Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:54, 3 October 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

Re: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs)

Came across this character following his raising a complaint at MilHist, a few weeks ago, but because they clearly did not resolve it to his personal satisfaction he took the issue to RFD without notifying anyone. At the time he left a number of uncivil remarks towards someone in the RFD. I asked him to tone it down, as I was uninvolved in the matter, and he became uncivil with an abrupt high-horse attitude about him, with total lack of AGF: User talk:Incnis Mrsi#September 2012.

Two weeks later I was asked to look into his recent behaviour, via email. Did so, still uninvolved, and he has persisted with his arrogant manner of leaving blunt edit summaries, accusing editors of being bad or wasteful, and that he is somehow "perfect" and should never he reverted because he takes insult to it. A strong ownership attitude exists in his behaviour also. He has claimed to have quit editing on Russian Wiki because of double standards, but it is clear that he sets the standards himself, often contrary to Wiki policy, and has a total IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to anyone asking that he stop leaving uncivil, border-line personal attack remarks. I wouldn't say he was down-right offensive, but his manner of "outing" editors as being poor or inexperienced is hardly appropriate in the face of the poor editor retention we have at present. Following this (User talk:Incnis Mrsi#Personal Attack) lengthy discussion, he went on to pursue his disrespect towards editors, and has been asked again to lay off. Again, he claims not to be in the wrong... ever.

I'm not asking for a block here, his actual edits are neither controversial nor disruptive, but his behaviour is certainly unwarranted, and it is inappropriate for him to react with spite towards every editors commenting on his behaviour. I think a couple of admins need to give this fellow a few pokes, after reviewing his edit summaries and underhand remarks towards a few editors, lately. Maybe he will get the jist, given that he feels only someone with authority has the right to rebuke him, then I don't see any other way, he ignores everyone else's concerns. My own remarks started off politely, but his egotistic responses just started to drive me nuts after a while, because he refuses to accept that he is ever saying anything wrong, in an annoying "civil POV pusher" fashion, even with 3 or 4 editors stating the opposite, so the discussions linked do start to lose coherence in a way. Ma®©usBritish 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation - much the same experience from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I am not the best Misplaced Pages user, but this request is made in a bad faith. Yes, I know what I said and I am ready to account for my words.

• You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced.
• Maybe you should start listening to those of us encouraging you to do that, before you dig your own grave into AN/I, hmmm?
• You can tell a good editor by the praise/barnstars on their talkpage. You have one in 6 years. Perhaps not everyone feels you're helping en-Wiki become better, because your attitude to fellow-editors speaks more than your contribs which go unnoticed as a result. Shame..

This three diffs should be sufficient, for an experienced user, to detect the nominator's motivation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting people out of context, is bad faith. Accusing me of bad faith is also bad faith, given than there is plenty of evidence at hand that cannot be denied. Your first quote, for example, was a response to you stating "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user". You only highlighted my point that you think yourself better than everyone. You issued a challenge to my experience, it was met. Don;t cry about it now your civility is being questioned towards multiple editors. Quoting me, only proves you have a beef with anyone who questions your manner. You haven't even made an attempt to defend your rude edit summaries, "bad editor" outing, ownership, being "insulted by reverts", and so on and so forth. I've already openly stated that conversations with you spiral out of control, because you're massively incapable of expressing guilt, so your quotes are irrelevant tit-for-tat. This ANI thread is about you, and your history of incivility. I suggest you direct your immediate attention to that matter, and not me. Ma®©usBritish 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same experience at User talk:StringTheory11 and Superatom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, to save people time searching for what StringTheory11 is specifically referring to: User talk:StringTheory11 dispute and Superatom edit summary. Ma®©usBritish 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the history of the Incnis Mrsi's talk page, people don't seem to have accused him if in-civility or personal attacks or stuff like that until about September 2012 (but I could be wrong), and he's been here sense 2008. Might the account be compromised? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can ask the people on Wikimedia channels at Freenode, it's genuinely me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is here on Misplaced Pages merely to look for trouble, not to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia. And dealing with this user is all the more tedious because he/she seems to like to argue points of English language usage with editors who, unlike him/her, are native speakers. Here are a couple differences from my encounters with Incnis Mrsi:

• Me trying to be gracious in spite of my doubts of IM's intentions:
• IM demonstrating what seems to be his/her edit summary MO:

Eric 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You claimed my edit to be "erroneous" (without explicit arguments, but already with a pronounced doubt about my good faith), I tried to discuss it. Is AN/I a proper place to air grievances about disagreements in one article, or (possibly) even two or three? BTW, a mediation eventually reduced the problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have a long experience of interaction with Incnis Mrsi in Russian Misplaced Pages, where, especially in the end, this interaction was far from pleasant, and one one occasion I even met them in person at a WikiMeetup. Incnis Mrsi is certainly not a poster boy, they are sometimes incivil and often fail to hear others, and their communication skills are not ideal. On the other hand in most cases the points they are trying to make are valid, and their contribution to the articles is highly valuable. I do not have a good solution, but I personally just learned to ignore the trash they are saying (and believe me it was not easy, for instance, when they came to rally against me at the Arbcom elections) and to extracting valid points. I do not think any formal restrictions would work (except for the full ban of course but then we lose their contributions while gaining nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Answered on the personal talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about this ANI thread off-board, perhaps it should not be in the form of further personal attacks: "I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction" - this is exactly – the point I'm trying to make about your repeated high-horse attitude, and how what you believe is somehow better than what everyone else thinks,per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You always want the last word, and it's the only one you think is "right". Your disregard for the "collaborative spirit" of Wiki is of more concern than anything. Your bully-style attitude, telling people what "not" to do, "never" to do, why they are "waste makers", why you are somehow superior as an "experienced metapedian" is just not appropriate. In short, you talk down to everyone like they're shit on your shoe, and it's that condescending manner than I and others disapprove of, and the fact you can't accept it because of whatever pride/ego you have only for yourself presents a massive COI blindsightedness in favour of your opinions. The fact that you refer to almost everyone who holds a dispute with you as a "troll" and ignore them is also a poor show of will to resolve an issue; you lack tact and communication skills, again, because you somehow you feel you are superior to the rest of us, as is evident in that quote, apparently "the community" has no power over you alone. Funny.. I thought that was the whole point of consensus building: to reach mutual understandings, not let one man exert his will over others like some dictator. You do that, be bashing people with repeat ignorance of their views, and forceful reassertion of your own. It's not how Wiki works. Are you getting this? Ma®©usBritish 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody think that MarcusBritish went far beyond the point where his efforts to persuade me to become more civil can be, actually, useful for this community? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, do you think that? As I said before, this isn't about me, people are commenting about you, and with a number of editors now raising behaviour concerns, I suggest you stop trying to create a fork in the discussion. Also, reading between the lines, your reply reads as, "I don't want to be civil.. if I can somehow drive MarcusBritish off, no one can stop me doing whatever I want". Ma®©usBritish 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

… namely: searching for illegal redirects (unfortunately, not always CSD-eligible), users and scripts inserting dashes instead of minus signs, and WP:DICTIONARY articles (which are much more common than is usually thought of). Not counting, sometimes, writing large section or even entire articles, despite "my non-native English". I make a job useful for Misplaced Pages. If I make certain mistakes in etiquette, then I would prefer to be corrected by a people without serious problem with etiquette and good faith, themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been approached by several people for your etiquette, and dismissed them all as "trolls" or "bigots" or "waste-makers", because you apply own limited-vision of who you deem proper to approach you, which appears to be noone. Your preferences are irrelevant, as you are requesting (demanding) to be informed of policy breaches on your own terms. Tell me, how does a guy intelligent enough to edit physics and mathematical articles, lack the ability to apply that same level of intelligence to his social-skills, or a little inner-self psychology, and realise that he is being unsociable towards people? You've admitted that you are "ready to account for my words", so why not start doing that, instead of putting a spin on your attitude, flipping-off your detractors, and show a little constraint when it comes to lashing out at people, instead of treading on editors contributors, as your edit summaries show you do with indiscriminate irreverence. Civility is probably easier to learn and apply than the laws of physics.. how about you start giving it a try, instead of maintain that stubborn, and to be frank - selfish - attitude that you have. Yes, civility is useful for the community, without it Wiki would fail. Why did you quit Russian-Wiki and come over to English-Wiki.. "double standards" or because they too insisted on proper etiquette that you can't live up to? Ma®©usBritish 09:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, I think that. With this, EEng will likely come to sanctions. It is this irresponsive flamewar which caused him to lift any control of his own conduct. Who will account for his imminent block and/or sanctions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, in this thread? No one.. it's about you.. no one willaccept a shift of blame from you to him. You could open a new thread, but I'll lay odds that it will WP:BOOMERANG because everyone will see it for exactly what it is.. Ma®©usBritish 18:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

With 4 or 5 editors having expressed a similar concern here, is there a willing admin looking into the matter further? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh... Yes, but I'm starting into a much more ugly and complicated one further up on the page. Another uninvolved admin is encouraged to try and take a look, I will probably not have time sooner than tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Don't worry, this one isn't particularly "ugly" just a little spread-out, might take a bit of looking into, I've only been a little involved in the recent developments, personally, so I can't say how much deeper it goes or the best way to resolve it, because said editor does not seem to care about resolving anything due to not accepting being at fault to begin with. Ma®©usBritish 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what I would consider personal attacks or even incivility so much as odd and disruptive comments regarding other editors. For example, saying X is a waste maker is literally true -- both human and bot editors generate waste heat and of course humans generate biological waste -- so one has to try to infer meaning.
• The removal of such comments is problematic. Although there was no blowback in this case, such removal of comments by higher status editors would typically cause a fracas.
• Incnis Mrsi seems to be generally right on content but needs to improve their interaction with other editors. Quite simply, comment on edits not on the other editors.
• Note: This is a quintessential WP:WQA issue -- no admin action is needed here -- and illustrates the folly of closing that forum without first establishing a realistic replacement. But hey, the tribe has spoken. Nobody Ent 12:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Somehow, I don't think someone is going to call a person a "waste maker" because their body generates waste heat or dumps shit... that's cutting it a bit thin and taking AGF too far... Regardless, fortunately the precise meaning can be found in his own words: User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary#W - a "botcher" (User:Incnis_Mrsi/Glossary#B) even describes it as "may be fairly harmful", this being true, why does he use it so much? One can't admit that a term is harmful, then claim not to be uncivil.. that would be hypocrisy. And calling someone a botcher or a waste-maker is essential contrary to AGF.. it's virtually accusing them of vandalism. Not civil terms. In fact, I find it disturbing that a guy who edits calculus/physics articles sees fit to maintain a list of negative words to use in summaries and comments.. add "imbecile", "twat" and "retard" into the list and he'd have the ultimate glossary of anti-AGF words. Ma®©usBritish 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• WP:WQA has been terminated, and WP:DR is for resolving disputes. The problem here is that the editor is uncivil, and when asked to control his attitude even by uninvolved editors, he basically tells them to "fuck off and mind their own business".. so yes, admin intervention is needed here to look into this editor's behaviour - not his editing, his overall conduct with regards to rude edit summaries, antagonising comments to other editors such as ownership-like remarks, pretentious comments, and total disregard for other editors opinions. When an editor is allowed to be uncivil, without warning, or ignoring all concerns, they think they can get away with anything. That is the "potential blowback".. he even admits above that trying to force him to be uncivil is impractical use of ANI time, which is essentially admitting that he does not want to be civil and does not feel anyone is good enough to tell him otherwise. If that isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. The more eyes there are on this guy's interactions, the better. Ma®©usBritish 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks to MarcusBritish he posted the link to my glossary, although I did not advertise it anywhere, even on my user: page ;) First, a "waste-maker" (sorry, I did not find a better English expression) does not necessary produce only waste and never a product of acceptable quality. Though, if a construction worker improperly installs, say, "only" 2 beams out of 40, then he can be not only fired out, but fined and even imprisoned. Happily, Wiki is not a building construction, but monitoring for low visible waste such as invalid redirects and improper characters, and, in some cases, even arguing with persons (accidentally) making such a waste, consume valuable resources of (other) users. Second, waste-making is perfectly compatible with a good faith, under such conditions as "ignorance" and "negligence". It is another thing which is not compatible with good faith: a harassment towards a specific user because he argued with another user(s) about quality issues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• It sounds as if you're attempting to try us under the Law of Spikelets for the destruction of collective property. Are we all to be shot, or sent to the gulags? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Advertise, no, edit, yes.. thus it's plain to see on your contribs list.. no secret really, anyone might have noticed it. And we all have a Special:PrefixIndex/User:Incnis_Mrsi/ page.. so again, no secrets here on Wiki, son. Ma®©usBritish 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 11:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+428)‎ . . User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary ‎ (+waste) (top)

Per WP:5P:

Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules.

Rules in Misplaced Pages are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Misplaced Pages's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

So once again, I repeat that your Wikihounding list, condoning mistakes by User:Jarble is a direct attack, contrary to "do not worry about making mistakes". The list and manner in which you delivered it was uncivil. The only time that might be appropriate is if the edits were vandalism or controversial.. but in this case they were all trivial errors, typos, and you simply bullied him by making him out to be a useless (ie "waste-maker") editor. Ma®©usBritish 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, less try this for a tack. Incnis Mrsi, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee of the English Misplaced Pages, so if you are looking for a view from an editor given some kind of status by the community, that's me. I have three pieces of advice, which may make your editing experience less confrontational.
• First - On the English Misplaced Pages, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
• Second - if you are trying to use a Russian expression and are uncertain of it's translation, don't use it - say something simpler. For example, the expression "waster" in English is terribly rude when applied to someone, and that's how everyone has been reading your 'waste-maker' (and getting angry with you because it sounded like you are being terribly rude). What you are referring to is a situation in which an editor appears to make a significant number of mistakes such as misplaced dashes or erroneous characters.
• Third - it may be considered unreasonable to pick on editors for making minor errors in spelling, punctuation etc, unless it is a really massive problem (they have just run a script that accidentally replaced every n-dash with an underscore or something like that). Normally, to assist everyone in rubbing along together, it's better to ignore minor mistakes in talkpage edits, and fix them without fuss in articles, and see if you can find a tactful way to say "are you having problems with....." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not minor mistakes is human edits is a problem. Scripts which allow to make multiple errors, which are hard to detect, is a problem. And this becomes a very problem (yes, my English is funny) when automated users are unwilling to fix their scripts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One can only wonder, AGF aside, if his lack of response, despite actively editing since Elen commented, is further indication of Incnis' disregard for others opinions, as he was evidently willing to argue with everyone else of less "authority" – not sure if there's anything more can really be done at this stage, but I hope there are a few more eyes on his questionable interactions as a result, rather than let this matter be swept under the proverbial rug. Ma®©usBritish 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good one fresh out of the oven . EEng (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Funny how editors who lecture others about English mechanics so often are the same ones whose contribution histories are littered with "(reduced an overlinking and cleansed a lame typography)" and similar examples of unintentional self-parody.

So ironic that he tells someone that their skills are insufficient to copyedit an article, yet follows up with a very poorly worded question. Perhaps showing that they should refrain from offering advice when they've got similar issues? Blackmane (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Given that Incnis is now obviously ignoring this thread in the hope that given time others will grow bored and it will self archive with nothing actioned, what.s the way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs)

The way forward is to go forward. A legit concern was raised, and multiple editors, capped by Really High Status Elen have addressed Incnis. Either their future behavior will be appropriate or it won't. If the former, nothing more needs to be done, if the latter, another ANI or RFCU can be opened. Nobody Ent 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whose Really High Status? Give a link or diff to "a very respectable editor who already addressed Incnis Mrsi", please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Elen of Roads' reply above.. having stated they're a member of Arbcom, what more do you expect.. Jimbo Wales to reply personally? Ma®©usBritish 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of typical behavior for Incnis Mrsi -- check out the discussion here for example, which Incnis Mrsi begins with typical massive incivility and personal insults. When Incnis Mrsi discovers that s/he has been wrong about several factual points in the discussion (e.g., whether a merge template was used) s/he simply ignores the new information. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a typical behavior of a good Misplaced Pages user. Incnis Mrsi and D.Lazard (talk · contribs) in 2½ days wrote the article square (algebra), something that JBL was unable, or unwilling, to do in 3 weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the time it takes to write an article have to do with anything? That's just another typical uncivil remark where you compare yourself to other editors and claim to be somehow better. Doesn't the whole block of remarks above indicate how your persistence in that manner is unwelcome, because it's rude and not collaborative language? Ma®©usBritish 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Square (algebra) article predates the filing of this ANI -- Incnis has already been encouraged to improve their collaboration moving forward; finding additional examples of past behavior isn't useful. Nobody Ent 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of it all! — Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Dealing with harassment and "personal" trolling... Ma®©usBritish 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I did not find it in this  for some reason. Thanks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Now this really takes the cake. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Does seem somewhat hypocritical.. not that it matters, Arbcom wouldn't take the case unless it had unsuccessfully passed through other channels first.. for all his mathematical and scientific editing ability, can't understand why he didn't grasp that. I think it's more important we try to resolve this now though.. six days is more than enough preliminary discussion time for such a straight-forward matter, hence why I proposed some kind of resolution below, before this gets too tedious and appears as WP:BAITING, as Incnis has clearly frayed a few nerves lately. Ma®©usBritish 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that Incnis Mrsi does not abide uncivil remarks towards himself, despite his own behaviour towards others. He has opened an ironic RFC against EEng. See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/EEng Ma®©usBritish 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained here I stand by my interactions with I.M. EEng (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some administrator involvement so we can wrap this up. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been a distinct lack of admin interest on this, apart from Elen – Incnis tried giving her one of his typical brow beatings yesterday without success, as he seems to becoming despondent due to lack of support for his RFC and behaviour. I'm not sure where this is even going to end up, myself... he seems keen to stand his futile ground. Though from where I'm standing, he might as well be facing a firing squad, the amount of opinion he has drawn against him, standing solo. Ma®©usBritish 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let me get something out of the way first: he's still not getting the message, as seen in an exchange today on an article's Talk :

Incorrect Molar Mass The reported molar mass of the "hydron" is 1.00794 g/mol. Isn't that the molar mass of the hydrogen atom? The molar masses are based on the mass of a proton, so the molar mass of the hydrogen cation should be exactly one. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just Learn Physics Better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in all seriousness I'm beginning to wonder if the reason he's not getting the message is that he quite literally can't understand it. Consider this recent post by I.M. to another editor's Talk :

I reverted your edit except its only part which was substantiated: removal of {{pi}}. I know that this was rude, but discarding a legitimate improvement, namely √2, by your edit, was silly. If you want to know, why I behave rude and do attack (you), then ask on my user_talk, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I submit there are two possibilities. Either

hypothesis (a) (the uncharitable interpretation) I.M. revels in the practice of what might be called "open and gross rudeness", or

hypothesis (b) (the charitable interpretation) he does not comprehend basic English words such as rude, attack, and silly.

If the answer is (b) then perhaps the controlling principle needed here is WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty:

If someone can't use English well, and can't discuss things with other editors very well, consider trying to get them to edit a Misplaced Pages in their own language. Those other-language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.

EEng (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

He won't per this:

"The stranglehold of double standards was the main reason why I ceased to contribute to Russian Misplaced Pages. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)"

I suspect that means he pulled the same stunts there as here and became outcast for not being civil or cooperative. Ma®©usBritish 01:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, English Misplaced Pages has its double standards too ☺ although these are quite different. My comment "user:… makes waste" was immediately obstructed, but most of blatantly disruptive and flame-provoking comments were not. And you all know, why these disruptive comments were not obstructed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I.M.'s response gives further weight to my hypothesis (b) above. In addition to, perhaps, trying again at the Russian WP (do they have WP:CLEANSTART?), I suggest in all seriousness that perhaps the Simple English Misplaced Pages might be a great place for his contributions -- they seem in dire need of help in the mathematics and sciences. I don't know what that idea means in terms of a proposal for what should happen here at en, but he certainly can't be allowed to continue the way he's going, and since he can tread water in an ocean of criticism for weeks on end yet emerge absolutely unwetted, it seems like mentoring is a nonstarter. EEng (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Simple Wiki is designed to present information in Basic English and suggests that there are only 2,000 common English words. You probably have to be good at English in order to determine how to select the right words for a non-English speaker to understand.. people like Incnis use broken English, with common and comples words, but quite muddled.. that's not Simple English Wiki's aim, and he would easily become more frustrated there than here, because a non-native speaker is less likely to be a walking thesaurus and know Simple English alternatives. I expect the maths and physics aren't up to his level either. He may be Russian, but he's not Aleksandr Orlov ("Simples!").Ma®©usBritish 06:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And an advice to users who are upset with me, such as Andy Dingley, JBL and StringTheory11: try to give me a positive view of the etiquette, instead of participating in flamewars. Of course, I know that I should not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate my point, myself, but with this bashing campaign I am already not sure, what I may do and what I must not do. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. But you'd do better to take it, before you give it. In fact, that would be the best place for to start.. by taking advice and stop knocking those who offer it. Ma®©usBritish 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marcus! I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source. I am sure in the good faith of e.g. Andy Dingley despite his hectic attitude and direct breaches of AGF towards me. Sorry that I see here so few users experienced in content creation and a topical (damn!) interaction. My impression about users depends first on their own conduct, and only after that on my prejudices. I do not discard an other guy's opinion only because I do not like it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but "I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source." is also not AGF.. surely you see that? When people give advice you are supposed to either acknowledge it (mean you neither accept not refuse it), or respond positively.. "thanks for the advice.." you don't attack the advisor out of paranoia, distrust, or for any reason, it's uncivil, rude, not AGF, and not likely to make other people offer you good advice, because you turn them off giving it. You don't have to accept anyone's advice.. but when you don't, you don't have to tell them that. Better to say nothing, than give a seemingly "nasty" response. Understand? Ma®©usBritish 08:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble that people are having with you, I.M, is that all that people have been telling you is that your interaction style (or lack of) is exactly the problem. Your "paranoia" causes you to refuse "advices from every source" even from those of us who have never interacted with you. Experience in content creation does not give you a blank check to insult, attack or dismiss others. Unfortunately, you even acknowledge that you are rude and attack others that was posted above. It looks like what you need isn't a sanction or anything, but a mentor on the expected culture here, and maybe the western world in general, and how to get your point across without being insulting. Blackmane (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's virtually what I've proposed below.. a short period of mentoring in interaction. I though you opposed it though, or were not in full agreement with the idea that he might be mentor-able? Ma®©usBritish 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was me that said that ( I may be wrong, I say or write a lot of things that I subsequently forget) Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just below you suggested a 1RR and block if this returns to ANI, and no need for mentoring. Not sure what would be best, though. He's got a new message put up on his userpage. Ma®©usBritish 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Struck the last part of my post else I'd be contradicting myself. Blackmane (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This thread has dragged on for a very long time, multiple editors have commented confirming User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility across a number of article talk and user talk pages, in addition to my concern over his blunt edit summaries. So far, despite all these remarks, and an Arbcom admin commenting because Incis only expects to be rebuked by an "authority figure", he has failed to acknowledge the comments, has not voluntarily agreed that there is a problem that he should be taking steps to deal with, instead he continues to argue with editors across a number of talk pages and WP:BATTLEGROUND is becoming the case, including the initial signs of war editing, as reverts begin to show. Let's not have this spiral out of control. Given that this issue does not relate to content disruptions, no topic ban should be required. An interaction ban might be appropriate, if this was very serious, but I'm not sure that it would be worth enforcing.. Incnis might be prudent to offer himself to a voluntary interaction ban, staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months, and keeping edit summaries to an absolute minimum by only stating edits effected, without commenting on other editors, or the state of the article, and no words from his "glossary". This would need monitoring, however. I propose, the best thing might be to see that Incnis receive the necessary mentoring, from an experienced mentor/adopt-a-user editor, who can focus specifically on his interaction skills, and help him understand the distinct differences between relevant and potentially "rude" remarks to other editors, and with respect to his non-native English, it is clear that he needs to be more careful and far less bullish, pride isn't required to be a good editor, as much as patience. Ma®©usBritish 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a mandatory interaction ban with the conditions MarcusBritish suggested, with the agreement that any violation of the restrictions would result in a block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the continuing aggressiveness, unpleasantness and lack of good faith (see for example the latest posts here in which Incnis Mrsi repeatedly misconstrues constructive comments and is borderline rude and aggressive) I support the proposal (in either the weaker or stronger form). --JBL (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should allow time to pass to see if Elen's suggestion is followed or not. Nobody Ent 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen's comments were made on the 25 Sept. He was still being abrupt after that. e.g. 28 Sept, 29 Sept. Given that he didn't even offer a courtesy response to Elen, do you expect people monitor him once this topic is archived.. unlike ex-WQA 24-hours and zap! archived and we have to start afresh, pain in the arse it is... Ma®©usBritish 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have overlooked this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

Thought I'd mention that he did reply, only 3 days later. It's indented under her reply so it's not easily seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The reply is completely non-responsive to any of the concerns raised here. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So he does... and all he does is comment further on what he sees as problematic, as though trying to justify his behaviour, but either completely ignores or fails to respond directly to the concerns Elen took the trouble to highlight about his behaviour which have been raised by several editors this week. Just seems like another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me... Ma®©usBritish 01:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Only meant to say he responded, as opposed to responded in a meaningful way Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban. I support some sanction, but why an interaction ban between just two editors when the issue of User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility has affected other editors too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one proposed an interaction ban with one editor, it says "staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months" — so all editors, all article discussion pages, not including things like requesting admin help/ANI or a mentor's talk page, of course.. just none of his usual "nasty" messaging to IPs/other editors telling them what they've done wrong, no article talk posts as he also tends to upset people on those too. Ma®©usBritish 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a talk space ban, not an interaction ban in the usual sense of the term, which I don't think is the way to go. If he's edit warring, then slap an indefinite 1RR and a civility parole that the next ANI he's brought to is a 1 week block and it escalates from there. Simple and no need for monitoring. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There were only early-signs of war editing, I don't think a 1RR need be set unless it escalates. 3RR applies to everyone anyway. "interaction ban".. "talk space ban".. it's all interaction to me, I see no need to worry about semantics as long as it does the job. Ma®©usBritish 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This issue has dogged you for a week now. The nature of the ban doesn't matter half as much as the fact of it. Please stop User:Incnis Mrsi from driving away more editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Zaiger and baseless claims of homophobia

Over at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa, User:Zaiger has repeatedly accused User:Cupco of homophobia ("Cupco is obviously homophobic", "This is anti-gay witch hunt is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. wikipedia is supposed to be a place of knowledge, not ignorance and homophobia.", "message to known wikipedia homophobe cupco" (edit summary)). Now that's an allegation that shouldn't be made lightly. But in this particular case it's especially absurd: Zaiger is one of the main admins of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site not exactly known for its lack of homophobia (even Zaiger himself is happy to use the term "faggot" over there. Can't link due to the spam filter, but I'm happy to provide diffs if requested).

Still, just in case there might be something to it I asked Zaiger to back up his allegations on his talk page (User talk:Zaiger#"Homophobia"?). Unsurprisingly, he did/could not do so. I told him to retract the allegations or back them up, after which he threatened to contact Jimbo Wales and the media(!) and have my sysop-bit removed should I block him, before he simply declared me involved and having a conflict of interest (Not sure why. I used to be active at Encyclopedia Dramatica (the article, not the site), but I don't think I ever interacted with him over there). Despite the silly allegations of having a COI, I figured that having a few more eyes on this couldn't hurt, so here I am. By now, Zaiger has agreed not to call Cupco a homophobe again, though he also said that he would not retract the allegations. (For what it's worth, the origin of the homophobia claims seems to be this edit. At least that's the best I could find.)

That's a bit besides the point, though. Frankly, Zaiger is a troll. He's a main admin on ED (where he calls other people "faggot" regularly), he knows the art of trolling in and out, and he knows exactly how much he can get away with on Misplaced Pages. His act of being horribly offended by (supposedly) anti-gay comments is blatantly fake, and the only reason he might be doing this is, as they call it, "for the lulz". He's here to have fun, and not to contribute to the encyclopedia. As such, I propose a ban on this user. --Conti|✉ 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that homophobia and transphobia are definate problems on wikipedia and should be handled harshly. However I do not believe that this is one of them. Also the fact that he uses his own communities slur word which I won't even type is really appalling. I wouldd also like everyone to be aware though that chances are Zaiger is really hurting and needs some help. That does not excuse what he is doing but it does say that something is impacting him. I would suggest having a moderator talk to him, inform him of the charges and the consequences, let him explain without criticism and then banning him if he hasn't explained his accusation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in the discussion at this SPI. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, since Zaiger got the SPI spotlight deflected, we can look forward to Zaiger resuming productive article-space edits like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That edit is multiple years old, and Jewbuntu is an actual Linux Distribution. I am sorry but I felt that I was being attacked because of my sexual preference and got defensive. I have promised not to call him it again, yet he continues to make baseless accusations about me being User:LiteralKa when it has been proven otherwise. I feel as if I am the one being trolled. I apologize for making a couple of edits that could be taken as humorous, multiple years apart. Please assume good faith. I am not an active user on Misplaced Pages, but I do prefer to keep an account so that I may join into discussion concerning pages that interest me. Blocking me is going to do no good and you know it. I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do. I am not trolling, I was just defending myself from what I felt was persecution based on my sexual orientation. The language I use off Misplaced Pages should have no bearing on anything. I no longer plan on "feeding the trolls" so to speak, so I will not be responding to this anymore. I have promised not to say what I said to him anymore, and I would like to continue to keep this account, but I can't then so be it. There is obviously a back-door agreement to block everyone who edits the GNAA or Encyclopedia Dramatica articles on a non-POV manner. By the way I said I felt that Conti has a conflict of interest because he has an unflattering biography about him Encyclopedia Dramatica (which as far as I can remember I have never edited) and in my opinion seems to have formed an opinion about me based on emotions rather than rational thinking. I am not a bad person, I just react harshly when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize for that and promise to keep it in check. Thanks for reading. --Zaiger (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An edit from late last year is not "multiple years old", and this appears to be the only constructive article-space edit you've made since that edit. Being an actual Linux Distribution doesn't make that factually accurate (a dead project that never gained any traction is not popular anywhere for starters) nor is it a productive edit (piping Richard Stallman to Jews). You also appear to have a history of Jewish-related "jokes". - SudoGhost 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not just indef this editor as a troll, regardless of the SPI results? Salvio 23:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any. The SPI results came back negative, by the way, though I'm not surprised by that. There's multiple ED trolls editing Misplaced Pages at a time, after all. --Conti|✉ 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Naive question for Zaiger: If you "react harshly when you feel being attacked," and presumably understand that other people have the same feelings you do and have the same reactions when they are attacked, then why do you spend so much time on a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it appears that Zaiger is actually a pretty standard example of a COI editor frustrated by misrepresentation on Misplaced Pages. His largest recent contributions recently have been talk page debate in which he (correctly) emphasizes that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not defunct, but has continued at a new site. Opposition to this viewpoint is predicated on the erroneous philosophy that ED is narrowly classified as a "web site", and a web site is defined solely by the holder of the original DNS record; but in fact it is a publication and a community foremost. It is not unusual for frustrated COIs to start lashing out more and more, and indeed not unusual for admins to single them out for extraordinarily harsh and unreasonable penalties, but Zaiger and the admins here, respectively, still have the power to do better.

I should emphasize very clearly - whether a user chooses the same name, or another name, to edit resources elsewhere on the web or in print, he should not be subject to any persecution based on ad hominem evaluations of his overall character by people who have read a line or two. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one in which editors are "vetted" for political reliability. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming all of this is correct, this could not possibly be an excuse for blatant trolling, surely? Not to mention that Encyclopedia Dramatica now shows Zaiger's preferred version, anyhow, and still the trolling ensued. Personally, I very much doubt one had to do with the other, but it really doesn't matter in the end. Trolling like that gets you blocked, simple as that.

As for your second paragraph, I'm honestly not sure I understand your point. I shouldn't use Zaiger's contributions on other sites to show that his comments here are just an act/trolling? Huh? Why not? --Conti|✉ 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

the current version is the result of a lot of talk page discussion and consensus, not "Zaiger's preferred version". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Zaiger's preferred version was the wrong one. I fully agree with you that his preferred one is the one that has consensus currently, and as such is the one the article is based on. --Conti|✉ 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting contributions from this IP address . Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on those links, it appears this whole "homophobia" charade was a "clever" imitation of the User:Fæ affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Indef

• I agree with Salvio. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not okay with the way this went. Zaiger has made good edits, and some bad edits. Now, he's been blocked indef on a first block, with vague allusions to 'trolling', even though a SPI case was returned as negative. Last I checked BADSITES was not in effect, and editors here on WP should not be blocked based on their alleged actions elsewhere. Furthermore, I'm really not seeing consensus to block here. The big issue here, of course, is that both LiteralKa and Zaiger have been editing the GNAA article in a manner that is disagreeable to User:Cupco, hence the SPI case that fell through, and the subsequent block - Alison 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (and as CU who ran the aforementioned case, I fully welcome any other CU to review my analysis and act accordingly)

I didn't block him because he's involved with ED. I blocked him because his on-wiki show is entirely inconsistent with his off-wiki behavior, and strongly suggests that his on-wiki conduct is intended to disrupt rather than out of a good-faith concern. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't right. An editor should not be compelled to be one thing or another on a third-party site - nor should he be compelled to always be the same way on that site as here. The fact is, Misplaced Pages is a serious endeavor and ED is a humorous one. There's a difference between using a word in the context of a humorous sketch and using it in some other discussion. Mind you, I haven't even looked at Zaiger's case in any real detail - what bothers me here is the logic being used by others in considering it. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

After you get elected to ArbCom we'll talk about that. In the meantime, perusing the talk pages of badmnachine (what hasn't been revdeleted, that is) I see that User:Michaeldsuarez has also been given an indefinite vacation. WP:BADSITES may be a failed policy on Misplaced Pages, but WP:NOTHERE is applied pretty often. And it was correctly applied in this case to Zaiger, who vandalized a few articles and screamed bloody murder about perceived insults that he regularly tosses at people elsewhere. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obvious troll is obvious. May I suggest that Alison spends too much time in such company, such as User:badmachine—another blocked troll, for whom she also vouched personally at one point? She may have lost sense of what level of trolling is acceptable on enwp. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is *not* obvious, to quote a well-worn meme. I've no problem with indefblocking persistent trolls and have done so many times myself, but I'm not seeing the justification here. I do see Zaiger making an effort to modify his behaviour on request, yet that was rebuffed. And I see a unilateral indef block being handed down for the flimsiest of reasons. It's more of that ED/GNAA/Trolling//b/ third rail effect; associate an adversary 'opposing editor' with any of these groups, file a somewhat unwarranted SPI case, then run to ANI to have them banhammered. The point I'm making here is that not all people are being treated the same here, and that's simply not okay. Then when someone (as I am) questions it, you go on to smear them with the same accusations. I don't care who keeps company with who; what matters is solely their behaviour here, and that they be given fair opportunity to address that properly before they are sanctioned. This hasn't happened here, and it smacks of vendetta - Alison 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Riiiight. Look how well badmachine turned out as a Misplaced Pages editor. WP:AGF and all that while Zaiger pulls off bad-taste jokes about Jews in article space. No thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In my observation Alison treats other Wikipedians with respect and dignity and good faith and refrains from demonizing other human beings because of one or more actions that aren't Wiki-correct. I don't think any of that is ever a bad thing. Nobody Ent 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to be fair with everyone - Alison 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I support the indef. Misplaced Pages can do with fewer trolls, and this case is rather obvious. Rklawton (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block; I have just logged in and I intended to block Zaiger myself, but I see I was beaten to it. Salvio 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alison, the SPI case was not the reason for the indef block. It was Zaiger's behavior during that case, not the allegations made in that case, that led to the block. As such, the results of the case are irrelevant here (And I have no doubts about the results you posted on the SPI, by the way). You write that "what matters is solely their behaviour here", and I fully agree with that. And, no matter how I look at it, Zaiger's behavior here was blatant trolling for the sake of causing disruption. Either that, or he really is genuinely offended by the most vague allusions that could possibly be interpreted as homophobic (while at the same time having words like "faggot" in his everyday vocabulary). I'm sure you know much better than me which of the two is more likely. I find it interesting that neither you nor anyone else defending him has actually tried to defend the very edits that led to his block. All you offer are platitudes and allegations that he is being singled out. It's hard to respond to vague statements like that, but I can assure you that my motivation for all this was solely his trolling that led to the block, and nothing else. I did not even know that he was an ED bigwig until I looked a bit closer at the issue. --Conti|✉ 21:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

to quote from above: "Riiiight". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that those edits are totally right, but they're not that wrong. The ad hominem argument used against him was indeed where things started going off the rails. Crying "homophobe" was not great, no, but right now, today, we have on Jimbo Wales' page a defense of editors calling people "arsehole" and "dishonest idiot" so why not 'homophobe' too? Or if this is the one sole solitary Bad Word a person can use on Misplaced Pages, does it have to lead to an indef block? Wnt (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here wasn't the use of the word "homophobe", the problem was that the outrage over the perceived (and non-existent) homophobia was a blatant fake. --Conti|✉ 09:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You're drawing that conclusion based solely on activity on another site, which means that you're blocking him solely based on his participation in that site. This is the reason why Misplaced Pages ends up being composed of "anonymous cowards" - because any information you give can and will be used against you. In addition, this deduction is not even correct - for example, just because someone freely uses "faggot" in a humor site doesn't mean he would think it is right to call people that, or want to be called that in a dispute about article content or here at AN/I, because it's a totally different context. I would consider that it is actually because ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue, where gay editors feel comfortable that they are not going to have their work deleted or their accounts blocked by those with the so-called conservative agenda, that the use of such words over there is not seen as disruptive. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just cannot take someone seriously who writes that "ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue". The "conservative agenda" bit was particularly amusing, though. --Conti|✉ 12:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have relates to the double-standards I'm seeing here. One editor files a largely unsubstantiated SPI case (which I rejected), and it gets erased surreptitiously and the filer gets a week-long block. The second SPI case is also largely unsubstantiated. I run that to the best of my ability and, though it comes back clear, the accused gets indef'd and the filer pretty-much gets a pat on the back.

By all means, ban all the trolls or whatever (for whichever definition of 'trolls' you determine) but please do so in an even-handed manner across the board. I don't see that happening here. And because there are ED and GNAA connections, it should be demonstrably fair, and done 'by the book'. Because it will be questioned - Alison 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that someone who is part of a trolling organization is trolling when their behavior can reasonably be interpreted as trolling seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. If a KKK member makes statements that appear to be racist I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just really like the robes and hoods. It is unreasonable to not consider intentional membership in a group dedicated to committing the same transgression of which one is accused, especially when said transgression is literally the raison d'etre of the organization. I'm sorry Allison, I think you're a fine administrator but you seem to have much too high a threshold for trolling. Sædon 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well no, frankly. Because that's taking off-wiki behaviour into account and that's just not fair. That's without even getting into the whole impersonation/cross-linking business. And if we applied that rule across the board, there would be a whole lot less editors here. Also, making KKK comparisons is grossly unfair - seriously. Look I've been an ED sysop myself at one time. And a WP sysop. Concurrently, even. I'm somehow still here. Yet these days, I'm seeing editors with any sort of remote connection to ED being indef blocked, largely so someone else can have their way with whatever article is in dispute (usually ED/GNAA or MLP stuff). Seriously - that's just not okay - Alison 00:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES links to a failed proposal, and one that doesn't address this situation at that. You're asserting that it's not fair but you're not giving an argument as to why it wouldn't be fair. If someone is known to be part of organization X, the purpose of which is to engage in behavior Y, and then that person engages in what can be reasonably interpreted to be behavior Y, we would be foolish to pretend that this linkage is outside of the bounds of consideration. In murder trials of gang members, for instance, gang affiliation can be presented as evidence - even though it is prejudicial - because gangs are organizations known for engaging in murder.

Your other two arguments are either strawmen or tangential: (i) I did not make that claim that all editors who are also ED editors are trolling WP, only that when someone appears to be trolling and is part of a trolling organization it is reasonable to take said affiliation into account and (ii) this isn't an editor with a "remote" connection to ED randomly getting indeffed - it's an editor who appeared to be trolling to uninvolved, reasonable editors, and who is more than a "remote" player at ED. Lastly, you make the assertion that a KKK comparison is grossly unfair but have not offered an argument demonstrating that the fundamentals of the analogy are false(namely that both groups can be seen to exist for the purpose of deviance and that if it were reasonable to consider the affiliation of a member of one group the same argument stands for a member of the other group. In no way does the analogy carry the insinuation that ED members are like the KKK in regards to their morality, nor that ED members are racist. It is a common mistake for people to focus on non-fundamental aspects of an analogy as a means to dismiss the analogy as a whole, but I think you will find after consideration that the fundamentals are congruent). Sædon 00:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about doing it 'by the book' and are concerned that things will be questioned, should you have been the one to have done the SPI both times since you personally know the individuals named in the SPI?. - SudoGhost 00:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I personally know them, I pointed out that I know who they are IRL (in real life). That's very different - Alison 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you see a huge distinction there, but I'm not seeing it. That's still very questionable, you being the one to handle both SPIs when you know and have had previous extensive off-wiki involvement with the individuals in the SPI. If you're going to claim "by the book" wasn't happening, next time perhaps you should take a look at your own actions, because you aren't exactly in any position to be claiming things weren't handled correctly. Perhaps there is no WP:INVOLVED-equivalent for CUs, but either way you shouldn't be handling the SPI for your former associates. - SudoGhost 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - I have not had "previous extensive off-wiki involvement" with anyone mentioned in either of those cases. Please point out evidence to support this assertion, or withdraw it. In fact, I've run plenty of cases here over the years involving Wikipedians with whom I've had involvement; it's an inevitability here. As it happens, this is now being handled by AUSC so they can decide accordingly. But statements like this are utterly unfair - Alison 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more unfair than you accusing others of being unfair and of not going "by the book" if you're going to put yourself in a position where you actions are just as questionable. Someone who says "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets" shouldn't be the one to run the SPI on "those guys", especially if you were concerned about the appearance of being fair and avoid questionable actions. - SudoGhost 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting words into my mouth that I did not utter is unfair. I did not say "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets". I suggested that two of them are unrelated based on my knowledge of who they both were IRL. I did not say that nobody was socking; that had yet to be determined. At this point, I'm not going to comment any further - Alison 11:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for paraphrasing, your exact words were "I can say that I know who both {{user|LiteralKa}} and {{User:Zaiger}} are IRL and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated." If you're going to vouch for two editors in an SPI, you shouldn't then be the one that runs the CU and then ask others to take your word on the results. Is this something actionable? Probably not. However it is very questionable activity, especially when you then complain that others might be doing questionable things regarding the same situation. - SudoGhost 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this line of discussion is productive. I suspect that many of our veteran checkusers could say something like "I can say that I know who both Grawp and who Bambifan101 are IRL, and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated". That doesn't mean that they'd be vouching for either Grawp or Bambifan. T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a situation where some checkuser gained knowledge of the editors due to their experience as a checkuser/admin, as Zaiger's talk page indicates. I'm not suggesting that something inappropriate happened here, but when an editor points out that something should be done carefully since it would be questioned, their own actions in that situation shouldn't be just as questionable. - SudoGhost 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a related concern: Zaiger's location is identical to that of the IP which made a (now revision-deleted) edit to the SPI case against me which Basedircrory (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) quickly blanked and then replaced with identical text and his signature instead of the IP signature after he logged in. So how can they "geolocate to very different places"? —Cupco 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have seen all their IP addresses and you have not. As I've already stated, I welcome any other CU to recheck my result, and I see one has already - Alison 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is a witch-hunt --Polmas (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. COI trolls are needed here so badly for their "excruciating anal devastation" line of comments. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

trolling? you forget about Comet Egypt who was obviously a troll, and you want trolling? "Is it my fault, that i'm better than you? even though i'm a jew.

everybody just loves me. 

they just come to see,

how hot and amazing i am,
they just need to stay calm.
i just wanna be left be,
but everyone wants to touch me, inappropriately.

I'm hot really hot and you're just super not. i'm cool you're fat so i treat you like a household mat. everybody wants to be me, i think it's cuz they can see, that i'm just so super cool..."(jared milton, who is a real troll)- that is trolling, it is made clear to me that this person Zaiger has said that he will not repeat his actions of calling the user in question a homophobe, so i see no point to the indef block. I support alison fully. instead of blocking somebody who has stated that they will sease and desist, you should be looking for people who post worthless shit like the quote i gave. and to me, it appears that you're basing this on his account on encyclopedia Dramatica, that's how things look anyway. I'm not attempting to accuse anyone here, but put it this way, you're flimzy reason for blocking this user after he has clearly stated that he will not do it again, is as dumb as the song i quoted above. maybe try that on for size. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where did he say he won't do what again? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

here: "I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do." Previously he said he would not retract his statements, however, nor did he ever even attempt to substantiate his claims. --Conti|✉ 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Subsequently. Since Alison says Zaiger's address doesn't geolocate to the same place as Basedircrory, but the IP address which Basedircrory tried to hide in their deleted contributions geolocates to where Zaiger says he is located on his blog (in multiple and his most recent posts, I should add) then I suggest (1) Basedircrory was probably using a proxy until they slipped up by making a non-logged in edit, and (2) another checkuser should look at whether the sources are from proxies or consumer IPs. —Cupco 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If he wants to put up an unblock request he should explain what he plans to contribute to Misplaced Pages, not just give assurances that he won't behave like a troll. Insofar he turned out to be the prototypical WP:COI editor we don't want here. His main focus here was the article of the website (ED) he is associated with. His style of argumentation on Misplaced Pages was a mirror of the style that ED promotes and not just in that last incident (see the unrelated "excruciating anal devastation" comment linked above.) Besides that, he vandalized a couple of other articles here with his ED-style "jokes" about Jews and made inconsequential minor edits to a few more. That was essentially his four-year career here. It's hard to escape the conclusion that his participation to Wikiepdia was a net negative up to now. Yes, we do coddle other potty mouthed editors (cf. latest ArbCom request on "Professionalism and civility"), but at least they contribute something besides trivial edits and bad jokes. The indef block imposed on Zaiger is not at all unusual. See the case of 7mike5000 for comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like some low-level and mild issues over a period of time being built up into a massive troll conspiracy based on who he is and what website he is primarily associated with. Not a good block at all, certainly not an indef. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Having reviewed the information here, I think this is a clear case of someone with an axe to grind and not someone with a serious commitment to the growth and betterment of Misplaced Pages as a project. This appears to be someone who doesn't have the best interests of Misplaced Pages as their primary motivation for contributing, so I'm not sure we need to keep their distractions around for much longer. I'm afraid of all of the collateral choking should we grant someone like this too much WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just because someone refuses to retract their statement doesn't mean that they are going to continue harassing people over it. I agree that we should kdeep wikipedia free of trolls, but even with the sources you gave, it still looks like you're blocking him based on his connection with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Why don't you tell me that i can't edit here because of my bulbapedia account (Christian woods), that would not be fair, would it? in any case, i do acknowledge that he stated that he will not retract what he said before, but you refuse to acknowledge that he has stated clear as day that he will not repeat his actions regarding fear of homosexual people. Again, worry about those people who repeat their disruptive actions, and not those who dispite their refusal to retract the statement, has made it clear that there will be no repeats of such things in the future. I don't have an account here nor do i wish to create one, but i can say this. maybe i can talk to him a little bit, i am jewish after all and i have actually made jew jokes before on a couple websites. maybe if you allow him to use his talk page i can speak with him and find out what's going on, i have a thing with trolls, how do you think i got Jared Milton to stop making videos on youtube, at least for the present time anyway? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Has Zaiger made any actual good article contributions? That's the main thing I want to know. Silverseren 04:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a grand total of 20 edits to mainspace, the majority of which apparently deal with Encyclopedia Dramatica. In short: it would seem not. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And what's wrong with encyclopedia dramatica? i don't remember there being anything oh so bad about comedy, ooh! heavin forbid someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica dare help edit an article on this site about it, because that's the biggest crime ever commited! ooh, why don't you do a spi to find out where he lives again, arrest him and launch the jail cell with him/her into space so he/she will either burn up in the thurmosphere or die due to lack of oxygin. note the sarcasm. what exactly is wrong with being from encyclopedia dramatica anyway, i mean you shouldn't give people from that site the status of troll automaticly, allison, help me. I'm not saying that he can do jew jokes, i stated above that i'm jewish, but i'm saying that using encyclopedia dramatica as part of your basis to block zaiger is not only asanine and shit headed, but it's also unjust and unreasonable. What's next, you gonna block me now because i have a bulbapedia account? look up Christian Woods, i'm also on bulbagarden and Serebii, gonna block me for being from there? the way you guies act, i could just as easily be a troll because i have an account on a site related to pokemon, i mean really. understand? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BLOCK STRONGLY. - i made that all caps to show my sincerity. reason: The basis of the block as i can see has shit to do with the contribution for the encyclopedia, and everything to do with his status on encyclopedia dramatica. I'm not promoting the website or anything, i just wish to see a little bit of fairness here, this block is not justified, and Encyclopedia Dramatica should never have been brought into this. i'm sensing something that appears suspiciously like an attack campaign, and it is the reason why i didn't make that edit i wanted to make in the article about Zoroark master of elusions. You guys are making it look like you're automaticly a troll and it's the biggest crime on earth as i said above to have a minor minor connection with something or someone. So, i oppose and curse this block, and its basis, in the name of fairness and in the name of wikipedia! (throws out chest bairing wikipedia's logo on the front of shirt. then proclaims loudly:) No Attack campaigns.

You make this look like an unfair battle from super smash brothers in which link, samas and Pikachu are ganging up on a level 2 luigi, and luigi can't attack or defend himself. that's my analogy of most of you guies here. sorry, that's how i'm seeing it, i'm sure i'm not the only one who notices tha attack campaign format of this, not only against zaiger, but against encyclopedia dramatica, which is a COMEDY website, "for the lols" (meaning it's supposed to make one laugh.) thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. You've made your point in this thread amply enough already. Now please drop the WP:STICK. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter Non Admin Closures

After he recently closed an RfD in which he was involved, I have a few doubts about some of this editors other closes and wondered if an uninvolved admin could look his closures over for other problems. Snottywong's Admin AfD counter seems to show a few debates where the consensus is not clearly with his close, and checking a few others individually seems to show cases where he ignores stronger arguments for one position, instead opting for a headcount siding with the opposing position (particularly worrying since the margins in many cases are low). I don't intend to start listing specific concerns with specific closes unless asked to do so (or I would be as well taking all the many cases to deletion review) but a few pairs of eyes looking over his closes would be advantageous. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at his AFD participation with scottywong's tool and see the last afd he closed was on the 27th...he closed it as no consensus which seemed to be the right decision. I suppose he could've relisted or let an administrator do it, but I don't see any glaring issue here. Note: I'm not an admin, just an interested editor. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look back further you can find some more questionable ones, but they are pretty old to bring up at AN/I now, and certainly too stale to reopen. The ones in the last month or so are certainly within the range of acceptable discretion in closing) If anyone wants to, the simple thing to do would be to renominate articles if they disagree with the close (depending on the closer a note explaining why the old discussion shouldn't prejudice the new one may or may not influence them). Monty₈₄₅ 02:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The ones in the last month are still marginal Advance Romance for instance has two deletes that it doesn't meet the GNG and one keep that it's "well known" - The only two Policy based arguments form a consensus that it doesn't meet GNG and whilst No Consensus is a valid close, it flies n the face of the fact that a month previously he closed Island province with a similar voting ratio though numerically oppositely weighted with a keep rather than no consensus (and the delete argument there was stronger than the keep for Advance Romance). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would say the difference there is fine, its substantially different circumstance when not a single editor but the nominator supports deletion then it is when there is a 2:1 split in favor of deletion. Regarding Advance Romance, The nominator makes a good WP:MUSIC deletion argument. The delete !voter makes a generic deletion argument that does not address whether or not this particular song meets the notability guidelines, if it were agreed the article did pass, the argument made would probably not carry much if any weight. The keep !voter makes a general notability argument without clearly labeling it as such and points to the fact the article is well cited, and it does in fact have 2 citations that support general notability, though the first is questionably reliable, the second one clearly is. So we have one good delete argument, one very weak delete, and one moderately good keep argument. Could it have been relisted? Yes, but after a week with no comments, to close it seems reasonable, and it would be a big stretch to argue it should have been deleted on the close. Monty₈₄₅ 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say not really, in a 3 person vote 1 voter is often the article creator or a prominent editor of the article, 1 voter is the nominator and we would hope that third would be impartial. Giving the nominators argument less weight in a 2:1 split implies a bias to the article creator no matter what their argument, it's exactly the kind of bias that consensus should eliminate during the discussion process. On Advance Romance if the second source made more than a passing mention of "Advance Romance" the point might have been valid, but as it is the mention was only passing so does not constitute "Significant coverage" per the GNG and as the first source is self published then the GNG was not met and the keep voter's claim fails to answer the deletion reasoning and should be considered accordingly. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Advance Romance was open two weeks, not a single person participated after it was relisted. Apathy itself demonstrates a lack of consensus, since most votes at AfD are to delete, by a 2 to 1 margin. In a case like this, defaulting to a no consensus conclusion (which means you can renominate it tomorrow) is less destructive than deleting it with a questionable consensus. So as far as this one AfD, it was a reasonable judgment call that many would have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NONADMINCLOSURE "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." When the difference is 1 !vote, that would seem to be a "close call". -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the close itself is procedurally defective. It is prudential advice to avoid controversy such as this. While we should all aspire to follow best practices, failing to do so is not in and of itself a reason to revert. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most closes should be left to an admin but since we do allow them I can't help but to ignore the bit and not look at it as a "non-admin" closure, but just as a closure. As such, my impression is that most people would have closed it this way, so I don't see this as particularly contentious, nor a cause of alarm. This doesn't mean that everyone will agree with the close, but that most would or at least see the logic and utility in it. In general, I believe "no consensus" closes are less contentious to begin with, as it amounts to a punt to a state that existed before the AFD, not a declaration that the community has spoken to keep or delete. For an AfD that fails to draw a crowd that cares enough one way or another, that is probably the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't actually said the close on "Advance Romance" was bad - in fact I said that it was perfectly valid, though I questioned why "No Consensus" wasn't being equally in the Island Province when the nominator was strongly challenging the keep rationale and the voting was equally marginal. Dennis' points about apathy and Advance Romance being a reasonable judgement actually question the whole process of deletion in the case of low profile subjects as the AfD that fails to generate enough discussion becomes only as useful as a PROD - even if strongly valid rationales for deleting are made and weakly challenged.though the latter is a question for the village pump rather than here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Although this is a report of RCS actions in a series of issues concerning a single feature of Misplaced Pages processes, I feel that in the light of his editing history, we need to look at the bigger picture. While obviously acting in GF, in spite of some more serious issues and the advice in a recently failed RfA, he is still constantly having brushes with policies.

I think it would be a very good idea if RCS were to agree to stay away for a while (6 months?) from anywhere that needs a !vote or a carefully considered judgement or opinion. While the technical side of Misplaced Pages can be learned, maturity is something particular to the individual that only develops with time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User Py0alb's conduct

I would like to ask for comments on the conduct and competence of Py0alb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and myself in a rather silly deletion dispute. And when I say competence I'm talking about the general functionality of Misplaced Pages, not their competence in cricket.

Recently I closed this FFD dicussion with a deletion because the image was not suited for fair use since it was clearly replaceable. Py0alb then contacted me with a request to replace the deleted image with a free one. My reply was this. Py0alb's response included some potshots like "you don't know nearly enough about cricket to be able to dispute either a) or b)" and "Probably the best thing for you to do now is to undelete the picture asap and apologise". They were then reminded of civility by GimliDotNet who happens to watch my user talk page. Gimli and I also explained here and here to Py0alb that the image had been deleted for failing the non-free-image criteria. The ensuing discussions can best be read at our mutual user talk pages but I would like to present following chronological diffs here:

• Py0alb to Gimli
• I explain fair use criteria to Py0alb
• Py0alb to Gimli
• Py0alb to me
• Py0alb to me

Meanwhile, JohnCD had deleted the talk page of said file where Py0alb had also contested the deletion. Says Py0alb to JohnCD "you are in violation of wp:consensus"-

• JohnCD replies and again explains the principle of replaceability for non-free media.
• I ask Py0alb to stop making a WP:POINT and point them at the undeletion request page, as others have done before. That is also where I announced that I wouldn't further comment on this at the user talk level.
• Py0alb disagrees and would like to see evidence
• At this reply I was already having a hard time explaining it once again and any more detailed to Py0alb.
• Py0alb accuses the involved editors of incompetence or intransigence.

I don't like the idea of bringing another drama to this stage but I think Py0alb should now stop the name calling when we all have actually tried to be helpful and explanative. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this is at ANI. Seemed to be a simple disagreement/misunderstanding about fair use. The new user seems to be frustrated by the deletion, which isn't uncommon for new users who don't fully understand our policies. I see that you've tried to explain the policy as best you can, but at this point it seems like the best way forward is to simply inform the user of their options (i.e. DRV, take it to a copyright noticeboard, etc.) and then move on and disengage from the discussion. ANI is for situations that require administrative action. The relevant administrative action in this case would be blocking, but I don't believe this new user deserves to be blocked for expressing their frustration. Perhaps this would be more appropriate for WP:WQA, although that doesn't even seem necessary to me in this case of a rather mild disagreement. -Scottywong| gossip _ 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The user has WP:COMPETENCE issues. They are not new, their first edits were 22 months ago. GimliDotNet 18:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and WQA is no longer active that's why I brought it here. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The editors initial comments also give the indication they had even then knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies and had been editing under an IP for some time before registering the account. This is not a Newbie. GimliDotNet 18:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Newbie, indeed I do know the rules. This is what I have been complaining about: the rules for deleting a page listed at files for deletion state: "Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised. "

Objections had clearly been raised, and no consensus had been reached. In fact the last 2 comments were both in favour of keeping.

The why's and wherefore's of the whether the decision to delete the file was ultimately correct is irrelevant. The point is that the above policy was completely ignored. You can't just have editors ignoring policy because they can't be bothered to engage in attempting to reach consensus

I accept that the decision was the correct one. However the first person to come up with a coherent reason as to why this was the case was JohnCD. Neither GimliDotNet nor De728631 had adequately explained the reason for the deletion, instead they simply repeated "its already been explained", when in fact, it hadn't. Py0alb (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the rationale was explained in the deletion request, De's reasons for speedy delete and again with great patience by De on your talk page. GimliDotNet 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having an argument over the subtleties of what is and isn't fair use. I have admitted I was mistaken. The bigger picture here is that the correct deletion procedure was completely ignored. Full stop. Py0alb (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't, it was deleted under WP:CSD not WP:FFD GimliDotNet 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Py0alb: there are two policies working here. One is the rules of FFD, and one is the rules of speedy deletion. In general, if a file qualifies for speedy deletion and is simultaneously under discussion at FFD, it can be immediately deleted and the FFD can be immediately closed. The FFD is no longer relevant once it is determined that the file qualifies for speedy deletion. So, there was no violation of policy or community norms here. If you disagree that the file qualified for speedy deletion, you can raise your argument at WP:DRV and see if anyone agrees with you. You'll want to look at the rules for speedy deletion, in particular criterion F9 (which is what was used in this case) before you consider opening a DRV thread on it. Otherwise, it seems like De728631 has considered your request and is not willing to undelete the file, so there is nothing else that can be gained from continuing the argument with him. -Scottywong| confess _ 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You seem to have missed the fact that early closure is common when a criterion for speedy deletion applies. Apart from that, two editors alone cannot override the non-free content guideline in a deletion discussion. That is why this image had to be deleted although you and another editor spoke out against it. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks Scotty, my bad if that is the exact policy. As it was on the FFD page, I simply read the rules at the top of that page and assumed they were the relevant set of procedures. Apologies for that. HOWEVER, I still think the effort to engage in discussion before deletion would have been much more sympathetic, consensus based, and less authoritarian editing practice, it is certainly what I would have done. Some editors need to consider how they come across when they delete other people's well-meaning work, and shouldn't then get so antagonistic and confrontational when people are understandably annoyed by their poor practice. Py0alb (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you follow your own advice an think before you accuse people of vandalism, tell them to stop editing because they ask you to be civil and telling people they don't know enough about cricket to be editing cricket based articles. GimliDotNet 19:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the reason given for deletion I was disputing at that time was that the image showed nothing of importance that could be added to the article. Its entirely justifiable that you might actually need to know a little bit about the subject matter to be able to make that statement accurately. Sometimes in wikipedia a little knowledge of the subject matter is entirely necessary. There is a very good reason why I stick to editing articles I actually know something about Py0alb (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the full seven days." I wonder why this advice is given? Perhaps it is to avoid the exact situation De's actions in this case precipitated.

I think it is time to close this case. Its hardly worthy of a newsflash: ignoring wikipedia editing guidelines may lead to editor conflict. Py0alb (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

De did use good judgement, it failed fair use, was copyrighted and as a result deleted. This was explained, you just didn't like it and decided to start posting vitriolic comments about editors conduct. GimliDotNet 05:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Py0alb, please indent your comments when you reply to make the conversation easier to follow. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Gillespio repeated BLP violations

Over the past three days this newly created, SPA account, has been edit warring on the insertion of un-sourced, libelous content that is in clear violation of WP:BLP. The issued was reported to WP:BLPN and I became involved. This behavior has continued despite a warning on the article talk page and on their user talk page.. Now the situation has accelerated to include a personal attack on the editors who are trying to uphold policy."KEITHBOB AND BOROCK are Moonies, that erase information that is verifiable on page Tongil Foundation (moon cult") There may have been some recent events concerning In Jin Moon, but they have not made the news yet, per a Google news search by me. In the meantime, we need to deal with this User to protect Misplaced Pages until reliable sources are available. Thanks for your assistance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for BLP violations. --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to the touch. Will closely monitor and if the activity continues after this, I'll indef. – Connormah (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for attending to this. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

SPA/sockpuppets or meatpuppets in Race and Intelligence

Hi, the article Hans Eysenck was part of the arbitration Race and Intelligence.

I tryed to add a chapter about Eysencks far-right activitys. But now there is one account editwarring which is a bit peculiar. It's InigmaMan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a spa which trys to deny this far-right activitiys and is always agree with user Paul_Magnussen (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a high frequent user and grammar expert.

InigmaMan knows the rules of WP best after 6 contribs. Both users use excessive the edit summaries. And seems to be a fan of Eysenck when you have a look at the talkpage. Now both users editwarring in the article. Bit by bit they delate the far-right activitys. Editwarrin: E.g.: , ,

What to do in such a case? --WSC 21:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the super-sized warning on the article's talk page, I think you should report them to WP:AE (as POV WP:SPAs). Or file a WP:SPI if you're convinced they are the same person. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And you should notify editors when reporting them to ANI. See instructions at the top of this page. Use {{ANI-notice}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As a general note, I find it disconcerting that out of all the reviews for Eysencks' 2010 OUP biography (written by R. Buchanan) only the one by Chris Brand is linked in the Misplaced Pages article! Steven Rose might not be the most neutral commentator on R&I, but his review of that book was published in The Lancet. Andrew Winston also reviewed that book and said "But Buchanan has succeeded beautifully and Playing with Fire is an outstanding scholarly achievement" in doi:10.1002/jhbs.20488. William H. Tucker also reviewed it in Isis (journal) and said "Buchanan's treatment of his subject is commendably evenhanded." Yet, another review is doi:10.1177/0957154X11423888. Nassir Ghaemi also reviewed it and wrote "this biography does justice to him." Why does the article on Eysencks need to be written from Chris Brand's POV? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris Brand was never mentioned in the discussion, as I remember. The last developement is, to overstate the autobiography of Eysenck himself: "Rebel with a cause". And delete some well sourced sentens, like this. --WSC 11:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, but it's a good example of bias in that article, which has received the continuous attention of various easy-to-identify WP:SPAs for the past few years. One of them even created a stub for Eysenck's wife, Sybil B. G. Eysenck, the notability of whom is rather non-obvious from the text there. (I suppose being the co-editor-in-chief of Personality and Individual Differences, a journal Eysenck founded, but which is rather middling, is the WP:PROF anchor there.) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of "red" user with few contribs in the article eysenck and race and intelligence since the arabitation. Thats not amazing! But what is the best way to handle this problem? --WSC 10:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• It certainly seems the case that a pair of editors have a very favorable view of Eysenck and is enforcing that on the article to the detriment of other views. One of them even claim to have known Eysenck personally, and is a grantee of the British Eugenics Society.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

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

Wm55 (talk · contribs) left the same legal threat at my talk page (while logged out), and at an AfD (while logged in). Singularity42 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, Template:uw-legal applied to both user talk pages ( ). JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to comment on the deletion page, but after many attempts (a few hours later) I figured it out. Also, I am a female. I represent Phillip Nelson through my modeling agency. You can delete this page to your liking, but facts indicate that is more than enough proof and links about his careers and accomplishments. It is clear that you have a grudge against my client. I would like to thank you for showing me exactly how Misplaced Pages works so I can inform all of my current and future clients about your "standards." Also, I have submitted the comments (on the deletion forum) to my lawyer revolving the defamation of character on Phillip Nelson. I will inform Phillip Nelson about these issues, since he had no knowledge of this Misplaced Pages page being created. With that said, you (Misplaced Pages) does not have permission to use any of the images and signatures that were displayed on the Misplaced Pages page. If you do I will proceed against you with legal action. I do not condone Misplaced Pages, nor will I allow the mockery of my client. I request that you take opinionated judgments elsewhere. --Wm55 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added many citations and reviewed numerous Misplaced Pages article on other celebrities pages. For example: Mandisa contain a total of 5 links (references), my client contains 34, yet her page is not being deleted or targeted? It is clear that there is a biased opinion and accusation about "Phillip Nelson." What kind of service monitors Misplaced Pages. They should indicate whether to not the page meets the criteria. No service should pass opinionated judgments. One of the previous reason this page was deleted was because op copyright issues. I then I re-wrote the article and submitted it only to have another "new" error conflict the page. Why is there always a different reason on each deletion. The moderators indicated it is written in a promotional tone, but look at Mariah Carey's page, I wrote the page in the same format and style. --Wm55 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The first thing you need to do is read WP:NLT. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Followed by comprehending: "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Ma®©usBritish 23:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wm55 blocked indef for legal threats. --Jezebel'sPonyo 23:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP made a legal threat, too. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It was before the reg. user was blocked, and it probably can't edit for the next 24 anyway. But if it reiterates a legal threat, it needs a lengthy block. I have to say that the editor could have been handled a little more gently up front, but the legal threat is a show-stopper. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has just laid down a 31-hr block on the IP. I checked, the IP did not seem to be autoblocked. -- Dianna (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I know nuttin' 'bout no autoblocks. I just block when someone tells me to. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a CU around who wouldn't mind a quick drive-by on that AfD? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The quacking is pretty loud. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I get that, even without a link to the guidelines. ;) Why not run and file a quick SPI? It might be helpful in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wm55 JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP deletion of Timeline of the Enron scandal, eyeball request

Link to this item also posted at BLP noticeboard.

Disclosure - I have expanded a few other Enron articles missing information, however no axe to grind, nor any editorial disputes. I noticed this article today and have never edited it. "Just in case" I give immediate consent to reverse my action.

Eyeballs appreciated on this page, just deleted under WP:BLPDEL. Considerable review and reluctance went into the action as it's a "last resort" to delete an encyclopedic article.

The problem is that the page is egregiously riddled with unsourced BLP vios and tone issues. There's no BLP violation in describing actions as fraudulent or criminal, provided this is sourced and neutrally described, but in this article the tone is also poor, one-sided, mostly uncited, and comes over as POV as well. So it isn't just a matter of adding cites, it's quite likely to need a near-total cleanup and stripping out BLP/NPOV vios - my impression is this implies virtually rewriting the article. The few cites it does have are completely inadequate; they support a few specific (often minor) points leaving the vast majority unreferenced. Even if it became cited it's not clear whether any of the text is sufficiently salvageable to keep a viable article due to the tone issues and negative one-sided views (and omission of balancing or necessary/salient information) which abounds.

Enron's case is also impossible to untangle from the individuals infamous for their role in the scandal. Numerous claims were made. Some were proven, some merely alleged, and a few matters may involve individuals never actually indicted with an offense or to whom "mud may stick"; the Enron articles can impact individuals linked to the case through untested or poor sourced claims, or failure to ensure NPOV, regardless of merit; BLP/NPOV is therefore even more crucial so we do not promulgate hearsay or hints as fact.

And so on. The article is a list of points in this style, almost from first to last, and doesn't seem to have much or any context to explain the nuances, context or other salient information of the claims it makes. Several people are mentioned briefly, and often only for their negative acts or assertions, mostly uncited and no context or underlying facts or sources, and seemingly unbalanced. If I were writing "IHateEnron.com", this is how my timeline might look.

WP:BLP states: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion". WP:CSD covers deletion on "negative unsourced" grounds where needed. WP:DP lists BLP but doesn't offer useful alternatives or a set process where WP:BLP specifically does. WP:DGFA has little to offer.

I can't find any comfortable way to handle less than "delete and seek community discussion of what to do next". While it is arguable no harm is done, people were all guilty, page has been there ages etc, none of those are really very compelling BLP arguments. The page (as said) is primarily a list of negatives only, with minimal cites and a distinctly one sided very broad brush. At least one negative unsourced claim refers to person/s uncharged and nominally still in good standing. It's not being actively improved. It's hard to see how it is fixable without considerable work. It is also wrong to leave it up during that work as it stands, if ever done.

Options seem to be reverse and restore, formal discussion here or at AFD/DRV, or leave deleted. Whatever consensus says is fine by me. My concern is that it gets eyeballs, and that the article shouldn't be hanging round as a BLP matter until we know what we're doing with it. FT2  04:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, what? I spot checked a few of the items, and the information is all referenced in other articles. This seems like a bit of a stretch to delete this per BLPPROD. If you really want to, AFD would be a better venue; at least that would spur people to migrate the references over to the article. The article seems like a reasonable article, which serves its purpose, which is to lay out the timeline of the Enron thingy. I'm at a loss as to why this was so dangerous that it had to go NOW. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"In other articles". The cites need migrating over... and the tone, the balance, is that "in other articles too"? Sorry, but as it stands, it's just too far below par to simply decide the cites are in some other article somewhere else in Misplaced Pages, where the reader can also see what's accurate and NPOV if they care to look for it. They need to be got right in this article (slightly more concern may be appropriate due to the high profile of Enron, scope for conspiracy theories/hearsay to gain oxygen "from WIkipedia" if facts are one sided/POV, and importance of BLP), and this article isn't so easy to "quick fix" because it's the tone, POV and factual balance, not just citing, that's a problem.

Delete and seek eyeballs (per BLPDEL exactly) is more appropriate and useful than 10 days discussion and exposure. It has to be fixed one way or another, and AFD isn't for obviously notable topics with gross BLP issues. It cannot easily remain in mainspace "as is". Stubbing is often an option, but when an entire timeline article is a problem there wasn't anything less to stub to. FT2  04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But this wasn't unreferencable nor was it beyond the pale. Nothing I am seeing in the deleted article is particularly contentious, per se. The material seems mostly to be verifiable, rather easily, and let's face it, this is a timeline of some rather unseemly behavior. It isn't on the same scale, but I wouldn't expect the article about the Rwandan Genocide to be all warm fuzzies and butterflies either. Yes, I know this isn't murder, but it is a description of a scandal which put a lot of people in jail. It isn't a perfect article, but little at Misplaced Pages is, and it stands zero chance of being fixed while it is deleted. I really disagree, after looking it all over again, that anything there really stands out as BLP-violating material. I'm just not seeing it. Yes, it describes people who are a) alive and who b) did bad things. I'm not sure how else the article could be written. It could be better in many places, but we aren't going to include pictures of Ken Lay at his kids birthday party or singing karaoke just for balance... --Jayron32 05:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the biographical articles of individuals in this issue, you'll find them almost uniformly cited to the hilt, and any claims, allegations and statements carefully worded to ensure balance and context, and when facts are stated as facts, they are stated in an appropriate tone and cited. Now compare this article. The difference is great. We can do far better, we've done it on most Enron articles. Not this one. I think people pay a lot of attention to BLP in biographical articles, and sometimes forget the same is expected elsewhere when a living person is discussed - especially in the context of one of the largest financial criminal conspiracies of all time. FT2  06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, how can anyone fix the referencing problems now that you've deleted it. Misplaced Pages is not better off without a decent article under the above title, and if the primary problem is referencing, that can be fixed, but not after you've deleted everything. I agree that attention needs to be brought in, and I also agree that WP:BLP applies everywhere. However, the problem doesn't get fixed if we delete the entire history of the article and simultaneously demand that it is fixed up to standards. It's completely impossible to solve any problems there may be while the article stands deleted. --Jayron32 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Pages deleted at AFD are at times userfied this way and for this exact purpose, by request of anyone willing to fix it, with the aim of reinstating once suitable, so it's quite common. 1/ Userfy the entire page history or copy the latest revision (1000+ admins) and NOINDEX it, 2/ fix issues taking any time needed, 3/ restore mainspace and update latest text or history merge as needed. FT2  01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (Crossref WP:USERFY#NO and my comment) FT2  03:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated - one editor (User:Legoktm) has already asked to get involved and has got a copy of the last revision to work on. FT2  03:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember of the news at the time, those are fairly mild statements compared to what the media was reporting. I can't really answer these questions while the "NAME"s are redacted, but I can tell you that there were people at Arthur Andersen ordering hundreds of file boxes shredded to hide auditor collusion, an infamous earnings call where an analyst was called an "asshole" because he complained Enron wasn't publishing their balance sheet, several people went to jail and tens of thousands at Enron and Arthur Andersen lost their jobs. None of those statements seem at all out of line with that magnitude of a scandal. —Cupco 05:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The actions of AA, and the media and public outrage, are just citable information to consider covering in relevant articles and from reliable sources; no less, no more. None of these things gives us an excuse to provide uncited and one sided statements on Misplaced Pages, nor to tell the world "that's the timeline" or miss out significant balance or context unless there were no other significant views or context meriting mention. It's not an excuse for us to say "executives" got paid unless we're willing to say which executives, or whether it means all executives (cited). We don't say a person did something unethical unless we both cite a high quality source backing the claim, and also consider what other context and views might merit brief mention (with due weight) to ensure a balanced NPOV impression is given of what they actually did. FT2  06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

FT2, perhaps your objection then is to the fact that this is an additional article on the series of events, and you think the undue emphasis. This is not something for you alone to decide, or at worst, it can do not more harm than the rest of our coverage. It is quite usual for summary or timeline or list articles to provide a lower density of citations than our primary articles--if anyone is unhappy with that they can do ahead and add the missing citations easily enough. You could have done so, Apparently the claims struck you as so extreme that they could not be allowed to exist ere even for a few minutes in the meanwhile. well, in my judgement, they're pretty straightforward and direct statements that fairly represent the historical record. None of this is hearsay, none of it goes beyond what i remember as the record. Some of it is not even BLP, "Enron executives get bonus checks for millions of dollars" needs checking whether it refers to every executive, but it probably does refer to everyone over a certain level. And it is not a BLP--it makes no allegations against anyone at all. You refer to tone: the tone os hard to judge from selective quotations of individual sentences--if you picked a random sample, it seems fair & appropriate; if what you picked was the worst of it, then the average would probably not be not as harsh about the company as the general judgment. BLP is not a magic wand for individual admins to do what they want to in any article where people are mentioned.FT2, would you rather restore it on the basis of a discussion here, or at deletion review? Or would you have any objection if I or someone else just does so, and cites it? Or do you want to simplify things by restoring it yourself, and, since you appear interested in he subject, cite it yourself to make up for the trouble you are causing? Unfortunately, such is the rigor of the rulers adopted at the time of the BLP hysteria that i can not do what I would ordinarily do at such a flagrant idiosyncratic use of admin power, and just go ahead and revert it. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to guess, or suggest bad faith motives that I have any issue with the topic, the case, or any views on extremity of any issue you might guess at, beyond 1/ it is egregiously below WP:BLP, 2/ it needs improvement to comply with BLP to the point it would be ok to reintroduce to mainspace (ref: WP:BLPDEL), 3/ it's too substandard to leave lying around on the hope of eventualism. If BLP to you is "trouble others are causing" then we aren't on the same page here so no need to respond. If you want to check my contribs or deletions, you'll find almost none of this kind - this is a carefully considered concern, not a flamboyant whatever-bad-faith-DGG-thinks.

My concern is exactly what I said it was ("It has to be fixed one way or another, and AFD isn't for obviously notable topics with gross BLP issues" and " need to be got right in this article" and " are almost uniformly cited to the hilt, and any claims, allegations and statements carefully worded to ensure balance and context... We can do far better "). The rest of your comment is bad faith that I must have a POV, bad motive, want a magic wand, or be "causing trouble" by whatever. Reading first means you don't need to make bad faith guesses. If today, you or anyone else uses ancilliary Enron articles or otherwise improves what's there, so it meets BLPDEL, then this is a closed issue. So long as it isn't fixed, it's an open issue. Eventualism doesn't cut it here. Egregious BLP concerns don't linger indefinitely - fix or remove. FT2  01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you're preparing for an ArbCom case over this. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not shaking too much. I expect they (and most of the community) would accept it's good faith and BLP-reasonable, not part of any pattern in any way inappropriate, and appropriately worded. Any good-faith user or admin wishing to help has full and ready access to improve it, my (and any other admin's) fullest support and appreciation for doing so, and examples of perceived BLP points so they know exactly what sort of concerns to fix. Most sources surely exist elsewhere or are easily found, and someone who knows more than I do about it might be able to quickly identify if there are omitted significant views, balancing/nuancing information, or essential context or detail needed for NPV/BLP, and source those too. If it's improved today, it wouldn't have any reason not to go back into mainspace today.

As it happens one editor (User:Legoktm) has already asked for and been sent (WP:USERFY#NO) a copy to start fixing it - supplied to him/her with thanks as soon as request seen. Hopefully others will also do likewise/liaise, and it'll be back in just a day or so in good or at least minimal reasonable quality.

Deleted revision link 2012-08-17 01:47 for admin convenience FT2  02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at cached version. The NAME redacted in the first several examples is the famous former Enron CEO who was convicted in 2006. He died of a heart attack while awaiting sentencing, so BLP doesn't apply to him. A lot of other stuff mentioned isn't sourced in the article, but has sourcing in other articles, so some cross-referencing could be added. I would agree that the article's tone is a bit more "energetic" than the Misplaced Pages norm. It might be sufficient to do a light referencing pass off-wiki, then restore to a talk page sandbox with {{noindex}} for collaborative editing until it's deemed ready for mainspace. I don't see anything that obviously needs to stay out of the history. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP doesn't apply? That never stopped admins in recent times. You see, they ran out of BLP material to arbitrarily delete a while back. The itch is still there though. Anyway, this looks resolved as someone is working on it in userspace. I suggest closing this WP:DRAMA thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Request that an admin close a time expired RfC on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles

An Rfc: Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#RfC: RM is standard practice for reaching broad consensus for controversial page moves had the banner removed on 1 October by the RfC bot. The debate has long sine finished, but a new opinion was added since the closure. Could an uninvolved administrator please close this RfC. -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a similar but earlier RfC here. The beginning of it seems to have been re-archived starting at number 12 with "RM not required", and the later parts are now numbered 1-11, ending with "To see this RFC ended". The template was removed Sept. 16. Neotarf (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing

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

Hi all,

Have spent the last little while reverting increasingly vandalism-style edits to Catechism of the Catholic Church and Catechism by IP 184.0.251.217.

Would appreciate some admin assistance.

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of response to IP talk page comments a block seems in order. (IPs get the orange you have messages banner, right?) Nobody Ent 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

They do. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 1 week for disruptive editing and failure to address issues raised on their talkpage. If they start to communicate and can give us assurances about their behavior then we can consider unblocking.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick responses. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC).

AIV Backlog

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

Hello, there is a large backlog at WP:AIV, if a couple admin could take care of the backlog, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing--but note how many of the reports are denied... I guess sometimes it's all too easy to Twinkle someone to AIV. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Really better to post this sort of thing at WP:AN, but in any event, the board is now empty.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Numerous Problems with User:12.153.112.21

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

Since September 18, the anon user has repeatedly vandalized the List of AT&T U-verse channels article with incorrect and inaccurate information. My warning to the user was met with a snarky response that their edits were sourced. The source they were using was dated May of 2007. The user would later admit that "maybe true that I restored outdated information". The user continued to state that the "05/07" on the source was "not necessarily a date". The source information listed networks like Fox Reality Channel, The-N, AZN Television and others that are either under a new name or completely out of business. The "05/07" is clearly the month of May (05) and the year 2007 (07). Finally, I asked an admin to step in, that admin was User:A. B. who posted on the anon's talk page:

"Please make no further edits to any Misplaced Pages articles for now without first gaining consensus for them on the article talk pages (such as Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels) from other, established editors. Otherwise, I or another administrator may block this account without further warning."

The user responded to this with a statement that showed that either the user clearly didn't understand what he was being told or didn't care (my case is the later). After I asked for page protection (and didn't receive) on the ] page, the user stated he would "merely get an account" to continue editing. He was warned of this by User:Gogo Dodo.

After User:A. B.'s warning to cease editing and seek consensus, the anon would several more inaccurate vandalism edits to the List of AT&T U-verse channels page, all of which were (again) reverted.

The user is now engaged in violations of WP:TPO by removing someone else's comments because they contain information about the company the IP is registered to. For the record, the IP 12.153.112.21 is registered to "The Answer Group" of North Lauderdale, Florida. The company is an outsourcing company for AT&T (among others).

It is also worth noting the user created the pseudo-IP sign-in account User:IP 12.153.112.21 (which has been blocked indef) and when called on this the anon responded "Whoop, sorry, missed that one."

This all adds up to a user who vandalizes articles, edit wars well beyond 3RR, deletes other user's posts, edits disruptively and refuses to respond to admin's calls for them to stop editing. I am requesting that the IP 12.153.112.21 be blocked for the long term and a range block is introduced. Since this is a company IP, the collaterial damage will be very minimal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The users mentioned by name have been notified. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, read WP:VANDAL. The edits concerned don't look like "addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages" to me - I'd suggest that WP:COMPETENCE is more of an issue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I know WP:VANDAL pretty well (read it a couple times), but I agree with you that WP:COMPETENCE is waaay more of an issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer and this IP have been engaged in a long-running content dispute regarding sourcing for channels listed at

• List of AT&T U-verse channels

That article is now under consideration for deletion at:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels

My feelings about this whole dispute are summed up in this comment at the AfD:

"Delete - Masem beat me to it in nominating this article for deletion. As an administrator, I was recently drawn into a running dispute between 12.153.112.21 and Neutralhomer over what the current lineup was and what the sources should be. See Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Channel lineups in Misplaced Pages, User talk:A. B.#12.153.112.21, and User talk:12.153.112.21 (starting at September 2012). When I last signed off, I left wondering, "Isn't this what cable system online channel listings are for?" and "how can we have these articles when my own provider requires I enter my postal code to see my lineup since it changes as you go across town?" I'm sure there are guidelines and policies both to justify keeping and to justify deleting (WP:NOT vs we're not paper and we're the sum of all knowledge). As for me, I'm basing my comment on exasperation, common sense and sheer wonder at the energy invested in fighting over this stuff. --A. B. 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)"

I gather more has transpired in the last week but I have not kept up with it.

If you delete that stupid article, that may be the end of it. Note, that's not a reason to delete the article; I'm just making an observation.

--A. B. 19:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated at the AfD and will state here, I would like the article kept (even though I changed my !vote to "Delete" cause of the anon problems) and feel it could be made NOT#DIR appropriate, but I won't be upset if it is deleted. I have asked that the article be moved to my userspace so that maybe I can find a way to make it NOT#DIR appropriate and then reintroduce it, to which a couple admins have had no problem in doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This user is gaming the system. He has an IP, then has another id that is a near copy of his first IP id. Second, if you check his history(s) he shows signs of gaming the unblock requests and yet more gaming by re-creating the article in his workspace. Yes he removed my comments twice and yes I' advised him that wasn't allowed.

He was actually blocked at one point today, then unblocked by a different admin.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards