uppercase in Age Ain't Nothin But a Number (note that "a" is lowercase.)See below It's really irrelevant how an artist/record label/etc. styles or capitalizes their own titles--that's the entire point of a style guide: to enforce consistency within our own publication. Note that all kinds of media routinely use all caps for their titles or spellings with symbols in the place of letters (e.g. Ke$ha/Kesha) and we ignore them. Should we also use the same fonts and colors as other publications? Where does it end? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay It looks like that Aaliyah song has been moved since the last time I moved it. Anyway... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt for Backtable to get me to shut up about something that I feel should be changed, because he and a few other editors disagree with my preferred outcome for an RFC I started for which there has been no prior input until he decided to sling the mud from our pit onto ANI. My goal for the discussion has been to eliminate the strictness of ALBUMCAPS when there is a clearly evident and universal capitalization scheme for a song and/or album title that does not match the current rules described at ALBUMCAPS. If I can provide reliable primary, secondary, and/or tertiary sources that show that Gackt's thirtieth single's title is parsed as "Journey through the Decade" (as I have done), why should the article be at Journey Through the Decade (aside from the fact that ALBUMCAPS says using "through" is incorrect)? To me, it seems entirely way too bureaucratic to say I cannot change a guideline because the guideline says I'm wrong. And once, again, Backtable, the move requests on Talk:Journey Through the Decade were not "unsuccessful". A "no consensus" close does not mean "one side has lost the argument".—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough I honestly don't know anything about some interpersonal conflict between you two users, but yes, that's exactly why you shouldn't move it to Journey through the Decade. It's frequently the case that titles are written with any variety in spelling (including deliberate misspelling), capitalization, font, typography, color, etc. Which of these arbitrary aesthetic choices should we honor and which should we not? What's wrong with imposing a consistent guideline so that readers can expect the same thing from article to article rather than varying wildly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But if I have sources that consistently show that the accepted form in the media is inconsistent with our internal guidelines, why should the article be located at a title that is inconsistent with reliable sources? The uncapitalization of the word "through" on Journey Through the Decade or the capitalization of the word "Of" on My Best of My Life should be allowable exceptions, in my opinion. And what is wrong with developing case-by-case exceptions (other than the fact that editors will fight to the tooth to keep things consistent internally, even if it is highly inconsistent with external sources)?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case here of using special symbols or non-standard search terms for an article title nor is it the case that we are proposing to rely on the primary source or those affiliated with it (such as the publisher, band, etc)., but rather what interdependent secondary sources use. We allow (outside titles) special symbols and grammar to be used for other items such as episode titles assuming the unicode can render it. This includes official naming schemes. For article titles, we primarily try to go with WP:COMMONNAME whenever possible which except for special circumstances like all caps or uNuSuAl CaSiNg, we do that because it is dijaring to the reader (or that's the primary reason that I've seen argued). That is not the case here. Capitalizing a word in the similar manner as the rest cannot said be dijaring to the reader. Finally, there is the issue of titles that are actually sentences. We would have the MOS directly contradict itself in this regard for titles that form sentences. I can't cite specific cases offhand, but I've worked with a number of such titles before.∞陣内Jinnai 02:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Except for extreme cases, or situation where graphic art consideration have overwhelmed typographical ones, we should always be prejudiced in favor of the titles used by the creators of an artistic work. Titles are, generally speaking, phrases not sentences, and should not be subject to the rules of grammar the way normal text should be, and certainly shouldn't be overridden by our own MoS, which is an accumulation of guidelines, not mandatory, and subject to changing consensus. If Sly and the Family Stone want to call a song "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)" we have no business correcting their grammar. WP:COMMONNAME is also not always a good guide in these case, because people are as likely to call the song "Thank You For Lettin' Me Be Myself Again", which is correct in terms of its sense and phonetics, but is not the name of the song. Artistic creations are different, and we need to respect the artists' choices as much as it is possible to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been silently following the RFC at Manual of Style/Japan-related articles but remained silent due to being torn both ways on the issue at hand, however I must say that the "Except for extreme cases, or situation where graphic art consideration have overwhelmed typographical ones, we should always be prejudiced in favor of the titles used by the creators of an artistic work," comment above has swayed me to the "Journey through the Decade" and "My Best Of My Life" side. I've always viewed Misplaced Pages's policies of standardization of Japan's frequent use of absurd typography to be so that it's less jarring to English-language readers and fits in with the overall style of the English language, however after reading the arguments back and forth in this (and the previous) discussion, I feel that this should only be applied to more extreme examples. Or looking at it the other way, it should be fine to ignore the capitalization policies for very minor changes such as the ones that Ryulong is suggesting. As long as the typography doesn't go too far outside of reasonable bounds (admittedly subjective), I agree that titles should err on the side of the artist. -- purplepumpkins (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who believe the MOS is not serving us well in these areas should campaign to change the MOS rather than ignore it and carve out exceptions that may not actually be approved by the larger Misplaced Pages community. ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The MOS DOES serve us well, in general. But trying to impose our MOS on the titles of things is not appropriate. It would be like requiring Kleenex to be rendered as Cleanex, on the grounds that there's no such word as "kleen". Or to render iPhone as Iphone on the grounds that a proper title has to start with a capital letter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Do remember that Ignore all rules is the fifth pillar of Misplaced Pages. Yes, the MOS should be changed - but until then... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is indeed the point of the MoS being descriptive rather than prescriptive. WP:IAR gives editors the opportunity to improve Misplaced Pages by attempting new and (hopefully) advantageous things, and, if they catch on, eventually the MoS will be updated to reflect the change. The tension between MoS and IAR is part of a deliberately creqated dichotomy, but it loses all meaning if editors take the Manual of Style as the be-all-and-end-all of formatting and follow it blindly and without thought, disallowiung any anount of (legitimate) experimentation. Such an attitude doesn't allow the MoS to be a living, breathing thing, and mummifies it in a way that was never intended to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - User Backtable said "The reason I'm reporting this here is because these discussions concerning such triviality and absurdity should be reasonably put to an end, and I don't believe that I alone have the power to do that." I could be wrong, but I don't think an admin needs to close any discussions mentioned. I may have missed something but couldn't this be closed? I don't see any need for admin intervention. I didn't see Ryulong being disruptive, just persistent.--Rockfang (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This should be closed as it should never have been opened. It's a dispute on which guideline to use and there's been no edit warring or other disruptive editing, just heated debate from both sides.∞陣内Jinnai 07:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: all the IAR comments. I have attempted to use this in discussions (as seen at Talk:Journey Through the Decade). However, it seems that MOS-deifiers won't allow it unless there is a good enough reason, which is why there is this impasse that Backtable decided to bring to this board. In the original RM on J.t.D., GTBacchus made a very nice statement on how MOS has become unnecessarily ironclad here. As no wrong has been done, and no one needs to close the RFC I opened, I would say that that part of this discussion is over.

Either way, it appears that from the sampling here that WP:ALBUMCAPS is not what the "broader community" (as mentioned as a reason why ALBUMCAPS or MOS-JA should not change to allow exceptions here) wishes to do with song and album titles, but instead intends to keep the original artistic license on grammatical rules (unless there is absolutely a case of ambiguity). If there is truly a consensus for this, do we need to move this to the appropriate project talk page, or can the extended discussion here be used as the means to modify what are probably several (WP:ALBUMCAPS, WP:CT, WP:MOS-JA) project pages?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I had the ability to preemptively archive the discussions and put them in the blue boxes, or so to speak. Throughout the course of events, I was doing what I thought was necessary and said what I believed. I had no intention to cause any offense, and sorry about any that I did. I'm not that passionate about title anatomies, as I've been used to a particular way of doing things without giving it much of a second thought. I will be thinking about my comings and goings on Misplaced Pages over the next few days, and will hopefully be able to cool off. Again, sorry if I made any missteps. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a party to the debate, it would not have been proper for you to close them with the blue boxes, anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have dealt with Ryulong quite a few times on English capitlizations of Japenese titles, but I am going to focus on his behavior and not the actual capitalizations. Recently, Ryulong started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums#ALBUMCAPS about the capitalizations and not getting the consensus he wanted, he took his ball and WP:FORUMSHOPed to start a RfC at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles without bothering to tell either the Wikiproject or the individual editors who commented on his first topic about the RfC. This is just bad form when trying to reach a consensus in my opinion.

Some of his talk page editing can be seen as being WP:DISRUPTIVE and/or WP:TENDENTIOUS and that these discussions go on for way too long because Ryulong seems to have a need to reply to almost every comment in either thread while simply WP:REHASHing the same point over and over, almost to the point where it seems he is exhausting other editors into accepting his point of view. Aspects (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My edits have already been labeled as not disruptive. And an inquiry on one page, followed by an RFC on another is not really forum shopping. I probably should have used the same page, but you very easily notified other editors of the other discussion, and now there's another discussion here that seems to be more definitive. Either way, I have broken no rules outright, as stated by much of the thread, and should not be penalized.

Regardless, Baseball Bugs, FormerIP, Koavf, Backtable, Jinnai, Beyond My Ken, Purplepumpkins, ElKevbo, The Bushranger, and Aspects; shall we discuss modifying the ALBUMCAPS/CT/MOS-JA guidelines to suit the better practice described here, on whatever proper forum that should be?—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight but I strongly believe that this is not the proper forum to discuss the issues related to capital letter in titles. I imagine there is an appropriate part of the MOS that deals with this and that would be a good place to start. ElKevbo (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can we get this out of the kitchen please. Boys, go and play in the yard.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  The question is where is the yard supposed to be?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Or the meter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. My granny would have said "you're not to old for a good hiding, you know," but I suspect that's not pc these days :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Zippogeek, BFU

Zippogeek (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added back information on a spurious fantasy-football group, "Bills Fans United" - including an apparently joking/vandalism link to Führer, and comments such as "up yours if you don't like it" The edits were interspersed with some more routine vandalism

The user had been cautioned for it before, but yesterday/today I reverted some, and issued what I hope were appropriate warnings

After that final warning, the user re-inserted the info one more time, saying Oh no, you're going to ban me?! Well go ahead, jag-off...I have more logins and IP addresses than you've got brain cells

I didn't request a block at that time (maybe I should have?) - instead, I tried to honestly ask why they were doing it

However, subsequently the user has re-appeared (WP:DUCK) as Yourgoodbuddy (talk · contribs) and Vandilsaurus (talk · contribs)

I believe all three of those accounts should be blocked, I think it'd be worth a {{redflag|checkuser}} taking a look too, and/or possibly temp semi-prot of BFU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I'm genuinely sorry if you think I should have reported it sooner, instead of attempting dialogue - but I don't think it really made much difference. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• User:Zippogeek blocked for a week, other 2 accounts indeffed, it may be worth starting an SPI just in case. Black Kite (t) 07:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Concur - SPI opened. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the (ongoing) help.  Chzz  ►  12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Killed the {{redflag}} for checkuser attention, because I've processed the SPI. AGK 12:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• I've just reverted again, indef blocked the latest sock, and semi-protected the page for 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't an edit like this result in something more than a two week block? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blackkite extended the block to a month; I hadn't noticed that at the time I went digging through his contributions, but based on them I extended the block to an indef, and still would have regardless. Stuff like this, this and this, combined with the current disruption, vandalism and socking, clearly indicates he's WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Oncenawhile

Please excuse me if I'm doing anything incorrectly in this report, as to my recollection it's the first time I've reported a user.

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing relevant to a naming dispute involving two articles, History of the Southern Levant, and History of Palestine. On February 25, 2011 Oncenawhile moved History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine despite History of the Southern Levant being in place for over two years and functioning as the only name for the article which hadn't lead to consistent move wars, and with History of the Southern Levant being praised as a good name for the article.

After the article was restored to History of the Southern Levant, Oncenawhile created a new page called History of Palestine, copying most of the content of History of the Southern Levant, and merely changing a few details here and there. The disruptive editing began as Oncenawhile then proceeded to redirect multiple wikilinks from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine. Here, here, here as well as here where he instead directed away from the History of the Southern Levant article to Ancient Israel and Judah. I spoke to him on his talk page, and informed him that I considered this disruptive editing, and that there were no problems with both articles existing, but redirecting links away from one and to the other in such a way was disruptive.

A few months later Oncenawhile did the same thing again by removing more links to History of the Southern Levant here and here and here as well as in two instances moving additional articles from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine here and here

After I restored the original wikilinks, Oncenawhile wrote on my talk page, attempting to debate why Palestine was a better name than Southern Levant. After I replied that it would be better to discuss this on the relevant article talk page, he said due to my "refusal to discuss" the issue on my talk page, he had "reverted my changes" Drsmoo (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The community (or the AN/I cabal) might decide to take action here. But for allegedly long-term problems like this, WP:RFC/U may be a better venue, in case nothing comes of this AN/I. causa sui (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Drsmoo (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, your post above is misrepresentative. It includes incorrect facts, statements out of context, and neglects to mention key points.

• You neglected to disclose your authorship interest, as you were the editor who renamed the article to History of the Southern Levant in 2008. Your references to "the only name for the article" and "consistent move wars" regarding the original name of History of Palestine are misrepresentative. The article was stable under that name for seven years, until two isolated and immediately-reverted vandalisms in 2007 followed by the unilateral renaming which you carried out in 2008.
• You neglected to mention that you were blocked on 13 March 2011 for move warring re the article name. You also neglected to mention that the article had been stable following my February 2011 revert to History of Palestine for a meaningful period with numerous third party edits being made, before you began warring over the change.
• You made a highly misrepresentative statement re the current History of Palestine article, which you stated was built by "copying most of the content of History of the Southern Levant, and merely changing a few details here and there". Both the move and the content build were done slowly, with clear talk page discussion, and by painstakingly merging the content with the history section from the Palestine article. Discussion of this process took place over many months, and is recorded in the following places here, here and here.
• You neglected to mention that you partook in exactly the same practice in late March regarding swapping of links (rather than the better practice of simply adding a new link) and that our subsequent discussion on my talkpage which you linked to was cordial and mutual acknowledgement and understanding was reached between us immediately. And you have misrepresented my actions regarding the specific link changes you linked to. For example in this edit you linked to I removed a number of extraneous links, including to BOTH History of Palestine and History of the Southern Levant and in this edit you linked to I clarified a statement and removed an in-line link which violated WP:MOS
• Your final statement is again misrepresentative and places statements out of context to paint a picture. Your statement says "After I replied that it would be better to discuss this on the relevant article talk page, he said due to my "refusal to discuss" the issue on my talk page, he had "reverted my changes"", which bears absolutely no relation to the logic, cordiality and detail of the full discussion as recorded here.

If you wish to debate this matter further, please could I ask you to take more care with how you represent the facts in future. Perhaps in parallel we can get back to trying to debate the underlying substance of your editorial issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't responded to any of the accusations on here, you just immediately went and tried to make this about me. You replaced links from the original article to your new one over and over and over again, as the edits showed, I reverted your disruptive edits. Are you seriously coming on here and accusing me of doing what you flagrantly did because I reverted your improper edits? In addition it's blatantly untrue as I inserted a link to History of Palestine in the Archaeology of Israel article after you removed it. And two weeks with 18 edits is a "meaningful period" but over two years with hundreds is not? It is fine to have more than one article, but to try and replace one with the other in a way which avoids community consensus (for example, trying to discuss it on my talk page while avoiding the relevant article talk pages) is not. Wholesale removal of links and references to a long standing article is a clear cut example of disruptive editing. It is worth noting that Oncenawhile has also been cited for uncivil behavior on another noticeboard recently Drsmoo (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Drsmoo, I remain very keen to find a way to remove the emotion from this and move on, but you appear to be obsessed with making our interactions in to a long term WP:BATTLEGROUND (exactly as you did with the first user who made the mistake of being responsible for getting you blocked, as documented here).

Your post above is again misrepresentative, for example: (1) "it's blatantly untrue" (despite evidence here, here and here amongst others), (2) you make no reference to either my explanation that the articles in question related only to the concept of Palestine and not to the Southern Levant or to our immediate consensual resolution which I referred to above, (3) "avoids community consensus" (despite the detailed article talk page discussions I linked to above, e.g. here), (4) "avoiding the relevant article talk pages" (ignoring the explanation provided on your talk page that since you made the same changes across multiple articles it seemed sensible to try to centralise the debate; (5) "cited for uncivil behavior" (when you mean "cleared").

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In every single example you posted it was a case of me reverting your changes to the wikilinks. What you claimed is a blatant untruth. I reverted your changes. What you have done, has been to go around from page to page and methodically remove links to History of the Southern Levant. You made a talk page post on your new article, but no talk page discussion regarding any of the moves in their relevant talk pages, nor any talk page discussion of any of the changes of the wikilinks which you've made far and wide. Instead you tried to engage me on my talk page, which makes no sense as I am not heavily involved in any of those articles, and when I suggested that you instead bring it up on the relevant talk pages, you changed the names abruptly. This is not acceptable editing practice.Drsmoo (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't give two hoots about this dispute - however, this is a cut and paste move of content without attribution - so in it's current form most of that page should be deleted as an administrative rather than editorial matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable recent block

I was blocked by User:BlackKite following a questionable report ] by User:Yworo, I was accused of block evading, which I have never done, and it is something I detest and would never partake in, instead of following protocol BlackKite was quick and happy to pull the trigger and block me without a second thought, Yworo also did not notify me that I was reported on the noticeboard, he also has a history of going overboard with warnings (IMHO). I believed there was a breach of rules on their part. Sheodred (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like you were blocked not for socking but for violating WP:3RR. It's not required that you be notified or warned for these reports; 3RR is a bright line. Are you arguing that you did not actually violate 3RR? causa sui (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• You reverted three/four (arguable) times, against two other editors and discussion on the talk page - that's enough to block on its own regardless of the 3RR bright line - and then a mysterious IP appears to revert twice to your preferred version, followed by a uni IP from the same area. So either the IP addresses are you, or as proved by the edits on 15-16 November you and the 143 IP are acting as one editor, which is meatpuppetry. Feel free to call us a number of things, but please don't accuse us of being stupid. Black Kite (t) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Why bring this up now? These events occured over 2 weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yup, rightly blocked for 3RR, a rule you were already blocked for once ... it was extended because you WP:EVADED a valid block by editing with an IP after being blocked. Not sure what the problem is here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• The problem is that I did not edit anything under an anonymous IP, I accept the fact that I broke the 3RR but I did not engage in block evasion, I achieve nothing by bringing this issue up but wanted to raise the issue for the block that was allegedly for block evading not breaking the 3RR, I just wanted to clarify that, and if you looked at the contributions of the alleged IP(s) "or whatever I used", they were involved in articles I never got involved with, thats the reality of shared and anonymous IPs, which was obviously not taken into consideration when I was blocked (which was not for breaking the 3RR, that I would have accepted). Sheodred (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• You admit it was a valid 3RR block; certainly the 72 hours is appropriate; the dispute is about the anon IP and the additional 48 hours. The block has run, so no remedy (such as shortening the block) is now available. The issue is both moot and stale. Black Kite is good at recognizing ducks; perhaps he missed here, but it is not worth looking into now. If you hadn't engaged in edit warring, there never would have been a problem. Glrx (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Sheodred filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yworo. Glrx (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"We will make you fishers of men...fishers of men...fishers of men..." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we will leave it at that then. Sheodred (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Two minutes work would have shown you that the IPs you reported geolocate to two different hemispheres. You don't need to be a check user to do that. You're lucky you're not being castigated for a bad faith report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

user:Daccono

Can someone look at the contributions of this account? In 16 months, this account amassed 93 edits. His content editing is very light, other than John Hunyadi article where he is one of the top contributors. But recently the only activity of this account is restoring the edits of the site banned user:Iaaasi who is also under Wp:RFAR sanctions on top of his site ban. For example one of the latest sockpuppet of Iaaasi was Berchea Who only made very few edits merged for convenience here the Daccono account made the following edits . Also compare user:Alexeyev (Iaaasi sock) and Daccono Alexeyev again and Daccono. user:Keeeeper (Iaaasi sock) and Daccono This account was also blocked even though it made very few edits . Does anyone have any thoughts or advice for this case? Please review the full contributions of this account and share your thoughts. Does these contributions look like that of a regular wikipedia editor's? Hobartimus (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have requested an SPI. We'll see what that brings. Calabe1992 21:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Other activities include various complaints and reports and reverts against people who are enforcing / supported Iaaasi's site BAN. I believe the best example is this in which among other things this account is accusing me that my aim is the "complete neutralization of Iaaasi 's sockpuppets". Now mind you he is talking about the sockpuppets of a site banned user, not just any sockpuppets. So not only WP:SOCK applies, WP:BAN, and arbitration enforcement applies as well (AE regarding Iaaasi). So against so many policies being violated at the same time isn't his "admiration" for Iaaasi a bit over the top? So what should be done here? Please note also that Iaaasi being an extremely experienced sockpuppeter and one who have already demonstrated usage of both proxies and meatpuppets (accounts created to post to wikipedia what he writes) CheckUser is not relevant to this case and instead the contributions should be examined and compared to that of Iaaasi and sockpuppets. Hobartimus (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Take your comments to the SPI page also and leave them there. Calabe1992 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did, however, Daccono's edits are problematic even if he were not a meatpuppet of Iaaasi. Therefore I ask any admins looking at this, to really look at Daccono's contributions for a good while and analyze them. Please take the time it's not that many edits only 93 in more than a year. Please look through the contribs whether there is anything there that would be a net positive for the project. Hobartimus (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Almost certainly a sockpuppet. Calabe1992 02:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Small sock army

Can an admin block this small army of socks? They seem to have been created to do disrupt the Pregnancy article, which has been a hot bed of debate lately about nudity in articles.

• • User:Tsukasa Konata
  • User:Kagamin Hiraaagi
  • User:Sojiro Izumi

A master may be looming somewhere, as these are all SPAs so far.Heiro 20:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, being handled. Heiro 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the section title made me wonder if it was a army of small socks, or an army small in number. ;) Rockfang (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• SPI case here. WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks Requested

Per this ANI thread, I am requesting further rangeblocks on the 95.31.124.46 and 78.106.46.173 ranges. They appear to be also associated with the indef blocked User:Ron Halls and is on the same ISP, "Ojsc Vimpelcom" located in Moscow, Russia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• See also (at least) 176.15.89.46 and 2.92.80.62 ranges - the same person? ("Ojsc Vimpelcom" - "Corbina" has several wide ip ranges, so it's always uneasy to block users from this provider in ruwiki) OneLittleMouse (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• I blocked your two IPs, Homer, though it's useless, more than likely--some smarter person should figure out what should be done in what range. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Again with the range blocks. Why are we so quick with the range blocks all the time? Range blocks should absolutely the last resort.--JOJ 02:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, being that the person has passed the DUCK test as being the indef blocked User:Ron Halls (I think I posted this above), then rangeblocks are perfectly reasonable. Also, in the ANI thread (linked above), it is discussed that the user has a history of posting annoying threads and taking up community time trying to get copyrighted Beatles sound files uploaded to Misplaced Pages. So, again, yeah, the rangeblocks are perfectly reasonable at this point. I really wish people would clink on those neat little links in the threads.
    • OneLittleMouse: Pretty much anything from "Ojsc Vimpelcom" could be used by Ron Halls, so I would rangeblock it all for at least a month.
    • Drmies: Hey, at least that stops him for a couple until rangeblocks are in place. Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This article needs more eyes. Quite simply, the editing environment is terrible, anyone who disagrees with the view that the article is fine, despite dedicating pages and pages to unchallenged WP:FRINGE material, is harassed, willfully misrepresented, and generally, everything possible is done to drive them off.

The article clearly violates basic Misplaced Pages policy, by failing to present the relevant mainstream arguments against the claims of tthe global warming denialists, instead presenting irrelevant material at the start (the structure is basically Mainstream scientists Claim X - with no evidence given for why scientists believe X, and then followed by huge numbers of quotes attacking X because of the hitherto unmentioned Y and Z, with the mainstream view on Y and Z unmentioned.) Indeed, the mainstream material presented is almost wholly irrelevant to the attacks made by the global warming denialists.

This article represents a complete failure of Misplaced Pages policy, only allowed to remain because enough people like that it pushes their POV.

Attempts to discuss this on the talk page basically result in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT followed by the closure of threads, and insistence that people make their points all over again from the start. There is no possibility of any progress. 86.** IP (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as one quick comment...isn't applying the term "denialist" to the scientists, in itself, POV? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. And I have to say it is mighty cold in the American Midwest, could someone please complain that a) manmade global warming has been notably absent here lately, or b) Al Gore should stop flying around in his private jet over us, bringing the snow. :) Kelly 02:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Every time I see this article appear in the periphery of my Wiki-vision, I tend to let it slink by. It is an awful piece of contrived ugliness, categorizing a group of people based on their opinion on a scientific matter. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't even that: it categorises people on our opinion on their opinion on a scientific matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point. A brief review of the article leaves me with the impression that the entire structure is WP:SYNTH. causa sui (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Came across this via Jimbo's talk page and I share similar concerns. We could probably use WP:BLPCAT and cut the primary sourced material pending adequate sourcing (although I am still trying to find out if there is an "obvious point" I missed and actually this approach is acceptable). However that's not necessarily a productive approach and sure to simply cause fall out - perhaps garner some thoughts from BLP/N as to the best approach? --Errant 15:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of argumentation, BLP is always a useful avenue since of all our content policies it has the most weight behind it. But the issue isn't defamation of living people; it's neutral and verifiable encyclopedic presentation. For arguments based in BLP to stick, you'd have to convince people that categorizing professional natural scientists by their opinions on natural science is somehow defamation. No one is being accused of Holocaust denial and Global warming denialism doesn't yet carry similar social consequences, I'm afraid. causa sui (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are those who would disagree, as it has been suggested in the past, seriously, that "global warming denialism" should be made a crime - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the climate change case, Arbcom advised that "Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area...". Please note that 86.** IP is such a new account, being first active on 8 October 2011. This account seems to be trying too hard, having already generated much drama at AFD, DRV, Jimbo's talk page and now here. Warden (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As a complete aside, WP:AGF. You're assuming that 86.** IP hasn't had a long history of editing under an IP previously, as suggested by the username. ˜danjel 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I spat out my coffee a little bit at an editor being accused of "trying too hard". Good grief, we're now denouncing people for caring too much about Misplaced Pages. causa sui (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc is right, and AndyTheGrump's observation is spot-on; this thing is a train-wreck, and it wildly violates WP:SYN by tying together a bunch of people with substantially divergent views under a categorization which is unique to Misplaced Pages (or sources which have cribbed it from here). We're supposed to be compiling information recorded elsewhere, not advancing new ways of grouping together people whose views differ from those of the dominant group. Simply splitting the list up into five or six different lists might be one way of fixing it, but then it no longer serves as a one-stop smear facilitator. Horologium (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of fraud and criminal activity

Can a few experienced editors please take a look at the histories of Talk:Trident University and Talk:Northcentral University? One or more unregistered editors are using these Talk pages to wave vague accusations of criminal activity and fraud at these universities. If there were anything substantiating these accusations then it might be worth discussing how or if to incorporate that material into the articles. But the editors have provided no evidence and I believe that unfounded accusations of criminal behavior and fraud are completely out of bounds for Misplaced Pages Talk pages. I have removed the discussions a few times but have been reverted each time. I'm completely comfortable with my actions but outside input and - if necessary - additional help is welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IP addresses are all from AT&T, geolocate to California (mostly San Jose) and seem fairly similar. Wouldn't be surprised if this is one person trying to cause trouble by using dynamic IP's to argue with himself. Ravensfire (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This was archived but I've pulled it out in hopes of getting a substantive response from someone. If this editor(s) continues to edit war and make these accusations then I will continue to remove them unless an editor in good standing objects. ElKevbo (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I threw a {{notforum}} template on there. I'll throw warnings on their pages too.--v/r - TP 13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar

I'm about to take a real Wikibreak, I hope (if I can control myself), and would like eyes on this editor if not action now. Besides the sock puppetry and copyvio (including copying material today from other articles without attribution) they do not seem very interested in communicating and continue to refuse to use edit summaries despite frequent requests. Thanks. I'll notify them and see if they will communicate here. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference: Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs). Curious as to the response we're going to get. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd done that, careless of me. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is actually what action do we take about this editor, seeing the latest comments at Talk:Aurangzeb#Copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got that article watched now too. I think all we can do if he carries on making such changes to it, under a serious suspicion of copyvio, is block him until we get some response from him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing ban of User:Realhistorybuff

Due to gross incompetence, sockpuppeteering, and disruptive attacks. Nothing constructive is coming from him, and further edits will also likely need to be immediately reversed. Calabe1992 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks from The Pink Oboe

Resolved – Indefblocked by Jehochman, unblock request declined by Fluffernutter. causa sui (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

... and reblocked by User:OrangeMike. Black Kite (t) 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Pink Oboe (talk · contribs)

• Jeancey removes post from The Pink Oboe at RfD
• Reverted by The Pink Oboe; "who the fuck do you think you are. Don't you fucking dare touch my comments again"
• Reverted by SarekOfVulcan
• The Pink Oboe undos SarekOfVulcan's edit
• I revert the edit
• Off2riorob warns The Pink Oboe for 3RR
• The Pink Oboe reverts: "Fuck off Rob I can count"

Although personally I feel a block of The Pink Oboe would be extremely unconstructive in this situation, I'd like to see some admin intervention here. HurricaneFan25 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone also have a word with him about repeatedly swearing in edit summaries, three times today hes used the word f**k in edit summaries. The occasional one is undestandable/excusable but repeatedly seems unreasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Profanity isn't the problem, the personal attacks are. HurricaneFan25 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You choose the words you want to use to make a point and I'll choose the ones I want to use to make a point. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth did you think it would be a good idea, as editors involved in the debate, to be edit-warring (it had already been reverted twice) to remove comments made by another editor involved in the debate? A bit of clue from all editors would help tone down the drama. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Offensive and insulting commentary about other editors disrupts the process of building the encyclopedia by poisoning the collegial atmosphere of collaboration and mutual respect. The removed comment was inappropriate per and is correctly removed according to WP:NPA. causa sui (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What collegial atmosphere? This place is a hotbed of Machiavellian shenanigans, cynicism, racism, sexism, bullying, power struggles and more, all the vagaries of the real world are encapsulated here and these, to quote Rob, "volunteers" are made to adopt unnatural behaviour. Eventually it takes its toll. And that toll does not result in a "collegial atmosphere". --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And comments likes the ones you made are actively preventing any kind of collegial atmosphere from happening. --Conti|✉ 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks. It isn't like this because I said it is. It's like this because a lot of human beings are involved. Collegial atmosphere? never going to happen. It doesn't even happen in real world academia, it's got no chance of happening in the virtual world. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this particular piece of circular logic a bunch of times now, and I still don't get it. "It's not going to work anyhow so I'll make sure it's not going to work to prove that it's not going to work." Huh. --Conti|✉ 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How about thinking for a moment, about the context, instead of blindly quoting policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility is one of the Five Pillars, and WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted the edit because it was a personal attack; I commented in the discussion purely to weigh in. HurricaneFan25 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case. You (and Sarek) also reverted comments made by an editor you're arguing against. That's never going to solve a conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just want to weigh in here. I was the first to remove it and I have not taken part in the debate at all. I was not arguing against anyone, just removing a personal attack against an editor who, when it was posted, hadn't added commented yet. Jeancey (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Warned. causa sui (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"We would very much like you to continue to make constructive contributions to articles and related discussions." Who's we? Could you be any more patronising? --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose "We" includes the set of all editors who agree that the behavior under discussion is not acceptable, for whom I somewhat boldly take myself to be speaking. I'd be interested in suggestions on how I could be more effective at communicating the behavioral expectations of the community without coming off as patronizing, provided that the suggestions don't include condoning unacceptable behavior (like this). causa sui (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm... don't write to other editors in an officious manner? Elen of the Roads seems to have been managing it quite well on that talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding the royal "we" would probably a good idea when not speaking to newbies, IMHO. It gives the impression that the person spoken to is not or should not feel like part of the community. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When it comes to skills with diplomacy, Elen of the Roads is quite a high bar to set. I hope you wouldn't expect that no one can do this kind of administrative work unless they are as good at it as her, because that would disqualify quite a few of us. ;) I do watch and learn from her wherever I can. So while I can always improve that aspect and I appreciate the feedback, I stand by the comments; because the important thing is that The Pink Oboe comes to understand that this behavior will not be tolerated. causa sui (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's patronising because you're talking as if I don't know what's expected of me. I'm not a bloody toddler you know. It's bloody annoying getting a damn lecture from someone who thinks I'm an idiot for taking potshots, especially when it's most likely that person is younger than me. It does not make the situation better, it's like throwing gasoline on a fire. People management by the average admin is appalling. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly that's a problem in itself if you think a person younger then you can't ask that you behave in a manner appropriate to wikipedia because they're younger then you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate having to point out the obvious more than once, but The Pink Oboe shares an awful lot of the same interests as a particular blocked user, who just happens to have as friends the same set of editors who have been coming to their defence in this latest round of incivility. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You hate it? But it hasn't stopped you doing it twice. Seems to me you have a debt to pay this Webhamster.--The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• WebHamster's last edit
• TPO's first edit

Hmmm. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A sock check may turn out to be unnecessary, the way this is going. causa sui (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked by Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). causa sui (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are three reasons to block: (1) the account is acting like a troll, (2) the username is slang for penis, which is not cool for a collaborative project involving people of all ages and sexes, (3) this is extremely likely to be User:WebHamster who is indefinitely blocked. Note that (1) and (2) are sufficient reasons to block independently of (3). Jehochman 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, but I was going to say, isn't there a guideline called "Don't be a Pink Oboe"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO I'd say 1 and 3 are the solid reasons while 2 is iffy; "pink oboe" is pretty obscure, not like a well-known rusty trombone, y'know. But anyways, good block. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that doubters google-image the term and see what comes up. I do NOT recommend doing that image search at work, unless you happen to work at a porn shop. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See, the username was the most obvious issue that I saw - until I read the talk page and looked into the edits. I've declined to unblock, and have not consented to lower the block to a single week as the editor requested. Did someone put in a checkuser request? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I opened a SPI request and was just developing it when it was closed - in less than a half hour. I don't think checkuser will help unless the users data is recorded somewhere. Webhamster edited on some kind of local network. The only account active in the last three months (for checkuser checking) is The Oboe. User:WebHamster has one confirmed sockpuppet - User:Fred the Oyster - I challenge anyone to spend half an hour comparing the three accounts contributions and not to come to the same conclusion I did. - saying that, its not really a big issue, its his recent edits and apparent unhappiness at the way things operate around here thats the real issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pity you didn't spend that half an hour working on an article. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob works on plenty of articles. If the editor in question had been behaving civilly, there would have been no need to spend that half hour on it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Here, The Pink Oboe mocks the indef block by pointing out that anyone can simply recreate another account to escape the consequences of a block. I asked Alexandria (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to consider reopening Off2riorob's SPI in light of these developments. causa sui (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly "mocking" to point out the self-evident truth obvious to anyone. Time to walk away from the bonfire and put your pitchfork away. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So what's the alternative? To not block anyone? Sure, he can create a new account. And if he goes back to "the scene of the crime", as socks often do, then he'll be bounced again. But if he behaves, he won't be caught, articles might improve, and then everybody wins. How likely is that, though? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking infantilises everyone, not healthy. So he shoots off on his talk page at the blocking admin, so what? For all I (and you know) he may have created another account some time ago, and is using it now. Blocking only serves to enrage, it prevents nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen countless cases where blocking eventually sent malcontents away for good. So it can accomplish its goal. Ranting and raving is normal behavior for a segment of the blocked editors, of course. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very revealing comment. You make the judgement about who is a malcontent and who isn't, and the purpose of blocking is to drive those you consider to be malcontents away. Perhaps you ought to try having that included in the blocking policy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it your view that no editor should ever be blocked? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But we haven't even had our s'mores yet. causa sui (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry - he just tossed off a Personal attack on the blocking admin. If it's not removed, I'm going to lock the talk page. I'd really rather not, but I don't see many options here - he's rapidly digging a hole. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't hold against him his anger at being blocked. Block suck, but sometimes there is no other alternative. Jehochman 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No other alternative, as opposed to just "no alternative"? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WebHamster in progress. causa sui (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

...and we have a winner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mary O'Nette - Thank Jimbo we've got automatic IP-checking tools. We'd never have spotted that one without. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster is not the sock master...you'd have to go back much further to ID that one. We've seen this numerous times before.--MONGO 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think Courcelles did check for sleepers. What other evidence wasn't considered in the SPI? causa sui (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I have no doubt that is the case...but WebHamster's very first edit...is not one a newbie would make. Not that anything seems to have been problematic then...but then again, socks are socks, and any older ones are probably long lost anyway.--MONGO 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly suspicious, perhaps you're getting paranoid. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I was merely alluding that WebHamster wasn't a newbie even 5 years ago...how does that make me paranoid? I don't need checkuser to ID a sockmaster--MONGO 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster has now been unblocked by Black Kite (talk · contribs) on the basis of "I knew TPO was you as soon as I poked through your contributions following that non-free image kerfuffle, but, meh, what's the point of blocking someone who's mostly editing productively?", most likely related to WH's request here as The Pink Oboe, asking to be unblocked so he can continue to contribute in a particular manner.

The unblocking admin doesn't appear from my quick checks to have consulted the CU/blocking admin who acted on the SPI, for any of the (multiple) accounts this user operated. This strikes me as...non-ideal. Unrepentant socking is generally one of those things you don't get unblocked after because you say "Now I could quite easily as a sock but sooner or later I would be caught and that's just a general waste of time for everyone." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I must admit to be rather puzzled by this development as well, from what I saw above and the user's attitude, I fail to see how his socking should be treated so leniently. I really don't understand the reasoning behind the unblock. Unrepentant sockmaster, serious civility problems (see his talkpage box at the top for a sample of the user's attitude and approach). User clearly states that "I know it could be said that I just don't care, which to be honest is probably close to the truth.". Snowolf 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a fair bit of historic here from a fair while ago. WebHamster was blocked with the note to get over the issues and edit in an adult manner and request unblocking and we now appear to have that situation. He is on a good faith request agreement not to continue recent disruptive/rudeness issues and we all hope that he will move forward in a constructive manner. The socking issues are not worth additional action imo and I for one have no objection to the unblocking, in fact I support it. Lets hope good faith and constructive contributions will be the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"The provisos for me to be unblocked is that I keep my edits to article space (except my own page of course), and then only to add, change or remove images, or other edits that are image related. I've promised not to get into discussions in Misplaced Pages space (apart from the image workshops) or other User space (though I may break that one just for a select few users)." Please note the last portion. I fail to see the good faith, aside from being straight forward about his intent to break his commitments. Also see the whole civility-free space thing, the middle finger given to the reader of the page, and extensive socking in the last 24 hours. Snowolf 17:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as for the extensive socking, he created a few throwaway accounts. The best is that he has held his hands up to the WebHamster account and made a commitment to move forward in a less disruptive and more colloquial and constructive manner - negating on that commitment will likely have the usual consequences. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Off2riorob here. If Webhamster/Pink Oboe wants to confine himself to a single account, choose a non-scandalous username, edit productively in the image arena and stay away from the discussion pages which tend to be the problem areas for him, that's what we want, isn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reblocked; there is no way we should REWARD sockpuppetry like this. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That takes us solidly into wheel-war territory, doesn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much you want to wikilawyer it on the grounds that he unblocked WH, not TPO... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

They're the same editor, for Christ's sake. Did the blocking admin consult me? No. Did he consult the original blocking admin (Jehochman) who agreed the unblock with conditions? No. It doesn't matter which account is unblocked. We have an editor who promises to behave if given an account, and only stick to one area of Misplaced Pages (image post-processing) at which they have been very productive. If they slip back into problematic behaviour, we can re-block them. It's a win-win situation. I fucking despair sometimes. Black Kite (t) 18:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Said editor also announced his intent to break said promises regarding the area of involvement, has a box on the top of his talk page announcing his intent to continue behaving as in the past regard civility issues on his talk page. On the one hand he says he will do so and so, on the other makes it very clearly he won't. I don't see how it can be judged credible. I see no change in the user's behavior from what led to his block, nor will to change. Snowolf 18:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that they've edited very productively for a long time until recently under the sock. I've known who it was for a long time and so have a number of other admins. Don't they at least deserve a chance to prove they can behave? Fixing the problem if they don't is only one keypress away. Black Kite (t) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Black Kite on this one, and I support the unblock. It's not about "rewarding" anything, it's about what's best for Misplaced Pages - and I think giving an otherwise productive editor a further chance to contribute (and it will be under close observation now) is the best approach at this time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The issue of WH/TPO being "productive" is somewhat disputable; note that this thread was initially begun on the issue of his habitual incivility and nonconstructive behavior. The socking only came out later, and added fuel to the fire that was already burning. I, personally, don't see someone who engages in as disruptive a manner as TPO was as someone who is "productive". I suppose others have different views on what constitutes productivity. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:WebHamster block and unblock; possible wheel war - leaving it to the community to judge me and others

This user was blocked. He started sockpuppeting, using multiple accounts; when caught and blocked, he was unblocked by User: Black Kite, for reasons which are completely a mystery to me. I reflexively reblocked WebHamster, since I could see no reason on earth to reward a sockpuppeter whose socks are not merely incivil but gratuitously obnoxious, vulgar and destructive (one sock claims to suffer from Tourette's-like symptoms). I was not trying to start a wheel war, but of course will submit my WP:IAR action to the judgement of the broader administrative community. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite is generally a very sensible admin - did you touch base with him to ask why he'd unblocked? MastCell  18:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Re Webhamster: I support an unblock per my comments above.
2. Re Orangemike: Orangemike is an excellent admin and made a decision he thought was obvious and in the best interests of the project, so have a minnow for the wheel-warring (if it's fair to call it that) and let's move on from that and let the community decide on Webhamster's fate. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Black Kite's reason for unblock can be found here (and to be fair, in the unblock comment he did say "per discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe" - a quick search on "WebHamster" found it for me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The unblock was also agreed with Pink Oboe's original blocking admin Jehochman (see talk page). OrangeMike did not consult with either myself or him. The reasons for unblocking are only a mystery to him because he didn't investigate the issue - all the information was there. The user asked us for one chance and we gave it to them. The only difference is we unblocked their original account, not their sock. If we'd unblocked TPO and OrangeMike had reblocked them that would have been wheel-warring - so why is this OK? They've edited very productively as TPO until recently; I've known who TPO was for a while and some people have known for longer than me. I didn't see the point in blocking a productive editor at the time. What's the worst that can happen? WebHamster returns to his previous behaviour, gets blocked again and stays blocked. What's the best? He continues editing productively (in an area where not many people work) as he did as TPO. Win/win situation, surely? Black Kite (t) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kite; the discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe is exactly what I meant by "reasons which are completely a mystery to me"! There was nothing in that brief discussion which I could understand as an explanation of why a serial sockpuppeter should be unblocked; nor do any of your further comments, good faith as they clearly are, clarify it for me. The only reason I reverted you is that it seemed to me to be a no-brainer, classic WP:IAR material; I certainly meant no discourtesy to you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by that, I thought the chain of events went :he is disruptive as TPO, has an SPI started because of that, and then is proven to be WH an indef blocked user. If he was constructive as TPO, surely this chain of events would not have transpired. Did I miss something? Heiro 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. He got into a high-profile argument as TPO and ended up getting blocked for incivility (which was fair enough, but it wouldn't have been an indef); prior to that he had been constructive - see the history of his talkpage, for instance. Black Kite (t) 19:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support block-rewarding an indeff blocked user who sockpuppets,( and whose behavior as the sock is so egregious he gets himself blocked again and in the process reveals still more socks), with an unblock of the original account? Per the link above, where the editor discusses his medical problems and seeks to blame his behavior on them to some extent, WP:Misplaced Pages is not therapy. The project and its other members shouldn't be subjected to the sort of behavior the editor has displayed, repeatedly as several accounts, editing Misplaced Pages isn't for everyone. Heiro 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. The 'discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe" does not appear to have addressed the issue of socking, and only peripherally addressed the issue of incivility ("language won't be an issue, because I won't be talking to anyone", basically). There were also only two participants in that discussion other than TPO, as opposed to the numerous editors who weighed in on the original ANI thread, which was strongly in favor of TPO (or WebHamster, or whichever name we'd like to call him) being a disruptive user. In a case where community discussion has reached the point of "block this user for his behavior", followed by the revelation of blatant socking (which the user seems to find amusing), I would expect to see discussion with the community prior to an unblock. OrangeMike was a bit fast on the draw to reblock the way he did, but to my eyes, the unblock was...really quite bad, such that the block really ought to have been restored pending community consensus that TPO's proposed restrictions were valid unblock conditions. ("You should unblock me. I'll behave, mostly, and anyway if you don't unblock, I'll just sock." "Sure, have an unblock"? Really?)A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This case definitely took a strange turn. Misplaced Pages doesn't typically welcome sockmasters back with open arms. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that he gave up all his socks to us to show at least a bit of good faith, something that appears to be in short supply round here. Black Kite (t) 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That's another strange turn. It's typically hard to get sockmasters to admit they're socking, let alone providing a list of them. I wonder - how hard will it be to get a reblock at a later date, vs. reblocking right now? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If he steps out of line once, I'll block him myself, and I said as much. Black Kite (t) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • No, he did not "give up" all his socks. They were found in an SPI. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not quite - the SPI was only endorsed because he admitted to socking - the checkuser was originally turned down as not enough evidence; at that point he could have given up with TPO and carried on with one of the others, if he'd so wished. Black Kite (t) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • You still have this wrong. I helped to get the SPI reopened after unrelated editors presented evidence of socking in the AN/I discussion above. TPO also made statements after being blocked indicating he thought it was pointless to indefblock him because he could just create another account. That is not the same thing as coming clean; it's the opposite. It's "I'm going to do what I want and you can't stop me." He openly admitted it (ha ha, you guys got me) after the checkuser confirmed the socking. causa sui (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support reblock per Fluffernutter. When community consensus is that strong in favor of a block, unblocking with a two-person consensus is a Bad Thing, and OrangeMike acted appropriately to enforce the consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - Black Kite should explain why he/she shouldn't be desysop'd for unblocking. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - User was socking less than 24 hours ago, announced on the top of his talk page he won't follow his restrictions (second paragraph) and made clear he has no interest in behaving civilly (first paragraph). We don't need sockpuppetters who never repented and clearly stated their intent to keep socking if not unblocked. Zero willingness to address the socking, zero willingness to address the civility issues. I'm still amazed at how the user was even considered for unblocking without him addressing any of the issues that got him blocked. Snowolf 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Frankly, I endorse the block. TBH, I couldn't see any "real" material on the talk page that addressed the original reasons — including the socking — of blocking. HurricaneFan25 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Trouts for all. I don't much care whether Webhamster/Pink Oboe/clever sockpuppet guy is blocked or unblocked. What does grind my gears is the fact that I (and others) specifically declined to unblock, and did so for specific reasons. Whatever other accounts the editor was using, his conduct as TPO was enough to warrant a block. At a minimum, I would've liked to have seen Black Kite offer some sort of explanation, here or to the admins who had blocked and confirmed the block - "Hey, you reviewed this, but now he's promised to do X, Y, and Z, and I think we should unblock." would've been all you needed. There was no urgency here, no imminent harm to the project in leaving this guy blocked - quite the opposite. From the conversation at TPO's talk, I imaging having an editor advocate on his behalf would've been sufficient to satisfy him as to his shot at being unblocked. The reblock was ill-advised as well, though much easier to justify. My concern there is that the drama it causes will far outweigh the damage prevented by the block itself. OrangeMike and Black Kite are both smart admins, but we got suckered here. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, my last comment. The only drama is here, not anywhere else (and you're also missing the point that it was Jehochman who originally agreed to the unblock; I only pressed the button because he wasn't around). WebHamster (as TPO) was a very productive editor in an area where not many people work (you only have to look at the history of TPO's talkpage to see the number of fulfilled requests for image work). JH and I obviously thought that it was worth one last chance - and let's face it, it wasn't as if he wouldn't be heavily monitored. I don't understand this, really; we have dozens of disruptive editors wandering the Wiki causing massive drama everywhere (see, for example, global warming, Israel/Palestine, cold fusion etc. etc. etc.), many of them being blocked, unblocked and still causing massive drama and problems yet TPO had stayed under the radar for a long time, working away productively. It was worth a shot. And as I said, the moment he stepped out of line, he'd be gone for good. Ah well. Black Kite (t) 19:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • My point wasn't that he should or should not be blocked - Wiser men than I have already weighed in. My concern was that it seemed that very little discussion had taken place about it - though Jehochman agreeing to the unblock is a big piece of the puzzle. I don't give a good goddamn whether the editor is the most prolific featured article writer on the planet - if there's reason to believe that his incivility and sockpuppet shenanigans were going to continue, he should've remained blocked. That's the point on which I think we should've had more discussion - and it's likely I would have agreed with your position. Hell, I kind of do anyway. But that wasn't my point. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support reblock Like Fluffernutter I am unpersuaded by the sincerity of his statements. WebHamster/TPO doesn't seem to believe that he's done anything wrong. Like UltraExactZZ I think that given the history the bigger danger to the project was unblocking, and given the number of people endorsing the original block some review would have been much better than unilateral action. Edit: Suggestions that anyone desysop are totally ridiculous. It seems impossible for an admin to make a mistake without someone reaching for the executioner's axe. causa sui (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support reblock....and with RkLawton as to the desysopping og Black Kite...there is a bad pattern developing here and some admins are seriously misusing their powers.MONGO 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait a second here. Jehochman blocks... fair enough. Jehochman then gives his blessing for an unblock, which Black Kite then does. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, "misusing powers"? 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • RkLawton asks for Black Kite to give reasons as to why he should not be desysopped. One would assume reading the bloody threads would demonstrate BK's view point, without him having to explain it (like this a court of law or something). Unhelpful drama creating desysop calls are not adressing the issue; More germane is that they do not belong in a thread about the unblocking / blocking of this user. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support UNblock. I'll stick my neck out, though not my pink oboe. What WebHamster et al have misdone here is not really under discussion, and neither is the good they have done for the project, and the latter should be our interest. I am satisfied that we have full disclosure, and I am satisfied with the discussion on the Oboe's talk page. I'll take him at good faith. I won't go finding fault with the blocking, unblocking, or reblocking admin; I want us to move on. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - Frankly, from what I saw of TPO's unblock request, it basically amounted to "I don't want to sock, so unblock me" - with the implication that socking or meatpuppetry would likely occur if an unblock was not issued. As for contributions vs. civility - it's not "either/or". Yes, TPO/etc. has contributed a lot of quality content. But if he won't contribute in a civil matter, the encyclopedia won't grind to a halt without him (maybe we need WP:WIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU written?); if he can't, as has been hinted at ("mini-strokes"/Tourette's) then, without any disrespect meant on account of his condition, WP:COMPETENCE comes into play - making allowances for uncivil behavior because "they can't help it" isn't a road I think we should be going down. I don't think anything stronter than {{trout}} should be handed out, but I do believe there should have been more discussion prior to the original unblocking, seeing as the AN/I thread that kicked off the most recent round was still active at the time of unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – this situation looks like the one with TreasuryTag – a "keyboard warrior" editor who looks for naive/soft admins and uses them as a crutch, not only to do their fighting for them, but to warrant/justify their behaviour. As for "tourettes" – in cases like this I wish WP:RS applied as much to "mental instability" claims as it does to verifying an editor is deceased before marking their page as such – i.e. they should be asked to prove it, as it's easy for anyone to game the system and use WP:AGF as a pretext to act disruptively. Personally, I wish a few more admins had the constitution of Pierrepoint and were willing to pull the lever on every highly disruptive editors, instead of turning the matter ad nauseum. Pusillanimous people like Webhamster feed off sympathy, and Wiki isn't a play ground. Nor does approving of "adult language" automatically make Wiki an "adult site" and mean we should discriminate against younger readers on that basis (see this nonsense]) – strong language is offensive to people for many reasons: age, gender, sexuality, religion, natural dislike for profanity – so members like Webhamster are harming Wiki on a far greater scope than a few clean-minded minors. There are people aiming to give Wiki a functional position in schools, as a resourceful encyclopedia – that won't happen with F's and B's flying all over. Editors are not the only people on Wiki, and I sometimes think some admins are frequently short-sighted in their approach to dealing with the internal community (contributors), and forget the wider world of regular readers who never click "Edit" but use the site faithfully. Anyway, just my two cents as I think a few admins consider themselves the only members capable of discussing such matters, per the idiom "too many chiefs but not enough Indians", which often results in low quality management. NB: These are not PAs, they are observations – if you can't accept that admins are all fallible humans too, you need to wake up to reality. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Come on Marcus--I don't think like to think of Black Kite and myself as naive or soft. No one here was suggesting, I think, that non-admins aren't welcome in this discussion. School teachers are unlikely to publicly peruse the talk pages of editors (though I have used Malleus's talk page to an all-adult, coed audience), and I like to think that teachers will pull up Featured Articles if they want to use Misplaced Pages, but that's beside the point. Your complaint about low-quality management is a bit gratuitous, since at the current state of discussion the editor you want blocked is still blocked--if anything, you should probably sing the praises of the long-sighted admins who support this block and the stiffness of their pink oboes, as opposed to Black Kite's and mine weakly protuberances. Ha, if anything, I could show how HUGE my pink oboe is by unblocking against stiff consensus, but I want to be a team player even if I disagree with what we're doing here. So if I seem weak and naive it is because I follow consensus, hoping only to help sway it. BTW, and FWIW, I have disagreed with WebHamster in the past--I may have even called them a bad name. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum's worst enemy is the clique of supporters that flock to him, blind supporters and disrupters and trolls that imo are the enemy within to the project - users that support an environment that would look like the early flame wars of the internet and would if they had their way, destroy the project. - User:Parrot of Doom, User:WebHamster - User:Nev1, all from the same geo location, add on User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz - they all blindly support each other and degenerate the community civility position. Such groups of disruptive users that edit against the community consensus position need removal whether some of them write content or not, as a group imo they are a net loss to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers rob, your unwavering support is much appreciated. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I'll take that abusive and nonsensical comment as a compliment. Feel free to geolocate me--I'm pretty close to Birmingham, actually. And maybe MF can come by and copy edit for you, troll and flamer that he is. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

: If I may. I'm not a member of this "community" anymore but check in from time to time, and this one i find amusing. The original indef block on the Hamster was placed by one "Protonk." The discussion leading up to it was precipitated by hamster's creation of a page on the false claim that a celebrity enjoyed stuffing small rodents up his butt. This block was widely supported at the time. . The warning notice at the top of his page, and the picture of the middle finger, are just adorable (If you have come here to lecture, patronise, troll or otherwise fuck me about then you lose the right to have any expectation of a civil response.) Have fun!Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent spammers on DarkEden article

Several IPs, and several usernames all apparently linked to the fansites/private server pages they're trying to insert into the article. Eik Corell (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 24 hours; if the spamming resumes after that, WP:RFPP can protect it for longer. 28bytes (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Send up the links to blacklist - sorts things out with minimal drama. Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club

Since nobody (not even an admin) commented on this, I'll bring it up since disruption is still ongoing

• Junebea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shannon6375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a history of vandalizing Bad Girls Club-related articles. The user was first blocked by User:Master of Puppets on 27 September 2011 for adding a last name to a living person without a source for verification, multiple times after I and User:Master of Puppets had removed them. After he was lifted from his ban, he engaged in a WP:3RR edit warring with User:Alexgx . Within 15 days, Junebea1 began showing signs of WP:OWN when he believed that the "notes" section of the article should appear to readers, his edit summary was "These will not be hidden because these instances have already occurred. Keep it how it is, or you will be blocked." which "Stop reverting my edits. We need to maintain consistency with the past seasons' pages, and this is how it is suppose to be. Stop or be blocked." followed . The discussion on the Bad Girls Club (season 6) talk page was to hide the notes (though now I am more towards on having them appear to readers). I told the user about the discussion but never undid his edits, which I left alone, though my reply was to bring admin attention. After the user ignored many (many) warnings on his talk page and had been removing or adding content without consensus, I brought up a discussion on the talk page to help bring stability to the article. Junebea1's responses were "There is no "the" in the title of the Bad Girls Club though, so that will remain left out" and "I'm currently experimenting to the find the best color that works" which I addressed that changes like those should be made by the community (consensus) and not on what he thinks or feels is right. (Other WP:OWN comments "DO NOT remove any references ever, or you will be blocked. And Shannon is not Shelly or Cheyenne's name so stop vandalizing it or you will be blocked.", "Stop hiding them because it makes no sense. You will be blocked for vandalism. You have to follow the past seasons' pages. Don't hide nothing, it will confuse the readers. Also, Cheyenne was forcefully removed by Tiara, so it's called a removal.") On 25 October 2011, the user gave me a warning for no pair reason. He was subsequently warned by User:Calabe1992. When I had created Bad Girls Club (season 8) article on 14 November 2011, it soon caught the eyes of vandalizing IPs and was semi-protected several hours later. The next day, Junebea1 redirected the article to its new name and added unsourced content, fancruft and removed statements that were sourced by a WP:RS. I reverted his additions and removals however, he undid my edit and decided to remove all sourced information except the cast members first names on the article. After Juneabea1 had undid my edit he gave me another warning. On 17 November 2011, Juneabea1 believed he should remove information from a WP:RS because he felt the author made a slight error. However, myself and MikeAllen disagree with his WP:OWN statements. Of course that didn't stop him from doing it himself.

I'm done with giving this user "last warnings" when they really do nothing to prevent Junebea1 from making contributions without consensus from the community. I think a temporary ban from editing Bad Girls Club-related articles is best, however, I'm not an admin so I'll leave this to you guys :)

Shannon6375

This user was blocked three times however, this user just vandalize the article Bad Girls Club (season 8). Immediate attention to these and its related articles needs admin help. Best, Jonayo! 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletions by involved editor under claim of "close paraphrases"; Mkativerata

A colleague, Mkativerata, who is an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as defined by WP:ARBPIA, has today deleted variations of 2 sentences in an ARBPIA bio of Ilan Berman (3 times in half an hour). Claiming that they are "close paraphrases". The 2 sentences were edited three times to seek to address his claims, and additional refs added.

Whether or not he may have been correct initially, certainly by his most recent deletion IMHO there was no merit to his claim. I'm concerned with the aggressiveness of his deletions, without talkpage discussion, especially given the ARBPIA aspect of this. I've myself opened up discussion of the issue on the article's talkpage, but not received any response there.

Perhaps an admin can keep an eye on this matter? I'm concerned that it is spiraling. I'm not asking for any other action as to Mkat. Full disclosure: In the past I've communicated concern to this editor about his behavior, and have felt that he responded aggressively and sought to exact retribution inappropriately for my having having voiced my view, so I am hoping that this is not a continuation of that, and that I will not suffer from retribution from him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards