Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CTF83! (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 24 March 2011 (→User:Anber Advertising: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Iaaasi

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

It is time to review the unblocking of Iaaasi. Iaaasi is an extremely disruptive editor with a long history of abuse . Iaaasi was unblocked following a cited "mild consensus" in this discussion. However there are some reasons now to reverse that decision:

• - The unblocking proposal was based on the outrageous lie that Iaaasi did not sock since March This lie was told by Iaaasi on IRC on September 27 (check the dates on socks before that date). Since Iaaasi lied to a person in a position of high trust (MuZemike, Administrator and CheckUser) the effect of the lie was devastating to the integrity of the discussion.
• - The discussion took place during IRC canvassing, with multiple people commenting confirming this. One participant even said: "I dislike the IRC canvassing"
• -Several people only supported the unblock with a full topic ban yet none was imposed at the time of unblock

So the consensus was 1. Based on a lie 2. Based on IRC canvassing 3. Based on votes actually supporting a topic ban.

Please note that IRC actions are not always transparent to the on-wikipedia community. Things such as Unblock request spam is somewhat evident on wiki, by counting the number of UBs on socks and main account (dare anyone to try to add it all up) but there is evidence to IRC requests as well With the case of IRC requests responders may be unaware of previous requests. They are even hard to find if they posted about on wikipedia (diff above). Thus the community is unaware of the previous actions, and most previous declined requests. If dozens of admins decline to unblock that certainly shows something in way of consensus doesn't it?

Yet the unblock happened, let's see what changed since then. Iaaasi was recently blocked again(5RR), proving once more he is highly disruptive. This block was about the 25th block he recieved, he immediately reacted with posting three different unblock requests, previously he posted about 15 of them, on various accounts. Funny how all the declined unblock requests are later, discounted and forgotten huh? In fact before Iaaasi was unblocked he had an unblock request declined 20 minutes prior... Yes let me repeat that, 20 minutes later Iaaasi already submitted a new unblock request which was accepted .

So the unblock was done in EXTREMELY questionable circumstances, to say the least. Iaaasi is back to disrupting wikipedia continuing the exact same patterns, the exact same types of edits only with more gaming more wikilawyering and more pushing the limits. We have confirmation that he is abusing IRC in various ways, fishing for reverts, canvassing, you name it.

Simply put Iaaasi have exhausted the patience of the community by operating a multitude of sockpuppets for well over 2000 edits and various other antics. There is no way he is a net positive to the project under these circumstances.

Proposal1 : Iaaasi to be banned from wikipedia indefinitely

Proposal2 : Iaaasi is topic banned from Central and Eastern European topics broadly defined indefinitely.

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose the proposals.

• Support Siteban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment When I got noticed about the fact that the indef block of Iaaasi was countermanded, I believed that that couldn't be any other thing than a joke ,and no it wasn't. First I would like to quote what administrator Toddst1 told about the case when the voting was about the second chance of Iaaasi that "This user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read . This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery.". And then one another administrator FisherQueen told the one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi that " You really have broken too many rules for us to allow you to edit at all. If this information is truly important, it's inevitable that someone else will eventually add it, but you seem not to understand that you really are blocked from editing the encyclopedia at all. You've created so many sockpuppet accounts that it's very unlikely that you'll ever find an admin willing to unblock you, or at least, not until several years have passed without any more edits from you. You've tried often enough that you know now that any accounts you make will be blocked, and the changes you want won't be made by you". But ,unfortunately, sometimes there are when the impossible things come true, and now Iaaasi is allowed to edit the English Misplaced Pages under a legal account. And now the user follows me onto almost all of the pages that I posted on or edited from the onset of his unblock even though I do not want to encounter this user, but so were with his sockpuppets ,too, that followed me around on Misplaced Pages, and when I wanted to commence check user investigations concerning this user, or I just mentioned my suspicion in connection with his sockpuppetry to an administrator, the sockpuppet still emerged at the same place to hoodwink the administrator that he was not a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.--Nmate (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Siteban--Nmate (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – If I may, I would like to direct those involved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi as well as the previous SPI case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive#15 March 2011. All of the socks submitted have not edited since July 2010 at the latest, but yet they are just now being brought up at SPI, while Iaaasi is currently blocked for 3RR (which may be interpreted as akin to kicking a defenseless person while down). I'm sorry, but I have to question the motivation behind this proposal, as it looks like skeleton-digging to me and an attempt to Iaaasi re-blocked for something in which he was already blocked for. Moreover, there are other commentary made by other users who question this same motivation. –MuZemike 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So what suggests you that Iaaasi being blocked for a violation of 3RR, MuZemike?--Nmate (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming I don't have ESP to read other admins' minds, I'm looking at his block log. –MuZemike 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear MuZemike, before commenting anything on this case, first can you please explain to the community, why did you post the following to Misplaced Pages from a position of high trust? since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. as opposed to reality . Was this because of the IRC lies told by Iaaasi? Hobartimus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer. I have not seen the additional socks, nor was I aware of any additional socking, if that is true, then I have nothing else to say. Before this past week, I have not communicated with Iaaasi since virtually his unblock; it has only been the last couple of days that I have been communicating with him as a result of the two previous SPI cases. If he is socking again, then I am the one who would be very disappointed, and I'll let the community carry on with whatever they choose fit to decide. –MuZemike 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You see that answer is far from simple. In fact it's extremely complicated, first in your reply you say "additional socking" as compared to what? Your original comment clearly states "has not shown to have socked during this period of time". So what is additional here? On the day in question the user page of Iaaasi looked exactly like this, with the links to the categories clearly visible . Once again, the comment posted by you following your extended IRC discussion with Iaaasi and the reality In your comment you also claim "He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki". Did you have help in determining that the contributions were constructive, or do you have a native like understanding of the Romanian language as well? Hobartimus (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, also keep in mind that on User:Hobartimus/sandbox4, all the socks were from last year; User:Zzzsolt, while it says "15 April 2011" was part of the recent two SPI cases which was just discovered, and you list 3 more suspected socks, all of which have last edited in June 2010. Why reporting them now? Do you have evidence that Iaaasi is or has been socking in 2011? Because how I see it, we're basically having the exact same ban discussion from earlier, except you seem to be digging up whatever old sock puppets you can find to be taking into account stuff he did back in 2010 as the result of his first indef block in order to try and sway the community in your favor. –MuZemike 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why reporting them now? Because they were discovered now... Because some members of the community were busy spreading statements about "no socking" and "constructive contributions", instead of investigating finding and handling them at the time, when it should have been done. Isn't it the admins job to enforce policy? Why wasn't policy enforced, why were these socks not blocked at the time? Aren't you an admin with the CheckUser access? You ask me why the sockpuppets were not found earlier? Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't a CheckUser at the time, and even after the fact (i.e. September 2010), there was no reason for me to "go fishing" for further socks. Unless you brought something up privately with another CU or even another admin about suspicions of further socks; no SPI cases were ever filed until a couple of days ago; I cannot be everywhere at once who is able to "sense everything". Unless there are more socks after August 2010 which we don't know about, he has kept clean for several months, at which point I requested the community reconsider the indef block, which achieved a rough consensus in support of. –MuZemike 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are definitely more socks after August 2010. Were you unaware of this? Does anyone read any of the evidence presented in these cases? Hobartimus (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell us who they are then, and provide some evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Warning Since we have confirmation of abusive stealth canvassing (on IRC) from the last discussion, I explicitly ask everyone to not whether the same thing is going on here now (Iaaasi going to IRC urging others to post on his behalf in an extremely abusive manner trying to derail consensus). Please preserve any off-wiki communication you have with Iaaasi because if the IRC abuse case goes to arbitration, the committee would presumably want to look at all the evidence. (Note MuZemike has a history of communicating on IRC with Iaaasi, so I would ask him if he was explicitly asked to comment above by Iaaasi, or influenced in any way by off-wiki communication) Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any evidence of recent sockpuppetry. If a past decision to unblock is now judged to be wrong, we'll just have to live with that - we don't ban people as punishment for past problems, we only do it to prevent future disruption. So lets leave the current block to expire, and then consider taking action if necessary based on future behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Boing; this seems very punitive and vindictive to me. Also, since when has off-wiki interaction been considered in on-wiki blocks and bans? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I go on Misplaced Pages IRC only twice a month and have never had any contact with this user. How about you learn to assume a bit of good faith? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I do assume good faith. But with confirmed abuse on IRC in the past in a discussion like this, and confirmation below that Iaaasi is presently on IRC right now, you could see that it may be important to get the facts straight. And you seem to have misunderstood the request, off wiki behavior is not the reason to block, present and past disruption and abuse on-wiki is the reason to block . Including as administrator Toddst1 put it "seriously racist hate mongering". Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - How ironic that at the time of this proposal an additional method of Iaaasi has surfaced as well: he seems to be keen on harassing users on accusations of sockpuppetry regardless of whether it's proven or not. In this case he seemed to have achieved the blocking of an innocent user that's been caught up in the crossfire between Iaaasi and some others with the user's only fault being the fact that he was a regular editor of the Golden Team article. The accusation of sockpuppetry was also quite hypocritic from a user who has his own list of sockpuppets (though truth be said, it still pales to Bonaparte in comparison). In fact I still don't know what was anyone thinking when they voted to allow Iaaasi to come back....
  

The other thing that amazed me about Iaaasi's attitude was his obvious lack of respect for even the most credible sources (provided they don't fit his agenda): this was the first occasion when he removed the source in question (an academic source published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences). He also proceeded to remove the same source from the Matthias Corvinus article and used an absolutely bogus and irrelevant argument for defending his move much like in the John Hunyadi article, albeit with some difference in wording. All in all I

• Support a complete site ban as per the reasons above and the fact that I fear it's unlikely that his attitude might and will change in the future. I think that the site ban is necessary due to the fact that Iaaasi might view his methods as "useful tools" in "settling disputes" (i.e. silencing any opposition) in any other topics as well, should he be given a topic ban only. CoolKoon (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently Iaaasi's currently online on IRC. He doesn't say much though, only seeking the help of admins. Interestingly enough he only seems to appear there when he wants support for his cause. CoolKoon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was pretty shocked when Iaaasi was unblocked without providing a response to this. --jpgordon 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Iaaasi asked to be unblocked so that he could post here at ANI. I declined the unblock and offered to transfer any comments from his talk page to this board. So far he has not posted anything but I am watching for a response and will copy it here when it appears. --Diannaa 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've been sort of half-following and occasionally commenting on this rather tedious battle. There's quite a bit of apparent acrimony between Nmate and Iaaasi, and between Hobartimus and Iaaasi. Some problems with Nmate's editing are in this thread from a few days ago. IMHO there was no intervention because the editing from all sides was pretty bad, and the dispute is too complex for outside observers to reach reliable conclusions about. Iaaasi has made some good contributions and also (IMHO) some subtly tendentious edits that he defends with wikilawyering. Be that as it may, I have NOT seen evidence of further socking since his unblock, and I think Nmate focuses too much about the pre-block socking which is not news. If Nmate has evidence of recent socking, s/he should please post it. My alternate hypothesis is that Iaaasi has become skillful enough with WP content guidelines to be able to game them without having to resort to socking, which of course isn't a good thing either. I hate extended DR but I don't see a way to get to the bottom of this short of an RFC/U that would have to examine the edits of several of Iaaasi's opponents as well as that of Iaaasi himself. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The socking was never the issue it was the disruption caused by the socks. Edit warring, harassment, wikilawyering, gaming, etc. If you look for signs of recent disruption you should look over Iaaasi's recent contributions, or might consider the fact that he is currently blocked for disruption. Btw, the original unblock given, was conditional on being fully reblocked on further disruption. Now that disruption was proven this shouldn't even be a question. Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked for some lame revert warring, with unblock requests declined because he should know better by now, but excessive reverting per se is fairly low on the disruption scale, which is why he only got 1 week block. One of the reviewing admins made noises about indef if the disruption continues; we're not there yet though. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As other editors stated there are no evidence of recent sock-puppetry. He can`t be banned again for something he was already banned before, otherwise one user who receives a block could be blocked indefinetly and never receive a second chance by all this. He was banned for a arbitrary rule (3RR) that doesn`t really state anything that Iaaasi is acting like before(sock puppets and similar). I also don`t think it is right to file a report about someone who is blocked and doesn`t have a possibility to defend himself. Adrian (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone ask for a Commons checkuser to look into this? commons:user:Hobartimus was created in February so data might still be around. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don`t believe it was really Hobartimus, especially because that day he had activity on Misplaced Pages at 23:13 and commons 15:03. I don`t really know, when someone logs in your commons account, is that the same account as on wiki? Can that person, once he had access to commons account to use the wiki account also? Anyway, maybe there should be a check on this matter to avoid any further confusion. Adrian (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adrian, there is a feature called Unified login that allows a single account to be linked across all the Wikimedia sites. However, Hobartimus is not enrolled in it. I proposed a checkuser because that might be able to tell who (if anyone) impersonated Hobartimus. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, I think it's quite obvious that it's a sock made by someone with the intent of libeling Hobartimus. The problem with Commons is that you have to log in in order to be able to upload anything. The account created on Commons doesn't have to correspond to your account on EN WP at all, just like it's the case with WP in other languages. A unified account is a convenient tool for preventing similar situations from happening in the FUTURE, but doesn't help in resolving issues like this. I'd say that these require some sort of arbitration by admins. CoolKoon (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now THAT is an excellent idea indeed! Good job, AB from Oakland, CA ;) Even if the SPI won't reveal Iaaasi's connection to this account, I have a feeling he isn't by far the only one who doesn't see eye to eye with Hobartimus (to say at least) so it might reveal a sockpuppeteer for sure... CoolKoon (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have posted a checkuser request on Commons as described above. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Though no investigation has been done so far, at least it's been banned to limit the malevolent intentions the account was obviously created for. I'd love to see the CU results though. CoolKoon (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral (for now) I think that perhaps the most involved and a neutral editor on the Hunyadi articles with the least experience of Iaaasi before the socking began is perhaps me.

It is true that Iaaasi can be domineering in arguments, his warning on my page for redacting his Stubes comments off the John Hunyadi article were somewhat aggressive, although this seems to be true to his form. In the last six months he has argued vehemently with other users, taking it to their talk page and putting multiple posts before they have responded, I believe that in his time-frame quick is ten minutes and slow is an hour :¬)

There have been plenty of discussions and editing approaching warring, the main problem is that the editors who mostly edit the Hunyadi page are either swamped with Iaaasi's enthusiasm about the Romanian aspects or by a general brow-beating to which they quickly succumb. There is also the problem of him introducing the "this might be a sock of Stubes" all the time, that really has to stop as it really does Iaaasi no good at all - report it to the appropriate notice board and once a decision is made, then act rather than putting it all over article and user talk pages. For the articles he is involved with it takes a lot of work to get him to co-operate in discussions before reverting and, once BRD has been circumvented, he does not really take the point that consensus is the way forwards before the second revert.

In reality it is difficult to opine on the previous behaviour. It seems to me that he has calmed down and the week block has not been evaded (to my knowledge) or any nasty posts made on his talk page. There were some recent posts on his talk page during his block that were not really to do with an unblock request and seem more of him keeping an eye on things - posts he would normally have put on a user sub-page and which he has deleted today.

My main concern is the build up of this feud. People are collecting evidence against each other and I suspect that the situation must be resolved before any further progress can be made. Collecting evidence which proves ones innocence and another's guilt is, in reality, that old "I am in a war" scenario that is to be avoided at all costs - escalation is inevitable.

Iaaasi's block runs out tomorrow. There have been several of the old crowd editing the John Hunyadi page after coming out of their shell holes, I hope that there will not be any edit warring over the work that has been done since Iaaasi was prevented from editing. I have kept an eye on them and they seem fine, but we will see what happens once his block is lifted.

In conclusion I suggest that Iaaasi tries to get out of his very narrow scope of editing and tries to look at a more broad set of articles that he can turn his hand to. He is an excellent researcher and has, in my opinion, tried to gain more balance in his editing. That said, he really does need to stop at the first revert, discuss, and if consensus is not found, he needs to learn to let it go. After the improvements that I have seen in his behaviour it is true that he still needs constant watching and prodding with the NPOV stick every now and again - but I really do think that a permanent block, whether or not it should have been given earlier, is not appropriate now. Someone who has had that many socks, entered into so much warring and wikilawyering can also learn to edit in a collegial fashion. I would hope that he has learnt by this block that it is better to edit than not and that he will also have learned that warring achieves nothing. I urge him to look for guidance and consensus much earlier on in disputes and once he can abide by BRD things will be better for all.

(I have not supplied any diffs as I do not think they are necessary and would perhaps just add fuel to any fire - If anyone has a need for them I will be happy to supply anything requested) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems to me that User:Hobartimus just will not let go. He is constantly trying to amass any evidence he can to try to rid User:Iaaasi - as can be clearly seen at User:Hobartimus/sandbox4 where some considerable time has been spent to document every possible (old) error by User:Iaaasi. The consensus was to give User:Iaaasi a second chance offer (not to just unblock unreserveably) , he formally accepted that offer, did the second chance requirements, and was finally unblocked on the 8th December. Since that time, as far as we know, he has continued to edit under a single user name. I see no point in continually dragging up old history just because some editor dislikes him. If a new (post Dec 8th) sock can be found then I'm for a ban, but we have stated that he could have a second chance, and I think that to now revoke it would give a bad impression to others - are we going to say to other editors "Have a second chance, but we might block you again if the mood takes us"? We must not lose sight of the policy The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment - to me this request is all about punishment, not prevention. It's time to let it go and get back to building an encyclopedia  Ronhjones  20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Please do not claim there was a consensus when there was only 4 users who supported the unblock, who didn't either 1. want a topic ban imposed 2. were mentioning the lie that WP:OFFER applies because of the big lie that Iaaasi did not sock. 3. mentioning that they came to vote after persuaded on IRC. These false claims of consensus are getting really really annoying. Please also note that unblocking someone 20 minutes after their request was declined by another administrator (in this case Sandstein) is a very interesting procedure to say the least. Hobartimus (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's no longer relevant - a decision was made, and even if it was made badly, we do not go back and punish people retroactively for things that were done months ago. Any new block or ban would only be to prevent future disruption, and you have given us no evidence of any *ongoing* disruption that you think needs a ban to prevent -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For transparency reasons which I feel should be here instead of fragmented on my talk page, the first set of comments is in response to :

1. With regard to my thought that Iaaasi was being constructive on Simple English and Romanian Wikipedias, that is a question on interpreting judgment.
2. The only ways Iaaasi could have possibly communicated were either via email or via IRC. According to his block log, between 18:24, 10 March 2010, and 07:16, 26 November 2010, his talk page editing privileges were revoked. The talk page restriction was lifted by another admin. Shortly after, he posts an on-wiki unblock request.
3. Yes, at the behest of Iaaasi, I requested that the community take another look at the indef block of him; I figured, if he wishes to be constructive in his editing again, and the community can agree to it, then why not try? I did what any other Wikipedian would do and AGF in that he sincerely wishes to be constructive on en.wiki.
4. I wanted to see if I had some time to go through some SPI cases, and that's when I saw the first SPI; at that point, I watchlisted it. That's how I saw the 2nd SPI case; I have already explained this to Hobartimus before.

I am a fairly approachable person, and I take most requests (such as the December 2010 unban request) seriously. I made the unban requests and the comments on the two SPI cases as a member of the community and not just as an administrator. That's why I decided to leave the unblock situation with the community, and that's why I only commented on the two SPI and took no action.

Now, let's go through all the socks Hobartimus recently reported to SPI, if I may:

Iaaasi has very well made some edits anonymously under 79.117.128.0/18 (see and ). As far as the other edits on that range, keep in mind that this is coming from a mobile ISP, so we are dealing with many people on this range editing similar things.

Anyways, with the exception of the two anonymous edits above, can anybody name another possible sock of Iaaasi whose last edit or account creation was September 2010 or sooner? –MuZemike 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean ones that were active after 2010 Sepetember? There are several fairly obvious ones, but I'd rather not waste the time on explaining it. It seems that a good 90% of what I was saying was ignored anyway no matter how much the evidence. If you actually spend a minimal amount of time investigating the case you will see them anyway. Don't get me wrong I'm very happy that some of the evidence is actually getting looked at now, but I'm afraid the discussion is already populated by comments which were made before such new developments. (not to mention the previous discussion) I understand that some admins (or others) don't have much time for looking at cases. I guess it's something to take into account for next time. This is why I became a bit concerned; when I realized that the person who was the blocking admin in May of an account from the above list became the person who said the following in September since his block this past March he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. Hobartimus (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have some evidence of post-unblock socking that you don't want to put on the wiki, please email it to MuzeMike or some other checkuser or the checkuser mailing list (WP:CHECKUSER). Alleging there are/were socks you know about, without giving evidence, is not going to result in action. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I am now rather involved in this dispute, it should be left to another uninvolved CheckUser. You claim "fairly obvious socks", but you are not mentioning a single one of them. –MuZemike 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm certainly no fan of Iaaasi's editing but I'm pretty ticked off at Hobartimus's alleging "obvious" recent sock activity without giving a shred of evidence for it. I'd like to formally request that Hobartimus refrain from casting such aspersions in the future, unless he provides credible specific evidence on-wiki or to checkusers. If he makes further such unsubstantiated allegations he should receive administrative sanctions. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I will send the evidence of "2010 September or later activity" to any uninvolved CheckUser or administrator who promises that sanctions (1rr/ week on CE, EE articles, Topic ban whatever) will be enforced should the evidence be deemed "credible" by them. Btw dear IP "fairly obvious" was written above and not "obvious". And even then, to become anything close to that you would need to put in quite a bit of time to analyze the edits look for patterns etc. Since you seem hesitant to AGF, that a "shred of evidence" actually exists IP, I will send you a "shred of evidence" if you send me an email. (it will be quite the short version, as it is not much fun to collect it just to be ignored). Hobartimus (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, "fairly obvious" then. The issue is when you bring a complaint about somebody, you have to present the evidence, not tell people to go look for it themselves. And I didn't say no sevidence existed (I consider that an unknown), just that you haven't presented a single shred, and I haven't noticed any myself despite having spent some time looking at content problems with Iaaasi's edits, and nobody else seems to have presented any either. If you have some, don't email it to random admins or users (if someone emailed you claiming to be me, they weren't). If it's private, send it to a checkuser since they are authorized to deal with confidential info. If it's something that you think non-checkusers can be allowed to see, post it on-wiki. Your condition that an uninvolved admin or checkuser agree ahead of time to impose specific sanctions before you send the evidence is almost certainly a non-starter, since that creates new opportunities for you to get into further debates with them after the fact if the outcome isn't what you want, and it would be crazy for them to allow that. You have to just send it and let them decide for themselves what to do with it. That said, I'd expect their level of tolerance for more socking by Iaaasi at this point would be very low. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"(if someone emailed you claiming to be me, they weren't)" Thanks for that warning IP. Btw are you an admin logged out? You seem to be speaking quite a lot in the names of the admins. Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You should not ask an IP to out themselves. There may be a very good reason why they remain as an IP - also some IP's are very knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages.  Ronhjones  21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation, stolen picture present in Misplaced Pages

I have opened a separated section on the ground that a picture uploaded into the commons by Iaaasi, is given counterfeit license saying that the author of the picture is User:Conttest, who is the name of one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi, and the picture is included in two Wikis, the English and Romanian ones in the articles ro:Ioan de Hunedoara and John Hunyadi when in fact the real author of the picture is Glatz Ferenc , which was published in a historical book under the title of "A magyarok krónikája" on the page of 174 in 1995 and the original name of the picture was "Hunyadi János birtokai 1456-ban". In my opinion, by doing this, Iaaasi committed a violation of GDFL license trespass ,mainly because the user is being blocked for a violation of 3RR at the article John Hunyadi that contains the aforementioned picture. And when the user wanted to ask for an unblock, this moot map was brought up as a reason for being unblocked on the ground that this map is a significant part of his constructive contributions here on English Misplaced Pages."Except referenced text, I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and inserted in the article the following images: so I don't think I can be accused of having disruptive intentions regarding it."

• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Huniade-domeniul.jpg
• http://mek.niif.hu/01900/01918/html/index74.html

--Nmate (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a clear cut case, the picture was uploaded as if it's author was Iaaasi. While in reality it was the work of others. If you look at the picture it becomes quite evident but with exact source given at the above link (A magyarok krónikája. Officina Nova, Budapest, 1995, 174. oldal) there could be no doubt. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Talk about cynicism! He not only "pirates" a picture off the internet to claim it as his own, but also cites it as a "fine" example of his "constructive" work. Just how many of such mishaps are you willing to tolerate him before cutting him off for good? CoolKoon (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, that was pretty lame of Iaaasi. Still, incorrect and/or bogus image attributions are one of the most common serious mistakes on Misplaced Pages, and that was from almost a year ago. Has this or anything similar been brought to Iaaasi's attention before? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly from a year ago it was present in the Misplaced Pages article John Hunyadi as of today. Hobartimus (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The file was uploaded on 27 April, 2010. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's hard to assume good faith in this case especially due to the fact that Iaaasi was bragging about that picture at a time when he was already well-acquainted with WP rules. And besides, when you download something from the internet (especially one that doesn't have copyleft/CC/public domain written in its proximity), in >90% of the cases you just know it can't be used by you and uploaded to Commons as it were your own, due to the fact that it is NOT your own. CoolKoon (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was rather unwise of him to refer to it recently as an example of his good work. But the correct action is being taken - it's up for deletion. Again, we should not be considering bans based on things done a year ago. It looks to me like there has been a long standing content dispute and a lot of emotion and bad feeling, and that neither side in it is entirely innocent - but that some progress has been made in calming it down. What we should be looking for now is evidence that it is likely to continue, or whether it looks like Iaaasi (and others) can be brought round to editing collegialy and within Misplaced Pages policy -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

I wouldn't say this in itself requires banning but I think it's wrong to just think of it as something that happened a year ago. The fact that they were boasting about it shows they were aware of this image and hadn't simply forgotten about it. This either means they completely forgot that what they were boasting about was an image which was not their own and which they did no receive the permission of the copyright holder while claiming it was their own (possible but doesn't seem that likely) or they were aware of this and didn't do anything about it (choosing instead to boast of their good work). Given how serious we take copyrights the later is completely unacceptable for an established editor. As I said I'm not calling for a ban, but it needs to be made clear to them that they must respect copyright policy and should not make misleading claims about the copyright status of content they contribute and no we're not going to keep giving them second chances on this like we may have done with sockpuppetry and whatever else they have allegedly done wrong. Frankly I'm far more concerned about this then their alleged? xenophobic personal attack mentioned above or whatever socking they may have done in the past or heck even if they are socking right now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask for Iaaasi to list all images that he's uploaded from any account, for license checks. That said, unless he's been in trouble for this particular issue in the past, I wouldn't flip out about it. NFCC problems are rampant on Misplaced Pages because of the tendency of users to click past the confusing or unfortunate requirements, and endless drama results all the time. I've elsewhere suggested that users should not be allowed to upload images directly (they can still use WP:FFU), without a rollback-like permission that would only be given after showing some basic understanding of license requirements. However, that idea has never gotten much support. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd take Iaaasi's images with a pinch of salt indeed. It turns out he was already warned for copyright violations in the past. Despite that he proceeded to upload some additional copyrighted images using his sockpuppet even after this warning. Sure, this all happened before he was "pardoned" for all his deeds before December 2010, but the fact is that he SHOULD know better than this by now. Hopefully he'll refrain from this in the future, but I won't count on it. CoolKoon (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I see the logic behind this. Xenophobia, sockpuppeteering, edit wars and nationalism won't get you sued unlike copyright violation would, right? CoolKoon (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ELN could use a few extra eyes

I am increasingly concerned about some recent civility issues at WP:ELN and would really appreciate having a few extra admins watching Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard#Paraphilic_infantilism for a few days. The section has just been closed, but we have had something of an epidemic of WP:LASTWORD, so there's no guarantee that it will stay that way long enough to be archived.

In the best-case scenario, it will stay quiet, and you can write this note off as an overreaction. That is the outcome that I'm hoping for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it's already been reopened here. I'm done with it personally since I get attacked constantly by this editor. More eyes would be appreciated since everyone except this editor feels the discussion has come to a conclusion. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As the main recipient of what I consider a lot of unwarranted hostility, I'm happy to comment if anyone is interested. I'm happier just to close what I see as an issue with an extremely obvious consensus, a whole lot of drama, and little else. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I reclosed the section because nothing good can come from more discussion about this issue. The editors agreed that the external links didn't belong so there is nothing more that needs to be said. --CrohnieGal 21:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point two things. First, as "this editor", I would have appreciated being notified about this discussion. The selective participation here echoes WhatamIdoing's sending personal invitations to specific editors, asking them to get involved in that EL discussion. Second, that there have been a number of incivilities and improprieties involved. Most recently, Crohnie deleted my comment to try to secure her and WLU the WP:LASTWORD, while accusing me of "rude and uncivil".

Please note that WhatamIdoing is not uninvolved in this discussion. This started as an edit war between her and myself, summarized here. WLU became involved. It could have ended there, but did not. My request to WLU not to involve other locations was deleted with the comment "or I can just delete this without reading it". From there, WLU spread the conflict onto four other pages (Paraphilic_infantilism, infantilism, Diaper_fetishism, and Adult_diaper) starting a number of edit wars (eg , including one with a bot. He also created other messes and left them to other editors to fix, such as using a Misplaced Pages printout as an RS.BitterGrey (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BitterGrey, I invite the ELN regulars and members of relevant WikiProjects to comment on discussions all the time. As in this case, I typically select victims volunteer editors for such notes based on the noticeboard's history statistics. You will discover that these editors' names are at the top of the list.

Also, I can't really imagine why you think that an essay I was invited to start out of a conversation at WT:MED has anything at all to do with WLU deleting an internet chat room and your personal website from an article that (1) isn't within WPMED's scope, (2) I've never edited and (3) I've never even read. It frankly sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I agree, however, that it was appallingly rude of you to repeatedly accuse Crohnie of "puppetlike foible". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you think regulars needed to be invited? If they really are monitoring that board, wouldn't they already be monitoring that board?

Since WhatamIdoing brought up that conversation at WikiProject Medicine, I'll explain how it also fits in here. WhatamIdoing's post included glowing praise for one editor who was being "chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors for not re-re-re-re-disclosing his 'conflict of interest' every single time he edits certain pages.". This is a reference to discussions such as those at COI/N and ELN. In both those examples, WhatamIdoing was that editor's sole advocate. I was among the "handfull" of other editors in some of those debates. As I wrote, she isn't uninvolved here.

A neutral editor would have first commented about the accusation that I was misleading readers (ELNO#2), made by WLU and later echoed by Crohnie. Not only were these accusations made first, but are more serious than a mere foible. That foible was pointed out here. BitterGrey (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody invited me, and anyway, I am sufficiently independent to disagree with whoever has invited me to a discussion. Yet I did not comment on ELNO#2 simply because it was not necessary for deciding the situation. We are not here to stroke people's egos, we are here to build an encyclopedia. And for the more professional among us this means coming straight to the point and not wasting time getting side-tracked.

Frankly, this is ridiculous. It's a clear case of ELNO#11 (which basically follows from ELNO#1 + WP:SPS), and in 3 weeks not a single editor argued for including your link. I have seen a lot of foul play and mobbing at Misplaced Pages, but this is not an instance of it. Hans Adler 01:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Why did you think regulars needed to be invited?"

Because they hadn't commented, and you wanted people that met your personal definition of "uninvolved" (i.e., had never opposed you in any dispute, ever) to comment. In my experience, most people don't jump into a very long and distinctly unpleasant conversation with a wikilawyering website owner who is insulting other participants and spewing conspiracy theories unless they've been directly encouraged to do so. Perhaps your experience is different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that a lot of people are saying unpleasant things here, but only one person is providing diffs.

@Hans Adler: I attempted a factual closure yesterday. Apparently others weren't happy with it and wanted to argue more. BitterGrey (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Except your close wasn't accurate, at least my part in all of this. I didn't withdraw from the discussion, I withdrew from discussing things with you only because you couldn't be polite and kept attacking. As for difs, there are plenty of difs added to that discussion. The discussion was over, the editors all decided that the two EL's you wanted were not acceptable to the project so we closed it stating this. There was no reason to allow you to close it as you are very involved and was only telling part of the story about what editors had to say which wasn't needed. Please, lets close all this out for the sake of sanity already. Bittergrey has been rude and has attacked multiple editors at this thread and at other locations. If difs are requested by anyone other than BG I will gather them up. I will not interact with Bittergrey though any further. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal 10:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"There was no reason to allow you to close it as you are very involved"? I think all the uninvolved editors tacitly accepted my attempt at factual closure and stepped back, content to let the discussion archive. They had been heard and didn't need to get the last word in. I needed to stay involved to hold things to the facts. For example, regarding the "the two EL's wanted", I never argued for the second EL ( http://abdlplay.com/forum/ ). As already discussed, I've long avoided making any changes to the external links section myself due to the COI. This is why I hadn't removed the forum link. I also didn't disagree with Hans Adler that it was a forum, and so ELNO#10 applied. I did, however, question Crohnie's application of ELNO#10 to Understanding.Infantilism.Org. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing to me that Bittergrey is claiming to try to close the issue given both myself and Crohnie tried to actually close the section and it was twice reverted by Bittergrey. There are no outstanding external links issues in that section, not a single editor besides Bittergrey supported including the links, I simply can't see a reason for anyone to continue posting in this section. The only issue I actually see is WP:BATTLE. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between summarizing an apparent consensus, as I tried to, and hiding the discussion to reserve the WP:LASTWORD for themselves, as WLU and Crohnie did. This is a repeat of WLU's behavior where this all started, at wp:Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine), where he archived the entire talk page immediately after removing my comment. At least WLU has started including diffs, so everyone can see that what WLU considers a second revert was actually me restoring my comment after they deleted it, just as I had to at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine). (Crohnie later apologized for the deletion at ELN, WLU did not for COI_Med.)

As for this being a WP:BATTLE, it involves multiple articles, mostly ones that WLU had never edited before this began but that I have long been involved with . In the multiple conflicts (eg. ) the person spreading the conflict is made most clear by the edit war between WLU and Yobot (a bot). While a fan of the Terminator series, I have to side with the machine on this one: Yobot didn't start the conflict, WLU did. BitterGrey (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's an edit war, doesn't it look like someone repositioning a template as part of a set of edits? Calling it edit warring seems an almost irrational over-reaction. And don't you think that's the sort of thing you would politely bring up with an editor on their talk page, rather than first starting a section on an article talk page, then spamming the comment across multiple message boards? Has anyone else commented on my "edit war"? Did they support your interpretation? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I did not purposely delete anyones comments as I state here that it was probably an edit conflict that I missed. I apologized for not catching the edit conflict which is different than saying I "apologized for the deletion". It's time to stop this battle that is ongoing already. Enough should be enough already. Would someone please close this section? Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal 11:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Bittergrey seems to ascribe personal malicious intentions to any mistake or difference of opinion. I would rather further outside input rather than closing the section, but that is less likely the more posts are made, so I'll make this my last one. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, the last message I left on your talk page was deleted with the comment "or I can just delete this without reading it". That message asked you to please not spread this issue to other locations. As for outside input, this thread was started explicitly as a mere civility issue, WP:LASTWORD, on a board that explicitly doesn't handle incivility. This might have had the effect of innoculating the audience, to prevent involvement. This might have been a mistake, but whatamidoing's extensive background with this board suggests otherwise.

@Crohnie, your apology was noted (last sentence, first paragraph in my last comment). Assuming that one's opponent simply reverted and so should be simply reverted isn't a rare mistake. The topic of the deletion was raised here by WLU, who counted my restoring the deleted text as a repeated attempt to "reopen" the discussion. Fortunately he is providing diffs now, so his points can be quickly shown false.BitterGrey (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My search of the archives with an AN prefix shows that I have made just fifty-four (54) comments to any AN board, representing 0.11% of all of my edits over the last four years. I doubt that is what most people would consider "extensive". If you want to consider the baseline for "extensive", please note that dozens of editors have edited just this one AN board more than one thousand times.

Your allegedly "factual" close looked to me like an effort to enshrine a distorted version of the reasoning as The Truth™ about that conversation. It was also completely unnecessary, since all we really need to know is the plain fact is that nobody except you supports the inclusion of an external link to your personal website about paraphilic infantilism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Those 54 edits put WhatamIdoing somewhere around 93rd percentile here. Reasonably extensive. Besides, even at my lowly 16 edits, I'm aware that the text at the top of the page clearly states "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." (i.e. This isn't the place to report a case of WP:LASTWORD.)

@WhatamIdoing, could I ask you to actually read and understand my attempt at factual closure, as opposed to arguing based on what it "looked" like? BitterGrey (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I read your so-called "factual closure". I understood it. I disagree with it, as does every editor who has expressed an opinion so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, we get that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Would you care to tell us why? Please be specific, with diffs, instead of appealing to false hyperbole: I am an editor, I have expressed an opinion, and I don't disagree with the closure. Thus your "as does every editor who has expressed an opinion so far" statement is not true. BitterGrey (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When someone states "everyone disagrees with you", your defense is "that's not true, as I don't disagree with myself"? It may be wiser to just accept that your opinion is not shared by anoyone else, and leave this and all other related discussions quietly, before someone forces you to do so by blocking you. Fram (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, many have tacitly accepted my attempt at factual closure. Yoenit, MrOllie, AndyTheGump, NortyNort, and Themfromspace were involved in the EL discussion, but haven't commented since the factual closure was posted. It effectively removed the external link as an issue of debate. Others include Moxy, who disagreed with being listed as an invitee, and Hans Adler, who considered the ongoing discussion pointless. Notably, they didn't disagree with the 'conclusion' of the closure (ELNO #11). That leaves only whatamIdoing/WLU/Crohnie and myself. If whatamIdoing won't share what her actual point is, them I am forced to agree with Hans Adler. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of other editors in your closure. That I (and I wager others) did not comment is more a sign of recognition of the futility of arguing with you than a sign that I 'tacitly accept'. - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. BitterGrey (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Of note is that Bittergrey considered all of this part of a pre-existing dispute, rather than a routine effort to establish that a link was (fairly obviously) inappropriate. In many situations, whole swathes of totally unrelated pages are brought up to "demonstrate" that any edit to a page is the result of ongoing disputes. ; ; ; ; Routine edits and minor disagreements about equivocal style guidelines should not result in a talk page dump of a half-dozen completely unrelated links with the accusation that it's an extension of an unrelated dispute. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Users Epeeflech and Wjemather

Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those two have been debating for awhile about various issues. Epeefleche asked me to look into it. I don't know who's right or wrong (maybe they both are somewhat both), but it seems to be at an impasse. Specifically, Epeefleche has asked Wjemather not to post on his talk page; which he continues to do, and which he justifies on policy grounds. I advised Wjemather that posting on others' pages when they ask you not to is a breach of etiquette (as I myself have been told from time to time), and that he needs to seek another course of action, such as talking to his most trusted admin about the issue. I would like to hear some opinions by the folks here who are smarter than I am (which is most of you), as to what these editors need to do to resolve their disagreements. It's worth pointing out that Wjemather was issued a 2-day block in January for harassment of Epeefleche. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I’ve got to catch a flight and am not in much of a mood to use wiki-jargon and beat around the bush with oratory about “assume good faith” when it’s clear that WJE is just trying to harass Epeefleche. WJE thought he discovered a valid rationale to go rattle a stick on Epeefleche’s cage. I actually backed WJE on the thrust of his point (Epeefleche failed to add a proper fair-use rationale to the image of a book cover). But his second post roughly 20 hours later was clearly intended to badger. Then WJE tried to leave an alibi note on my talk page here. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• No editor has the right to request that other editors not place valid warnings on their talk page. Wjemather's warnings are valid, Epeefleche has not responded to them properly. I would suggest that Epeefleche simply act on the warnings and move on. As a rule of thumb, any editor that goes the "so-and-so isn't welcome on my talk page" route creates at least as much trouble simply by posting the warning as whatever problem he was reacting to.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^^AerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest a week's block for Epeefleche; if he is not willing to make himself accountable to editors and address their concerns then he needs to ask himself if he belongs in a long collaborative project. He has made a point of not addressing the issues raised, and as such is creating an atmosphere which is not conducive to collaborative editing. Copyright notices/rationales are not pointy issues, it is important they are done right, and that is the issue of concern and it shouldn't be deflected away from that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^Kww and Betty Logan, while it would certainly be inappropriate to ban someone from your talkpage in an attempt to avoid receiving legitimate complaints, Epeefleche requested that Wjemather leave his page over a year ago due to ongoing harassment, and not recently in response to these complaints. Even if legitimate they clearly demonstrate a lack of caring for Epeeflech's request, and at worst could be his attempt to purposely disregard his request to leave his page by finding legitimate reasons to post there.AerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• If an editor has asked another editor not to post on his/her talk page, then the second editor shouldn't do so. This is particularly the case when the second editor has been blocked for harassing the first. There are 1,000 admins and 10,000 other editors who can post there, I'm sure everyone can find one; for example, by posting on this board instead. Jayjg 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything in Wjemather's editing history that warranted the block or the "Stay of my page" request, someone will have to point it out to me. In general, I advise that everyone ignore such requests. Requesting other editor's to refrain from talking to you is very rarely warranted, and I can't see a valid motivation in the case.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that the user page guideline does anticipate users asking others to stay off their page. From WP:UP "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)". So you can ask people to stay off your page, but they aren't obligated to do so. That said, in my limited experience the best thing to do with those who persist in posting to your user page after you've asked them to stop is to just delete their comment. Certainly allowed and occasionally called for. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've talked past your point, sorry I misunderstood. My point is that there is nothing wrong with asking a user to stay off your page if you feel it's the best way forward... Hobit (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't miss my point: I think WP:UP provides a weak accommodation for a distastefully common practice. " ... it is probably sensible to respect their request ..." is hardly a rousing endorsement.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Leading up to the request that Wjemather stay off of Epeefleche's talk page was a significant ammount of wikihounding on Wjemather's part. Certainly this occurs on many articles that Epeefleche had written or substantially contributed to including; Richie Scheinblum, Monte Scheinblum, and The Israel Law Review . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not in any policy or guideline or essay that I can recall, but I remember a bit of advice regarding the "necessity" of posting on anothers talkpage; if there is a legitimate issue then someone else will post the necessary advices or comments - and if you are the only person thinking that notices or comments are required on someones talkpage, then you are likely wrong. Therefore a request to not post on someones talkpage is reasonable - there are plenty of others who can raise any legitimate issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree; the request by Epeefleche for WJE to stay off his talk page after Epeefleche had been hounded no-end by WJE (to the point that WJE was blocked for a period of time over it), is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect; no one wants to have their own personal wiki-hounder on their tail at every turn. Moreover, the community doesn’t need more wikidrama just because an editor has a deep personal dislike for another editor and can’t leave well enough alone when the first opportunity presents itself.

  WJE knew full well his poring over Epeefleche’s activities to find a legitimate shortcoming was going to A) be pushing it, and B) probably going to be passable because Epee’s failure to include the proper fair-use rationale was indeed something that needed rectifying. So Epeefleche reminded WJE that Epee had received a belly-full of his hounding and wanted to be left alone, without his own personal inspector looking over his shoulder giving him the white-glove treatment. WJE’s response was, only 22 hours after his first notification, to weigh in again on Epee’s talk page, demanding immediate action while employing a threatening tone (This is the final warning…). That’s just baiting under a pretense.

  I think we are all reasonably experienced wikipedians that we don’t have to beat around the bush and ignore the 800-pound gorilla of human factors at play here. WJE was blocked for wikihounding Epeefleche and simply seized an opportune moment to rattle another editor’s cage and then had to go the extra mile by using a bossy and demanding tone to push buttons. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest WJE Block & Interaction Ban for Harrassment//Hounding/Disruption. Hounding and disruption by WJE has been a year+ problem. For 13 months, I've turned the other cheek. I limited my reaction to only warning WJE, watching as others warned (and blocked) him, and otherwise ignored him. But it seems appropriate to address the problem now. The point that BB raises above, while it falls squarely within the harassment guideline, is only the tip of the WJE harassment problem that has now come to a head, as detailed below. I request that WJE be again blocked (for harassment/hounding/disruption reasons, as he was 2 months ago), and banned from interacting with me.

January block. WJE was blocked 2 months ago for disruption on my talkpage (harassment and a personal attack, and starting an edit war), following his hounding me.

His block was affirmed 3 times. First by the blocking sysop:

"Your unblock request only makes me more convinced that this block is the only thing preventing you from carrying on whatever dispute you have with Epeefleche, much to the detriment of both of you and the project. This block has ... to do with ... your conduct on Epeefleche's talk page and the dispute which you then took to ... an article to which Epeefleche is ... far and away the primary contributor and to which you made your first edit today—to revert somebody who thinks (whether rightly or not, I don't know and I don't really care) that you're hounding them, no less! That's before we get to the matter of the edit warring or the edit summary."

It was then affirmed by 2 other sysops.

Hounding. In addition to the above, sysop Beeblebrox in affirming WJE's January block advised WJE:

"It's really not a good idea to fixate on another editor and get into a prolonged conflict with them, which you clearly have done."

Editors Legitimate and Bachcell identified WJE's behavior over a year ago as hounding as well. I requested many times that WJE not hound me. Such as on February 3 and 6, 2010, February 28, 2010, March 20, 2010, November 7, 2010, January 17, 2011, and March 20, 2011.

An example of his hounding--Just hours after a testy exchange on another subject, WJE's next act on February 3, 2010, was to single me out and AfD an article I had just created. His AfD failed. But as I pointed out to him, that suggested an apparent effort on his part to confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress. The core of wikihounding.

Yet here WJE is--after a year of warnings, and after receiving a block and admonitions from 3 sysops—doing it again. Fixating on my 6 recent "image-creation" edits.

How could WJE just "come across" my adds of 6 images? The images are not within the area of interest he professes to have--UK/golf/cricket/darts articles. Indeed, all WJE's top article edits are golf and dart related. But these edits that he is confronting me on relate to covers/logos of a US philanthropy book, and 5 local US Jewish newspapers. As has been his pattern for a year now, WJE just showed up at some obscure part of the project, moments after I edited there, at pages he had never edited, to revert me or attack my edits.

This also calls into question WJE's assertions, at his unblock request, that:

"I absolutely contest their characterization of my edits as hounding"; and

"I am not fixated on, nor am I carrying on a dispute with, Epeefleche, and I certainly have no desire to get into any conflict with them"; and

"I repeat, I do not wish to engage in any dispute or conflict with Epeefleche ... now or in the future.... I cannot be any clearer on that."

Misplaced Pages:Harass states:

"Wiki-hounding is the singling out editor ... and joining discussions on multiple pages ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages."

It also indicates that consequences of harassment can include "blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban." And says: "If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." WJE has already received multiple warnings over the past year. And his first block (for hounding, disruption, and a personal attack) 2 months ago.

Disruption; ignoring request he not post on my talkpage. Another sysop (Sandstein) in affirming WJE's January block said to him, as to WJE's disruptive personal attack on my talkpage: "you do not convince me that you won't repeat it".

I had earlier requested that WJE not be disruptive and not post on my talkpage. Most recently, twice yesterday, November 7, 2010, and January 17, 2011. I requested that WJE not revert my deletions on my own talk page on November 29, 2010. That was a violation by WJE of WP:HUSH, part of the harassment guideline. I also requested that WJE not be uncivil and not edit war with me on November 7, 2010.

In posting yet again on my talkpage, WJE ignored my clear request that he not do so. To put this problem into stark relief, I am the editor whose talk page WJE leaves messages on most often. By a 2-1 margin. Misplaced Pages:Harass includes "repeated annoying and unwanted contact".

Substance; Non-AN/I issue. The substance of WJE's uninvited message is a non-AN/I side-issue. And what appears to be a baseless one, at that.

He is singling me out to attack my use of a book/newspaper cover "use in infobox" rationale in half a dozen images. But, that is the accepted rationale for many thousands of such images.

Furthermore, I added those images only after receiving precise advice from a senior editor (Beyond My Ken) who focuses on images, which I followed.

See BMK advice, and BMK's comments on the substance of WJE's assertions here ("technically correct, but in my opinion is being overly pedantic. ... As far as I am aware, most people understand that "for use in the infobox" means "to visually identify the subject of the article" or whatever wordage the editor used. Per WP:BURO I don't think it's absolutely necessary to change what you did (on my advice)").--Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think an interaction ban would be the best way to go with this, and would support a temp block of Wjemather. There is no need to be dealing with any problems from an editor you have a past history of harassment with, there are plenty of other copyright violations in the world, and many other people you can contact to deal with copyright or other concerns with Epee. Not assuming good faith this seems like an attempt to look for a mistake Epee has made just so that he can have a legitimate reason to post on his talkpage, and if that is so then that would be completely inappropriate. Whether or not he deserves a block, an interaction ban should prevent any further problems between the two.AerobicFox (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I agree with Aerobic Fox 100%. The injured party is Epeefleche, it seems plain to me, and this is a pretty clearcut case of Wikihounding by Wjemather, who appears to be unable to get over his previous issues. Many of us have other editors who aren't our cup of tea; the answer is to walk away instead of following their edits and looking for a fight, which almost always turns into a violation of WP:BATTLE. To sum up: an interaction ban for Wjemather is called for, and if imposed and not acknowledged and full compliance not agreed to by Wjemather, a protective indef block should be imposed until compliance is agreed to. The community should not tolerate cases of this type. I would also suggest Epee make an attempt to stay clear of Wjemather as possible. Thanks to Baseball Bugs for bringing the case here, well done. Jusdafax 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I guess I am not as experienced an editor as I thought because, though I’ve been on Misplaced Pages for quite a few years, I didn’t know interaction bans were a tool that could be employed. Regardless, it’s just the right tool for this case. The interaction ban ought to 1) allow those two to be more productive for the betterment of the project, and B) create less wikidrama for the rest of the community from hereon. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me Wjemather has raised legitimate points of concern, and the argument that "someone else" could do it is hardly an argument for not raising these points yourself, let alone justification for a block. The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. If someone has to keep confronting editors with legitimate concerns and they are not being adequately addressed then I think there is a deeper problem here. Epeefleche's name seems to pop up an awful lot on ANI, and the same pattern emerges every time: deflection by endlessly reiterating policy. This editor has lots of problems with people simply because he creates problems for these people. He creates the situations in which he is "harrassed" through this compulsion to make resolving issues editors have with his edits as difficult as they possibly can be. I think the admins not familiar with this editor should take a closer look at the discussions on his talk page and his history on ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Quoting you, Betty: The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. For any ordinary editor who notices such a thing, that would indeed be the question. But Wjemather is no ordinary editor in this case and it’s exceedingly unlikely he just accidentally *noticed* what Epeefleche was doing. So the question is whether or not Wjemather violated (again) WP:Harass. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Totally avoidable. Usually, there cannot be too much calm communication. Although Mather singularly failed to identify the offending images, he flagged it as a minor, easily correctable issue, including suggestions as to how to solve the underlying issue. It was a bit nit-picking of a complaint, but not one that warranted the drama that seems to have followed. Usually, it could/would have been put to bed without much fuss with by a simple "oh, thank you. I'll fix it". However, given the raw nerves between the two, the message on Epeefleche's talk page was probably unwise however "in the right" he may have felt he was. I'm unsurprised it was taken as baiiting from the onset. --Ohconfucius 03:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• As to the alternatives to posting to Epeefleche's talk page... in his place (and taking responsibility for my own actions), I would find it even more stressful if Mather would post to venues such as ANI, or another user's talk page instead of mine. --Ohconfucius 04:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect that Mather probably knew he was waving a red flag to the proverbial bull by making that post. The feud seems to have been going on long enough... I think an interaction ban between the two is probably wise precaution given the background. An interaction ban should also include banning provocation such as taking each other to WQA or ANI. However, it should not exclude seeking mediation, if necessary. --Ohconfucius 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Although I agree that taking each other to such fora is provocative, I don't think we should prevent all communication about concerns. If not for Wjemather, we may not have discovered earlier copyright problems and opened the CCI in January. Complaints were made of hounding at that time, as well, but the need for the CCI (although backlogged like the rest of them) was amply demonstrated and has been sustained by a several serious issues that have been detected and cleaned since it was opened. (I'm sorry to say that the bulk of it still has not been checked.) If Contributor B is malformatting references or something like that, certainly that's not so urgent that Contributor A needs to be able to draw attention to it. If Contributor B is violating copyright or otherwise creating substantial risk, that's different. :/ I think we need to leave some venue for noting such serious issues if Contributor A notices that they are occurring...especially if he is the only one paying attention. --Moonriddengirl 11:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The problem I have with that is that Wjemather approached the CCI with neither evidence of Epeefleche violating copyright (He was instead querying a close paraphrase), nor did he approach with evidence that Epeefleche was persistently violating copyright(He initially only had one example) - and these should be essential requirements for anyone approaching CCI. We should not be encouraging users to take some marginal claim against another user to any noticeboard on the basis that any marginal claim may be tip of the iceberg of some potential serious claim. The user should establish the serious grounds for a claim before doing so - An interaction ban would force Wjemather to discuss these issues with other neutral users experienced in these issues first perhaps search for actual serious issues - and then either correct the issue themselves or the neutral party can raise whatever action needs to be taken. I also dislike the thought that we would encourage the deliberate wikistalking of any user on the grounds of the greater good - it smacks of police state surveillance and enforcement and certainly is not conducive to creating a working community. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I don't think it's very conducive to a working community either if we wind up with situations like this one, which waste community resources both in cleanup and in the fact that we have to wipe out the edits of all contributors who had no idea they were creating unusable derivative works. I'm not suggesting that it will happen here, but closing off all avenues to potential whistleblowers in any event (which is why I refer to "Contributor A" and "B", and not these contributors) seems like a poor choice. Again, if we're talking malformatted references, that's one thing. Copyright problems are something else. I'm not saying that the fora that needs to be open to him is a public one. "Some venue" can easily be the talk page of a neutral administrator or editor or, if even that is too provocative, an e-mail to a neutral administrator or editor. (Note that I'm not raising my hand for this. I've got enough to do. :/) --Moonriddengirl 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to come back and make sure that I was clear here and also to reconsider my reluctance to raise my hand. I am not opposing an interaction ban; if User:Wjemather needs to stay away from User:Epeefleche, that's fine with me. My concern rests largely in the thought that such a ban imposed on any user with any other user might prevent valid problems that may constitute grave concern from being addressed, if nobody but the banned contributor is aware. I don't mean at all to suggest that I'm expecting any future issues out of User:Epeefleche. Again, I'm talking about the larger principle. Being conscious of the potential for drama and knowing that "tell somebody" doesn't help if nobody's willing to listen, I will raise my hand after all. If User:Epeefleche is comfortable with that, I'd be willing to accept private or on-Wiki communications from User:Wjemather if he feels he has discovered a serious issue that needs attention. (Frankly, I would think private e-mails would be better, to avoid any potential drama.) If I agree, I'll follow up; if I don't, I won't. I say this trusting that I wouldn't be deluged with trivial concerns; if that were to happen, it would certainly demonstrate the need for the interaction ban and I would, if I could not persuade Wjemather to my view of "serious issue", withdraw my offer. Is this an acceptable compromise? --Moonriddengirl 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Details of interaction ban. I appreciate Moon's offer. And Moon clarifying that she is not opposed to an interaction ban on WJE in this case.

I note that the proposed interaction ban on WJE has considerable support above, and that the proposed block on WJE has a measure of support as well. I accept Moonridden's thoughtful suggestion as to how how the interaction ban might applied. I'm comfortable with WJE contacting Moonridden about any legitimate serious issues that require attention. I'm also fine with that being by private email, per Moon's suggestion. That would allow Moon to address any legitimate concerns, while reducing the risk of hounding -- as I expect that at the same time, Moon could note any hounding in violation of wp:harass. I also agree with the above thoughtful suggestion that if WJE does not agree to comply fully with the interaction ban, a protective indef block be imposed until compliance is agreed to.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not wishing to further any ill-feeling there may be, I do not want to get into the substance of the allegations that have been made unless absolutely necessary, but looking at through the incidents listed by Epeefleche it is needless to say that I felt that I was being harassed on many of those occasions and said as much as the time. There are others of course, but I don't think there is much to be gained by anyone in dragging it all up now. It would be better if we could all just let bygones be bygones and move on.

  Ok, let me set the record straight with regards this incident. I have many articles created by Epeefleche that contain various degrees of copyright violation on my watchlist, and have have done since the CCI case was opened. The issue with the images cropped up as one of these articles was edited, namely New Jersey Jewish News. The initial notice I left on Epeefleche's talk page regarding fair use rationale was only intended as helpful guidance to rectify a problem that is easy to fix, and hopefully ensure all future uploaded non-free images would be free from the same problem. It was non-confrontational and contained no warnings. As has been said by others, the appropriate response would have been "thanks, I'll look into it" or something along those lines. Epeefleche's actual response was, by any measure, not acceptable. In hindsight, it would have been better for me to find another avenue to resolve the problem rather than to then post a second message to reinforce the policy issues, and I understand how that message may have been misconstrued.

  Contrary to what some have said, I did not and do not see this as a minor issue. In my view, no copyright issue is a minor one. Policy is clear that fair-use rationale must be detailed and explain why an image meets the criteria, and "for use in the infobox" only explains where it is used. It does nothing to explain what purpose it serves in the article as is required by poilcy and explained in the guidelines. I was unaware that Epeefleche had been advised by another editor regarding fair-use images – I do not share their view that I was being pedantic and strongly disagree with their assertion that most people would assume what is meant so it's fine. The 5 images in question were uploaded on 19 March () and are actually logos, not book/magazine/newspaper covers, and as such probably have the wrong NFC template in any case. Perhaps MRG could give her opinion on these issues.

  It has also been said that I should have left if for someone else to discover later. The case MRG describes at CCI illustrates exactly why these things should not be left alone – the contributor concerned simply goes along they merry way doing the same thing completely unaware they are contravening policy.

  It should be noted that interaction bans are not a one way street, and any such sanction would also be a ban on Epeefleche interacting with me. I personally do not think any formal measures such as this are necessary, but would informally commit to the following. I will not post any messages on Epeefleche's talk page, unless requested to do so by Epeefleche. Conversely I have no problem anyone with Epeefleche, or his friends, posting on my talk page. Generally I would also (as I do anyway) avoid any articles or discussions in which I know Epeefleche is active – like most people I don't generally check page histories before editing, but I am aware of certain topic areas in which he is very active. However, should our paths cross I see no reason why we should not be able to communicate properly and in a constructive manner, by sticking to the subject in question without pointing fingers and dragging up past problems to use against each other. _wjemather 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ripe for Close; requesting imposition of above-described sanctions on WJE. I agree with WJE on one point. There were many more instances of him appearing at articles immediately after I just edited them. Over 13 months. Far from him areas of interest (the golf courses, cricket fields, dart halls of London). On obscure topics. Only to revert me, or challenge my edits.

Check out for example his failed AfD, made the same day I created the article Americans for Peace and Tolerance (a Boston organization) on February 3, 2010. Or his appearance at an article I created on an American blog, the very day I created it on March 18, 2010, to challenge my edits. Or his reverting me the same day I edited at Villa Park High School (a California high school) on December 23, 2010. Or his deletion of refs at an article on an American baseball player, made within hours of me adding them, on December 24, 2010.

The list goes on. I won't bore you with more, unless you want it.

I was therefore, perhaps understandably, taken aback by his blatantly telling 3 sysops 2 months ago, during his 3-times-affirmed block for hounding me, that:

"I am not fixated on, nor am I carrying on a dispute with, Epeefleche, and I certainly have no desire to get into any conflict with them ... I cannot be any clearer on that."

I was perhaps a jot less surprised when, just 2 months later, disregarding a year of requests by me and others that he stop hounding me, despite direct admonitions from 3 sysops that he do the same, and undeterred by his 2-day hounding block ... he did the same thing. He followed me to the most obscure of articles, to challenge me yet again. Warnings, admonitions, and a 2-day block apparently are not sufficient.

Given this history, formal measures are certainly required; and clearly they have to be made of sterner stuff than the last 2-day block. I therefore agree with the strong majority above that suggests that an interaction ban be imposed upon WJE. I also agree with those who say that a block is in order.

As to his hostile suggestion that interaction bans cannot be "a one-way-street" -- of course they can be. They are routinely imposed on those who violate wp:harass, as he has done. And not on those that they harass. But no worries -- if WJE hasn't noticed, I'm not seeking contact with him.

I believe that after having kept a stiff upper lip for 13 months now, I'm entitled to have the community finally take him off my back. This is precisely the sort of behavior that wp:harass was meant to prevent.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Epeefleche has made a very solid case, and with recent evidence of such stalking behaviour. As Wjemather has already committed to informal self-restraint, I see it as no physical hurdle to overcome – only psychological – to have it formalised. As to the question of whether the interaction ban ought to be bilateral, no evidence of provocation in the other direction has been advanced, so I'm now inclined to support a unilateral application. --Ohconfucius 06:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already indicated that I do not wish to get into a long time consuming trawl through past interactions, but there are several instances of Epeefleche leaping in with the sole purpose of harassing me, a couple of AfDs, an article created by Greg L and a frivolous ANI case spring to mind. As does this comment made long after the close of one of those AfDs. Indeed, other contributors have seen fit to voice their concern regarding Epeefleche's behaviour on my talk page. Among other comments are "Has this user been harassing you?" and "Epeefleche is pretty much notorious for following around anyone he has a personal beef with and intentionally taking the opposite position in discussions he's not privy to".

    Epeefleche has made several accuasations in the past such as my arguing about the spelling of Arabic, which I have certainly never done, and restoring removed comment on his talk page, which Epeefleche did not provide a diff for when questioned and I certainly do not recall ever doing on anyone's talk page. I have also been subjected to accusations of trying to suppress terrorism related articles (for some dark purpose?) and even insinuations that I am a supporter of terrorism.

    There are also instances when Epeefleche has contacted friends who have then harassed me or disrupted things by trying to railroad or sidetrack discussions with off-topic and ad-hominem remarks. The latter has evidently happened with others – "the entire noticeboard was railroaded by some weird comments by User:Greg L".

    The evidence Epeefleche presents consists mostly of him issuing warnings and his friends supporting him. That his friends have turned up again here to support him in his goals should be no surprise to anyone, and frankly their opinions cannot be given much weight. _wjemather 08:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This user appears to be "hounding me."

Note: It appears that User:Gharr posted a comment to this thread just as it was being archived, which resulted in the comment being inappropirately appended to another thread. I've restored the thread from the archive, as Gharr apparently doesn't think the issue is resolved, but I do so being fundamentally unaware of anything about the situation and circumstances of the complaint, just as a matter of tidying up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This section of my talk page describes the situation: User_talk:Gharr#3rr.

I have seen nothing but bad behaviour from aministrators (I include reviewers in that group) I'm far from impressed and I am not happy to see biographies defaced and the reviewers and administrators just ignoring it for far to long--Jacque Fresco article.

I have not contacted this user called User:Sloane and my user page explains why: User_talk:Gharr#3rr. I'm not going to pretend to be nice to a user that is obviously abusive (the defacing of Jacque Fresco article and everyone pretending everying was fine for far too told me enough about this person and the way things are adminstered here) and hounding people is also not acceptable.

(Gharr (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC))--I await to be banned by one of these fine abusive reviewers and adminstrators one day...

See WP:BOOMERANG; you may not have to wait all that long. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack, the talk page was too long, could you please summarise it? Jammed, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't read it all. I've no idea what the anon post on the user page means, and the Venus page is passing-strange. Damned, Gold Hatthis user is a sock puppet06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm the user Gharr is talking about. First of all, I was not notified by Gharr of this, which seems blatantly against the guidelines of ANI (thanks to user:Gold Hat for informing me). Secondly, pretty much the only contact that I've had with Gharr, is me warning him of the 3rr rule , as I noticed a small edit war going on at The Venus Project page. This seems hardly like hounding a user. Methinks User:Gharr should learn assume some good faith. --Sloane (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And methinks this is just another user that fails to understand the difference between "Excuse me, you're violating our policies, here's what you did wrong and how to avoid this mistake in the future" and "Good day. I am Staler Moriarty. I see you're trying to enrich Misplaced Pages with Truthful content, which I can't allow because I'm evil! See these vicious and spiteful warning messages, they're what expresses my personal hatred towards all your efforts and my desire to see your purely constructive work being undone byte by byte while the administrator cabal laughs at your misery." No, it's not personal, it's a matter of competence from time to time. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm the person Gharr was involved in an edit war with. User:Sloane is not hounding you, and the links you've provided on your talk page don't even show any evidence of that (and two of the edits don't even point to edits made by User:Sloane, that should be grounds for a ban based on false claims). It seems User:Gharr is the one here with the POV issue. Gharr's personal blog has him as an obvious fan of the Zeitgeist/Venus milieu, and he's become a watchdog of those pages, and lashes out at anyone who dares make edits he's not pleased with (see the case with Sloane for instance, or the case of myself providing a scholarly take on Millennarian movements from Cambridge press, to which Gharr deleted).--Evud (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Also see this on Gharr's talk page where he believes there is a conspiracy afoot as to people editing The Venus Project.--Evud (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Section Missing From This Article

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

I made a complaint: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#This_user_appears_to_be_.22hounding_me..22

And nothing has been resoved from what I can so far see on your page...the document simply goes into the archives. Perhaps this page is simply a page for my opponents to attack me...

I'm not even sure if I have the access level to see a archived page? Where is it? What happens if the issue is not resolved? Is this how you greet all new editors here?

I've tried to do what I can, now perhaps you might do your part in informing me on what is going on...

My complaints are still listed on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gharr#3rr they have not gone away.

(Gharr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

As noted in the header, any topic without comment for 48 hours is automatically archived. While in a few cases this may be premature, most of the time it means there has been sufficient comment (some times no comment may be sufficient) so it's not worth pursuing the matter further, or at least not at ANI. The archives are near the top of the page right next to the table of contents (on the right). There is also a search box clearly shown at the top of the page although because our search algorithm can sometimes be a bit slow you may not always find what you want if it's only recently been archived (it didn't work for me). If you don't find it in the searchbox or you otherwise know it's recently been archived then checking out the most recent archive or in a few case the one before will do. In this specific case the most recent archive does indeed work, it's at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#This user appears to be "hounding me.".

I would note there were several problems with your original post. Do remember if you want people to help you, you yourself should make an effort to ask for help in a way which doesn't cause unnecessary work for others. 1) You did not notify the person you were complaining about. The header clearly says you should. (While this was rectified by someone else, they should not have needed to do so.) There are few good reasons for not doing so, the only one I can think of of the top of my head is if you've been banned from a user's talk page by the community or have voluntarily agreed not to post there after being asked (or otherwise to resolve a dispute). But even in that case you should clearly specify you didn't follow the requirements explaining why and asking someone to do it for you. 2) Several people already mentioned this directly or indirectly and I myself encountered when I first saw your original thread a while back. No one can really tell what your complaint is because you're directing us to your very, very, very long talk page and none of us want to try and work it out. It's possible if you summarise your complaint you may get better help. But I should warn you as others have already said from what we have seen there's a strong risk this is going to WP:BOOMERANG. So I would personally just drop it taking the advice people have already given on board.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Good advice, Nil Einne. I started to try to figger the problem, full of good will, but it was just too much work and TLDR, and I couldn't work it out from the user talkpage. Sorry, Gharr, but there's competition for admin attention on this board. You need to present your complaint in a more accessible and less time-consuming way. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

--(Gharr (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Thankyou for pointing out the archives, it has been most helpful. It shows that there has been not decision made—it has been left to drift into the disposal bin that you call the archives. Obviously the work load must be way too much for you administrators.

Please let me make it easy for you, this short but sweet passage might also be too long for you to read: say it rambles on, boomerangs will return, and you did not really read it before going on to do other more important things…

My long complaint did not only include User:Sloane it also happens to include you: Gharr3rr “User:Sloane has shown no reaction to the state of Jacque Fresco talk page that bordered on slander. The time frames of this archived document shows that the awful state of this document has been allowed to remained in Misplaced Pages for far too long.

--(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)) “

Perhaps the overloaded in work load for administrators explains why a page that clearly is slander against Jacque Fresco (on his talk page) was left unattended for so long. I understand that document might also be too long for you—so let me clue you in: try and search the document for KKK and see if you have time to go through it all…I am not impressed by a whole lot of stuff and that includes the administration here.

As for a boomerang, I believe it’s returning towards you (your own summary of the picture that Misplaced Pages wants to paint for all editors—one of adversarial contests and weapons. No doubt User:Sloane is a good student of your lessons with a straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me and yes he even appears unconcerned by the slander against Jacque Fresco (and yes the article was one piece when he put his 20 cents worth of comment in)).

Oh by the way, I’m sorry, did I not mention that I missed out on police training on how to track down abusive administrators and make short, accurate, and snappy reports on the evidence at hand.

From the side of the table I sit on I see abusive administrators and what I see as abusive and threatening tags sanctioned by the administrators—that you by the way. It is also my opinion, User:Sloane tagged this article on a Resource_based_economy for speedy deletion (just before he handed out a 3rr notice to me) much too quickly showing little regard for the person who made the article. --(Gharr (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

OK, so let me get this straight: Sloane's only direct interaction with you is a single 3RR warning? Stickee (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, us admins are volunteers. And, since we're not really obligated to do anything, we end up having this funny tendency not to help out people that go around bashing admins. If you want help from people, I really suggest you don't refer to them as "abusive." It's not productive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said last time, (and re: Lifebaka's point) we also don't tend to help people who can't explain what they're actually complaining about brief enough that we don't fall asleep reading it, particularly when what we do read suggests there's nothing worth reading. Also are you trying to complain to us about problems you've had with other editors or carry on a conversation with the other editors? If it's the later, take it to the other editors talk page. If it's the former, avoiding 'you' so much may help. Finally, if you have problems with abusive admins it would be helpful if you would specify who you're referring to. I appreciate you think all admins are bad for not dealing with your complaint but I presume you've problems with abusive admins goes beyond that and of the people you appear to have issues with (Sloane, Evud, OpenFuture) none of them are admins. Nor am I or Stickee or Demiurge1000 or Gold Hat or Beyond My Ken. LifeBaka appears to be the only admin here (and Bishonen who replied above). One more thing, I'm sure some here can tell you I'm a master of long posts myself. Yet even I couldn't be bothered making sense of what you were saying in your talk page. Most people are far more succinct then me. And none of us went to some special school. Take from that what you will) Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

so you checked the Jacque Fresco talk page for this ==> "KKK" <== and feel that the state of this slanderous page is okay. That the presence of User:Sloane(established history between me and User:Sloane) in this "Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page" counts for nothing (he/she shows little care about the "slanderous" state of the Jacque Fresco talk page--that much is clear):

• "A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced. Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)."

• User:Sloane is currently engaged in extensive edits on both The_Venus_Project and The_Zeitgeist_Movement. Given his comment, I might wonder why he is bothering—perhaps he is putting up a good old show of wiki-love for you upper admin types?

• I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows such slanderous talk page articles to remain for so long. From my point of view the system failed really badly.

--(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• Gharr makes reference to an article having been tagged for speedy deletion by Sloane. It is presumably this one, now a redirect to The Venus Project. That was speedy deleted by administrator 2over0 under CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement. That being the case, if it was Sloane who tagged it for speedy deletion, it was the proper thing to do. I hope that clears up and disposes of part of Gharr's complaint. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I and another user contributed to the talk page about the resource based economy and I felt the speedy deletion tag might not have given the user who created the article enough time to respond. A tag blanking <--! like this one --> the article out might have sufficed if there was also copyright issues. Such a speedy-deletion tag is aggressive in nature as was the straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me that followed shortly afterwards. --(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

The 3RR template you were given is a warning about violating the edit warring policy, and is given everyone who does so. So, do you consider yourself above this usual courtesy of being warned about policies before being blocked for violating them, or do you think that people should be warned about warnings before being warned? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And might I add, in terms of rudeness, an ANI report is way worse than speedy deletion which depends on content, not the provider of the said content and the standard warning given to everyone who breaks the 3RR, not just you. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For those unable to read the deleted history of the article, User:Sloane nominated it for G12 deletion as a copyvio of this page and it was deleted as such by 2over0. Reviewing the deleted content shows that it is indeed a verbatim copy of the Venus Project website with no OTRS ticket verifying any licensing agreements or releases on the talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ll Make the Decision For You (since this looks like drifting to the decision bin)

Okay, this lower section has been slightly less abusive then the first round this article was run through this section (so far), so I should be happy about that at least.

The facts are User:Sloane had history with me via the Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page." User:Sloane’s recent edits of The Venus Project have gone unchallenged because his/her show of power using aggressive speedy-deletion tags and straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me , both of which you support from what I can see so far.

Since you (and dude) are going let this ride to the archives a decision device I like to refer to as a bin, I will make a decision here for you.

Obviously people here don’t mind talk pages that are slanderous, and encourage reviewers and administration (both admin level to me) who don’t mind using grenades when gentle words might suffice. So if you give me aggression (and I especially refer to User:Sloane) I will react in kind. Misplaced Pages policy might indicate I should act as a mouse and cringe, but that not going to happen, so follow through in the style of attack I expect of you and act on that decision that is impending and decide I’m the problem not User:Sloane or the administration here.

No matter what decision (or no decision) you make, I am quite sure User:Sloane will win the day with your backing, but as for Misplaced Pages, I got really serious doubts about it’s long term viability using what I see as the current model of operation.

New users that don't have the powers you have are not your punching bags, and you administration types better learn that.

I should also thank you--watching User:Sloane's massive edits that are mostly unopposed has been most educational. --(Gharr (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

If that's your attitude, I don't see you having long-term viability here. First, you need to be more clear what you believe is slanderous on that page (ie. link to the WP:DIFF in question, not the whole page). Second, if you're going to attack, you'll get blocked, which only means you lose. There's no vindication in that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes

1. See

User:Anber Advertising

Anber's user page contains an advertisement for his law firm. It goes against the "Promotional and advocacy material and links" section of Misplaced Pages:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content. As I expected, he completely ignored my notice on his talk page. CTJF83 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus, at least the first external link, if not the second CTJF83 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me, although it's very hard to describe any business' activities without at least one wikipedian thinking it spam. The text about university/political background seems even more positive to me - but folk don't complain about that. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How much more advertising can you get then, "I can be reached, 24hrs/day at 1-888-989-3946, or from jail at 613-755-4008"? CTJF83 12:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that last is a little egregious. I've removed the contact numbers per WP:NOTDIR item 3 (also WP:NOTWEBHOST item 1 and WP:NOTADVERTISING item 5). I don't see any real problem with the rest though. EyeSerene 12:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok....the link to his law firm is borderline advertising...but I was mostly concerned with the phone numbers. CTJF83 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional (ie it's not in a section that says "For all your legal needs visit www.suegrabbitandrun.com"), I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. CTJF83 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Those links are still a little too ad-like for my tastes. I think they should be toned down further. It might be less of an issue for a very active editor or if the page was noindexed, but this isn't an SEO platform. I notice davidanber.com does use keyword-stuffed urls and I think the high search placement of wikipedia pages (despite nofollow) creates a COI for anyone desiring web visibility. Anyway it would look less spammy if the formatting and wording was made a bit more understated. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just to let you know I disagree that my phone numbers violates spirit or letter of wiki policy and I will be reverting back my space. Until/unless there is clear consensus to change it, or unless there is some kind of ruling, I would ask that you please not disturb my user page. Also, as a final point you guys should consider the bad faith motives of Ctjf83 in raising this. He and I have been major contributors disagreeing over a content issue (see our edit histories). It appears to be clearly bad fait to start nitpicking someone's talk page after such a contentious debate and this should reduce the weight of his contribution. Anber (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Including the IP, let me be number four in favor of removing the contact information, against your one. Is that consensus enough for you? Any ill regard Ctjf83 you think has for you, doesn't at all change the fact that this clear advertising should be removed.--Atlan (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Advertising is advertising, whether I have a dispute with the user, am good friends with them, or they are an IP or an admin. Also you don't need a consensus when you clearly violate policy, of which I linked you to 1 and EyeSerene linked you to 3. You just need to be blocked like your 2 cohorts on AVGN episodes, due to your continued disruption of Misplaced Pages. CTJF83 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

After that last statement, I think you should not be the one removing the information from his user page. There's no real urgency to the matter and whether we resolve it now or in a few hours doesn't matter.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's even close to borderline - it's advertising, plain and simple. Misplaced Pages does not exist for anyone's advertising benefit. The numbers should be removed. (Also, I know that the WMF is located in Florida, but if this advertising happens to contravene the rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is there any chance we could get in trouble? Law societies in Canada often have strict rules about where and how lawyers can advertise.) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough consensus for you? Take a look at WP:VAND, me removing advertisement is hardly vandalism. CTJF83 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Doc talk 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871. I believe a link to your website and saying you're a lawyer is probably as far as it should go. Adding phone numbers, what law you practice, addresses, etc, etc. is plain and simple advertising and shouldn't be around. Just my .02 Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I have once again removed the contact information, citing the consensus that has developed here that it was indeed unacceptable. I hope that will be the end of it, although let's leave this thread open for Anber to respond if he so wishes.--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not believe there is consensus. My user page is not optimized to make it an effective advertisement at all. Anybody arriving at this page likely looked for me by name and therefore the phone numbers are relevant information. Just because it is not to some people's taste doesn't mean it violates the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy. Secondly, there is a guideline, I believe that gives deference to user pages. Thirdly, this was started by Ctjf83. I have pointed out obvious bad faith in him doing this and I think this should be taken into consideration. I would like more input from the wikipedia community before my page is modified and I will ask you to respect this before arbitrarily deciding that's the decision. Anber (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." Doc#1 is correct. One does not find phone numbers in an encyclopedia. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene had it right the first time: I was really just reiterating one of his main reasons listed above for deleting the numbers. There's simply no purpose to have those numbers except to advertise: why else on earth would they be there? WP:What Misplaced Pages is not is policy, Anber, and I for one cannot see consensus to remove the numbers changing no matter how much time passes (unless there are some changes to the policy). WP:NOTADVERTISING applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." So it actually does "violate the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy". With this revert you have technically violated another policy It applies to any page, including user pages. WP:UP#PROMO would mean that the second exemption of 3RR would not apply. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 02:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are getting community input, and the stuff on your page is outside community norms as you can probably find by comparing it with contact info on other user pages. If there's a link to your own site and your site has your phone number, there's no reason to put your phone number on wikipedia. There's also no reason for your advocacy blurb; it should be enough to say something like "I work as a criminal lawyer in Ottawa, Canada, and my web site is here" with your site instead of Misplaced Pages's. Anyway, why do you say anyone arriving at the page likely looked for you by name? That does seem to indicate an expectation that people are going to find your Misplaced Pages user page with off-wiki search engines, which creates reasons to want to optimize the page. The usual reason anyone should find your Misplaced Pages user page is because they're editing Misplaced Pages and they view the page for some reason related to your editing, rather than looking for you by name. People shouldn't care about off-wiki visibility of Misplaced Pages user pages at all, as I see it. And, I don't understand why you're so worked up about this if there is really no COI involved. I think Doc9871's points are well taken. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The repeated claims of "no consensus" are incorrect and starting to sound like WP:IDHT, and taken together with the reversions this is looking less and less like a good-faith error of judgement. Even if there wasn't a strong consensus in this thread (which there is), Misplaced Pages's policies are developed by consensus so the fact that there's a rule at all indicates consensus already exists. As I posted on Anber's talk page, our facilities are provided by charitable donation and maintained by volunteers; even giving the appearance of abusing these is very distasteful. Given the lack of cooperation on Anber's part I've added a noindex tag to their userpage to exclude it from appearing in search engine results; if as Anber claims the links and information are not on the page for advertising reasons, they shouldn't find this objectionable. I'd suggest that further intransigence will result in administrative sanctions on their account (frankly they're lucky not to be blocked already for edit warring). EyeSerene 09:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that a similar argument concerning Anber's user page happened in 2007, which resulted in the page being deleted. So unless Anber is suffering from memory loss, he is well aware that the advertisement was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to Dynamic Legal Solutions? I've viewed the diffs; the article was blatant advertising and had to be deleted five times and eventually salted to prevent its repeated recreation. Given that, I think I'm justified in no longer assuming good faith. I've removed the spamlinks from Anber's userpage as well. The community does give some leeway in the matter of links on a userpage, but the important thing is not to take the piss. EyeSerene 10:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I was referring to his user page, which was deleted as advertising on June 19, 2007. But yes, there's also Dynamic Legal Solutions, and finally the David Anber article, which was deleted multiple times.--Atlan (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification (and sorry for my misunderstanding). Because the deletions are from a few years ago I feel they shouldn't unduly influence the current situation (many new users make mistakes), but as you note above they do serve to confirm that Anber can't plausibly claim to be unaware of consensus on using WP for self-promotion and advertising. Recreating a previously deleted userpage with similarly promotional content is also problematic. However, as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't restore the phone numbers and spam links (or anything similar) to Misplaced Pages there's no more admin action that needs to be taken at this time. I'd imagine they'll be cut very little slack if this becomes an issue for a third time though. EyeSerene 12:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The debate from a few years ago was not a page created by me although I argued for it being kept. When the decision was not to keep it there was never a problem with me using my user page to describe who I am. I think you need to calm yourself down. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The noindex helps a lot. Is there a way to make sure it isn't removed? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now hold on a second, after reviewing the consensus I was prepared to accept the removal of the phone numbers but the url links are acceptable. There are other users who agreed with that as well. Please restore those. Anber (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, please unprotect my page. I am prepared to accept the remvoal of the phone numbers but I have other changes I'd like to make to my page. Anber (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, there is no reason why my page, otherwise complying with policy needs a no follow code. This is not something done to user pages in general and this is unreasonably targeting my page. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to unprotect the page, this isn't an isolated incident. Anber likes to complain and revert until he gets his way. He should've been blocked for 3RR. CTJF83 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have never edited in bad faith and I accept the consensus over the phone numbers. I would like to make some other changes unrelated to this issue. Can an admin please assess this and unprotect my page; thanks. Anber (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Given that your userpage has been deleted for advertising before, I hardly think "unreasonably targeting" is a fair description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Use Template:Edit protected to get it changed. I have lost all good faith in you after this and AVGN episodes. Users need to be held accountable for their actions and just unprotecting the page shows Anber that he doesn't have to follow policy, consensus, and can just complain til he gets his way. CTJF83 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: All pages in wikipedia already serve all external links with nofollow (this prevents the link targets from getting any page rank from the wikipedia page). You can see this with "view source" on any page. The tag added to Anber's userpage is noindex, which additionally prevents the userpage itself from being indexed. I don't see why Anber cares about this, and his complaining about it (and his concern over nofollow) diminishes his credibility that he's not trying to use Misplaced Pages as search magnet. FWIW, I have long supported noindexing all Misplaced Pages user pages (I'd actually go a lot further than that if it were up to me). Anber, if you were concerned about nofollow because you thought you were getting page rank from its absence up til now, maybe this will put your mind at ease. We've been using nofollow for years so you were already not getting that page rank. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Google "Anber". What pops up second on the list? I'm not surprised that it's his WP page, really. It's by design, and hasn't been buried... Doc talk 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Shows you know nothing about SEO. I couldn't care less if anybody arrives at my user page by Googling my name. 1) because when they do that they get my own web page first and 2) because if they google my name, they already know who I am which means I don't need to advertise myself. Sometimes the stuff people say is lacking in a bit of common sense. If I had SEO'd this page, I'd have stuffed it with keywords making it likely to be indexed by people looking for lawyers in my area (which currently it does not rank). Anber (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting. I guess the noindex hasn't taken effect yet and google still have an old cached version of the userpage; let's see after another day or so. I hadn't googled "Anber" but I'd tried "David Anber" during the discussion and got the WP userpage on the second Google result page, but more recently (last night) got it on the first page. It and "Anber" at that time showed the WP sub-headings as separate links in the google results, which I hadn't expected, and it really increased the hit's visibility, very effective. For some reason I don't see the extra links in the google result when I try now, so I wonder what changed. It also wouldn't surprise me if the section headings have extra weight computing SimRank between Anber's user page and other pages containing the legal terms in the headings, or otherwise figure into the TSPR that purportedly affects result ordering when people do multiple searches on such terms (like when they're looking around for a lawyer). Such concerns were part of why I suggested rewriting the sentence containing Anber's homepage extlink, to replace the legal keywords in the link text (that could associate with his url for sim-ranking) with a generic word like "here". (Plus, his version just looks spammy).

  Anyway, since Anber says he doesn't care if people find his user page by searching on his name and since it looks to me like his userpage layout is gaming the system, inserting the noindex tag as an administrative remedy seems fine to me and Anber should stop complaining about it. The page sure looks to me to have numerous optimization characteristics whether by coincidence or otherwise. FWIW, there's lots of other user pages in Category:Noindexed pages as well, though most of them seem to be tagged sock accounts. If Anber still thinks noindexing his user page is inequitable treatment, I'll be happy to support any proposal he might make to noindex all user pages per NOTWEBHOST. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:FAKEARTICLE would seem to apply here. WP:MFD anyone? N419BH 23:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Anber will be pleasantly shocked I'm gonna say this...but no to MfD, as long as he doesn't have a phone number and it isn't overly promotional, there is no real problem. CTJF83 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention grabbing edit on World Down Syndrome Day page

User Pardk has used the above page to pass a message onto a named individual. He's made no constructive edit, just the insertion of a blank line and then the edit summary to leave a message. Could somebody revdel it please? User informed. a_man_alone (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF ... is this CSI or a joke? The user's talk page is even more messed up. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdeled. Dunno about the talkpage -- is this block evasion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They've just done it again here, using a couple of spelling corrections as a means to try to contact someone via the edit summary. I've issued another warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No message this time (but their talk page message is still there) but there is a name Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit summary and left a final warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that "Sarah Irwin" is in one of the articles that got edited, added 15 January. Is this some weird prank? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, "Sarah (Irwin) Ferguson", how curious -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that disseminating the person's name is a smart idea, given that the whole discussion began as a request to RevDel it as personal information? Think before you do things, maybe...? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the name of a person mentioned in the article who is long dead - can't see them objecting to it. (and the RevDel was to remove the edit summary abuse - there was no personal info in it other than a name that is far from unique). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Just doing a bit of Googling, I see there are many people with the name mentioned in the edit summary - 25 on LinkedIn, 132 on 192.com, etc - and there's nothing here that identifies any living individual. But if people think this name needs to be hidden, I have no objection to someone rev deleting my comment here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think revdel is needed. Concern over posting the name in ANI is why I first checked the article's edit history, to find where the name was first inserted into the article (Jan 15). If there is still suspicion about it (maybe there should be) then it might be worth trying to run down a source for the Irwin stuff in the article. But it would have to be kind of an elaborate hoax, if the January edits are connected with today's. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty run-of-the-mill vandalism technique - vandal A posts messages on article A, vandal B replies on Article B, A replies on A, and so on. I don't know why they do it, but if you do recent changes patrol you'll see it often. They were probably sitting right next to each other in lab. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the top of their Talk page, which makes personal attacks against another person. Corvus cornix_talk 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspicions of blocking a user based on unfounded allegations

A few days ago I came across an interesting claim (to say at least). An IP editor was complaining about the fact that Iaaasi has managed to block both of his accounts by (obviously falsely) claiming at least in one occasion that this users' accounts are in fact sockpuppets of Stubes99. His first account was OliverTwist88. After he was blocked based on accusations fabricated by Iaaasi, he obviously created a sockpuppet account GrandMariner. The SPI link quoted above indicates that his first account was NEVER blocked for socking, but obviously for disagreements between him and some other users on the grounds of the content of the Magical Magyars article (where I found his rant as well). The SPI block (linked above) also reveals a few additional facts: HelloAnnyong has admitted himself that OliverTwist88 was incorrectly banned by him and is willing to unblock one of his accounts (either this one or GrandMariner). Despite that Iaaasi has continued to assert that this user in fact is Stubes99. As if to provide an additional evidence of the contrary (though this probably wasn't the editor's intention, supported by the fact that he didn't even sign his note), presumably the very same editor has added the note above using his IP address (24.25.218.135). This IP address seems to point to San Diego, CA, so unless the user in question is using a proxy, he simply cannot be Stubes99. Therefore I suggest a proxy investigation of the IP address. If it turns out not to be a proxy, then this whole issue will be a fine example of the "work methods" of Iaaasi. Obviously he never assumed good faith in case of this user and the way he was accused makes one think that the editor's only fault was the fact that he had a different opinion than Iaaasi. This would be the second notable example of Iaaasi disregarding anything and anyone with an opinion differing from his own, and goes as far as removing academic sources if it doesn't fit his agenda. EDIT: interestingly enough this whole process was done well after Iaaasi has been granted his second chance to be a constructive member of he WP community. Unfortunately I don't think that this is what constructive attitude looks like.

What I suggest is restoring this editor's unrestricted access to Misplaced Pages for one of his accounts (he might choose which one) and clearing him all of the accusations that he has anything to do with Stubes99. Also, in the real world in such situations it would be a defamation issue of Iaaasi against OliverTwist88/GrandMariner. Do you happen to have a process that corresponds with this (maybe issuing a warning or something)? I think that nobody should get away with making one's life miserable using false accusations. CoolKoon (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reliable way to tell whether a given address is proxying remote traffic. Some proxies label themselves as such, others not. All kinds of spy-vs-spy crap might be going on. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When you edited this page to start this thread, a bright orange bar told you that you must notify any user you mention. I have notified Iaaasi. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought that since it's mostly about the falsely blocked user, only he has to be notified, which I did. CoolKoon (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, but WP admins have nevertheless managed to block a cornucopia of open proxies in the past few years. Therefore they MIGHT know something in regards these proxies that we don't..... CoolKoon (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some users on Misplaced Pages who know how to detect proxies. I am not one of them, but a Google check shows the IP 24.25.218.135 is blacklisted on five different blacklists see this chart, so it could very well be a proxy IP or zombified in some way. User OliverTwist88/GrandMariner was offered the opportunity by HelloAnnyong back in February to unblock one of their two accounts but so far they have not responded. --Diannaa 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they probably know some advanced URL trickery/traceroute magic that we mortals don't. There's something about this IP which makes me think it isn't an "open relay" though: OliverTwist88/GrandMariner seems to have been using this IP address for quite a while (several months I think) which probably means that he's editing from his workplace, which is a bigger corporation (smaller ones usually rarely have fixed IPs). His IP resolves to cpe-24-25-218-135.san.res.rr.com, which seems to be part of the internal systems of Time Warners (probably part of an internal SAN as the domain name leads us to believe). It could also be a fixed IP of a Time Warner Cable subscriber too. All in all I don't think that it looks like a proxy location (those have usually much more shady places an nonsensical or nonexistent DNS entries). He could still be using a VPN connection, but there's no way one could reliably detect that remotely. Traceroute didn't reveal anything suspicious either. The blacklists could be pretty much due to a badly configured SMTP server (there are servers that randomly probe IP addresses all over the internet for such weaknesses and exploit them almost immediately). Anyway, this is my 2 cents worth, if someone knows more about this, please try to shed some light into it. CoolKoon (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI 24.25.218.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is Not an open proxy as far as I can tell and there is no evidence supporting that claim. Being in a few blacklists is normal for most IPs. In the future, proxy checks should be requested at WP:OP. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This indeed shows that the blocked user has absolutely nothing to do with Stubes99 and Iaaasi's association has turned out to be a mere fabrication aimed at getting rid of this user for ulterior motives (the details of which are unbeknownst to me). Since the user's been made aware of this investigation via the talk page of his IP address, all that remains is his answer. Though I still think that a warning or something should be issued to Iaaasi to make him aware that he shouldn't go around accusing people like this. Unfortunately I don't know the exact procedure to follow about this. Could someone possibly lend me a hand in this? CoolKoon (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your request defies elementary logic. In a trial the judges are responsible for the decisioon, not the accusing party (Iaaasi (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

What are you talking about? I'm asking the judges to make a decision. What's illogical about that? CoolKoon (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a trial, so there are no "judges." The administrators will be making decisions or, if necessary, the Arbitration Committee will. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the SPI investigations where the respective accounts were blocked. I am not guilty if they were wrongly blocked, I only put the arguments and other took the decisions. I used a metaphor, I made a parallel between a trial and a SPI investigation (Iaaasi (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

It'd be nice and all if it'd be true. Unfortunately it isn't. You've asserted conclusions and statements which had nothing to do with the truth. You kept asserting that OliverTwist88 is a sockpuppet of Stubes99, which turned out to be false. This fact has been confirmed even by an admin who even offered to unblock this user's account. So if I translate it to your metaphor, it means that the defendant has been acquitted on all charges, yet (partly due to his own inaction and partly due to bureaucratic delays) he's still in jail. And sure, it's easy to ignorantly point your fingers at others then say that it wasn't you who made the decision. But what if those decisions were based on dubious proof? Because I'm afraid that that's what happened. I mean if I were an admin (which I'm fortunately not) and was presented with some claims of a user being a sockpuppet, I'd be tempted to block that user (especially if I'd see that claim as substantiated). However if this proof would later be revealed as "ganz falsch", I'd feel bad about it and not only unblock the blocked user, but would also issue a warning to the user who supplied me the misinformation. I mean you might've been given a second chance, but I doubt that the admins will take it lightly if you'll keep making others' lives miserable again. The choice is yours. CoolKoon (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I am sick of your abberations. I will not put your comments on this thread in account any more _{text added by Iaaasi} (22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Excueeze me?! My conscience is clear, I didn't bend the truth nor did I suggest that an editor is in fact an alias of a malicious editor and have him blocked this way. I've opened this thread due to the fact that the editor in question has been mistreated even though he didn't show malevolent intentions. I also think that scaring off users who mean well is a bad idea. CoolKoon (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He was already offered the possibility of being unblocked, so what do you want more? When will you stop begging for my block? Get used to it, I am not going to get blocked (Iaaasi (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• I am so sick to death of the bullshit that is constantly heaped upon this page. CoolKoon, Iaassi, do not address each other on this page anymore or I'll block you from editing. You've both said enough, and are just repeating the same tired whining about each other over and over and over, killing innocent electrons in the process. Nothing either of you two say here will change the outcome of this thread (whatever it is going to be). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A month ago, HelloAnnyong offered to unblock OliverTwist88 if they would agree to stop attacking other editors. I've reminded OliverTwist88 of this on his talk page. If he agrees, I imagine HelloAnnyong will unblock him (or, if they aren't around and I am, I will). If their behavior doesn't change, tho, I imagine they're going to be reblocked very quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it seemed as if he wasn't aware of it, because about a month later he posted this rant of his. Therefore I've tried to notify him via his IP about this ANI thread on his talk page and on the talk page of his favorite article too. This is the most I can do about this I'm afraid. CoolKoon (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious glitch (cont.)

This is a continuation of a previous section which began, "There was a mysterious addition of the phrase ' Bold text '...". (See Mysterious glitch.)

I discovered how the problem occurs. It’s the same as the scenario that Rich Farmbrough mentioned except It occurs on the CAPTCHA page that comes up when an IP tries to submit an edit with an external link. The toolbar loads after the CAPTCHA box opens, moving the toolbar up to where the CAPTCHA box was. Depending on timing, sometimes the click designed to get focus on the CAPTCHA box hits the toolbar instead. From my experience, the inadvertent addition to the edit is not obvious. It probably causes sufficient wasted effort and trouble on Misplaced Pages with "rvv" etc. to justify spending the effort to fix it. 75.47.154.175 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• You can leave a post at the technical village pump and someone with some experience or knowledge can figure out what exactly is going on and put a bug in the tracker. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• There's an edit filter in the works for this also, but I haven't enabled it yet. 28bytes (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While I welcome anything that would get rid of these erroneous additions that I see dozens of during any vandalism patrol, it seems that giving new users an edit filter rejection is only going to totally confuse them since they didn't deliberately add the text. It also makes me rethink the value of ever leaving a test edit warning on a user talk page. If our own software is effectively causing these things, we've been chastising users needlessly for a long time. Who knows how many other test edits are caused by similar things? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My thought was to just tag it so that recent change patrollers would see that there was a problem and fix it after the edit had been made. I agree that warning or preventing the edit would confuse and irritate newcomers and likely be more trouble than it's worth. I cleaned up a big batch of "===Heading text===" lines a few weeks ago, I'm sure a bunch more have crept in since then. 28bytes (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I've just done a search, and found and removed about 20 of them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • And several dozen occurrences of '''Bold text''' - that's a much harder one to find though -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
        • This search should help, though it's full of legitimate uses. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I've tried a number of different search approaches, but I always seem to get almost no hits, or thousands of false positives -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If the software developers put an extra line space between the CAPTCHA box and the Toolbar, that may fix it. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Expired Nuclear Ban and Probation - with new facts on the ground.

Given the banning Admin (Thatcher) is inactive, I repost here with apologies in advance...

This ban is now long expired, and actual events on the ground have given the lie to certain positions promoted by the unbanned side of the related content dispute (among them, that the people outside Russia are so superior that meltdown will never happen in developed countries.) "I listed how the people in American plants are different - reliance on insurance, independent inspectors, lack of incentive for malfeasance. You know all these things and continue to ignore them. Simesa 2 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)" ] So according to Misplaced Pages's preferred POV, "the people" "are different", and that difference explains safe or unsafe operation. These are people who risked their lives in hand-sewn lead-suits in 45 second one-time shifts to scoop hot uranium off the roof.

Note that I was banned for this edit: proving to my satisfaction that this was always about content and about promoting a "Nuclear Plants are the very model of a modern Major General" POV.

My opinion remains that the Arbcom turned a content dispute into a personal vendetta - "unpublishing" government-sourced content in the bargain - such as the navy manual on the effects of radiation, (by changing the case title from content to a single named individual), which feels to me like the mother of personal attacks. But I have respected both, and ask that you now respect the expiration and take down the Ban Banners on these articles. I even promise to be nicer to others than they are to me. :) Benjamin Gatti (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For background, it looks like Mr. Gatti was banned from those articles based on his indefinite probation as outlined in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Final_decision based on a discussion here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For even more background, it looks like Mr. Gatti was banned for simple content including this (talk) diff which even to those whose grasp of meaning is slippery at best bears no relation to "disrupting the operation of wikipedia" Benjamin Gatti (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same diff you present in your 'Note that I was banned for this edit' above? Why are you presenting the same diff again? Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer a question with a question, why did WP ban for simple content? There is nothing objectionable or "disruptive" in that diff , but it was used to justify a ban. One of the items floating about in wake of the Japanese tidal wave is the naked fact that my contributions on Nuclear were less POV and more fact than the Arbcom determined; History is, in short, a far better judge than the collective votes of the popular. Saying Nuclear is risk-free doesn't make it so - discounting the lessons of Chernobyl on plainly racists grounds doesn't make it any safer, and a Personal Attack by the ArbCom won't cure the Milk of Fukushima, any more than the Trials at Salem proved Witchcraft. It is beyond bittersweet to have been vindicated by this calamity, but the least Wiki can do as penance for "killing the messenger" is to consent to allow for government sourced documents on the risks of Nuclear energy to be published on their respective pages rather than banning editors for doing so. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Without defending BG's approach here nor suggesting his summation above and the alleged unfairness is accurate, is there any disagreement his topic ban has expired (like was it extended?). If not removing the ban banners would seem appropriate. If not, removing the banner in Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and whereever else it is would seem appropriate. Since the banner is not a template, does anyone have a list? Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Wow. It seems very, very inappropriate that that banner remains on talk the talk page-- it was added over five years ago, and their most recent ban expired on 31 May 2008, nearly three years ago. In any sense, we don't place those banners on talk pages, so I've removed it. I believe just the one exists. Swarm 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering how a group of five people have a "personal" vendetta, but I digress. Given the spiel above, I doubt Gatti will last long again. Yes, the ban has expired. The Probation is indefinite, though. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally attacking ArbCom certainly isn't a good start. Swarm 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the main one initially involved in this mess. Ben is Wikilawyering just like he always has. He always sees this as a "content dispute" when it wasn't. I'm personally anti-nuclear and the other main editor involved was neutral on the subject. Its all about the rules of Misplaced Pages and Ben has never shown any real push towards following them. And I think the fact that he picked now to come back shows that. He has an agenda and he will do anything...absolutely anything...to get it across. I think the original arbitration case shows that. And I think the fact that he's demonstrating the exact same behavior shows that he hasn't changed. He was banned for many, many reasons. His behavior was so extreme that he helped to scare one admin away (Katefan0). And another one (me) is now basically doing disam work because I've been completely scared off from doing administrative work outside of some anti-vandal stuff and article deletion work. Containing Ben is a full time job and I mean that sincerely. So yes the ban has lifted, but my guess is that we'll go down the same road. As I emailed Ben, I don't think he sincerely knows any other way of operating. And thats the thing. If his passion was just used for something else other than disruption and chaos, it'd be a great thing for the encyclopedia. But he doesn't care about Misplaced Pages at all. Just his pet articles. And I'm nervous about posting this as I feel like I'm opening up a can of worms. Ben is relentless. And I'd love to AGF here but I'm seeing 0 change. None. --User:Woohookitty 04:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a few admins can still impose a ban of up to one year, but further issues should be intolerable. A community ban is always a permanent option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm (talk • contribs)

Considering the tone of his responses already in this thread, to simple attempts by an uninvolved editor to bring additional background (shouldn't people have as much information as needed?), I agree that while the ban is expired the probation has not and while the 'badge of shame' of those banners can be removed any recidivism will likely turn out poorly for Benjamin. I'd have an entirely different feeling on this if he had taken the intervening time and made significant edits to the encyclopedia outside these areas, but I see sparse contributions. I don't necessarily blame him for ill feelings towards the encyclopedia and not wanting to contribute because of that, but it doesn't help your cause down the line to show that your problematic behavior has changed. Syrthiss (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi's complaint about User:Squash Racket and User:Hobartimus

I am filing this report because I want to inform the admins about the disruptive behaviour of these two users.

At the article Magical Magyars

Squash Racket undid with no valid reasons my edits. He tried to restore a link to a deleted image (File:Zakarias.jpg) and changed the lead, breaking WP:BOLDTITLE. He engaged in an edit war: , even if I explained him about what he is doing wrong: . The only thing that stopped him was the threat of breaking 3RR rule: "I don't make more reverts because I don't want to break the rule"

Based on talk page discussions, the most frequent name of this team is Golden Team, not Magical Magyars. The real question is which form of Golden Team shall we use, not whether we'll replace it with some other name. You know that very well, still engaged in an edit war coming back from a week-long block for exactly that.

You also misquoted me. I said: I don't make more reverts because I don't want to break the rule like Iaaasi did a week ago. Squash Racket (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

At the article Székely

Here the initial conflict was with User:Hobartimus, an editor whose open hostility against me was noticed also by the admin User:MuZemike: "It is clear that you are an enemy of Iaaasi"

He tried more times to re-add an unreferenced information inserted by someone. He broke WP:DE (the paragraph Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability) by adding an unsourced text and a flag that belongs to a political organization (Szekler National Council) and listing it as the flag of Szekely Land, an ethno-culural region with no official status and consequently no official flag. Instead of bringing citation, he asked me to prove that his statements are false. As it can be seen, also Squash Racket joined the edit war (Iaaasi (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

First you claimed it was an "unofficial flag" , than that it was not even a Flag of Székelyland unofficial or no. So was it or was it not used for representing Székely Land... You didn't provide any evidence for any of those claims. Btw there is no policy anywhere against having "unofficial" flags even if they were unofficial. Hobartimus (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the flag of a political organization. As you can see, it is written "The floating flag of Szekler National Council", you did not bring any reference for your statements (Iaaasi (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Not a "political organization", but an organization representing the Székely... You know the "Székely", as in the article in question where the whole issue took place. Hobartimus (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote: The Szekler National Council is the main political organization (Iaaasi (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

In case it wasn't clear I referring to the fact that they are not just any random organization, but one representing the Székely the exact topic of the article in question. Hobartimus (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is like naming the flag of the Chinese Communist Party the flag of China, because it is the main (and in this case the only) political organization in China. But it is not only about the flag, you tried to readd an unreferneced text ("The 16th century from the end of the remaining flags and uniforms show that the Székely people used the sky-blue-gold-silver and red and black flags."), thus breadking WP:DE (Iaaasi (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) That comparison is irrelevant as the Székely are not a country. And the flag was placed in the article body as it should be and not in any info box or similar. The comparison holds no water at all. Why don't you tell us what's really going on here. You realized yourself that you broke some rule and try to obfuscate this fact by quickly putting in a "report" to cover it up. Did I get it about right? Hobartimus (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is perfectly relevant, because you equalize the flag of Szekely Land with the flag of Szekler National Council, a political organization from Szekely Land. (Iaaasi (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Why are you two holding your content dispute here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute, he tries to add unrefenreced information (clear disruptive edit) and he does not want to accept wp:verifiability. It is an obvious case, if they don't get a sanction this time, I don't know what to think about justice on wikipedia(Iaaasi (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Iaaasi is right; any unsourced content can be removed on sight. It is up to the person who wishes to reinsert it to provide citations. Boing! said Zebedee is right too; this is a content dispute and there is no administrator action that need be taken at this time. I might suggest you all try editing separate articles for a while as this is the fifth thread at ANI from this group of users in the last ten days. None of the behaviour is bad enough to justify any blocks or other admin actions at this time. We are not here to mediate content disputes. If you can't figure out how to work collaboratively perhaps it is best to split up and edit different articles for a while? --Diannaa 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Iaaasi is right"... And that is all? I mean... no sanction? Not even an 1 hour block? I was indef blocked once for disruptive editing, and now no measure is taken?...It is not a common content dispute, WP:DE was clearly broken, I've proven that using diffs... What must happen to give them a block? Last week I was 1 week blocked for edit warring, and they never get anything whatever they do?(Iaaasi (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

1) We don't do punishment blocks, and the aim of editors in content disputes should be to get the content right, not to get the other editor blocked. 2) If this forum is swamped by you two arguing with each other for much longer, I expect someone will eventually block both of you. Frankly, there is far more important work to be done here than trying to sort out your endless squabbles - can't you just keep away from each other for a while? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, when I break rules I am blocked, but when these guys do it, "there is far more important work to be done". What can I say... a very "equitable" treatment (Iaaasi (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

I've expressed *my* opinion, and *I* have never blocked you - so you are getting no inequitable treatment from me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy is clear. Unsourced content can be removed on sight with an exception from under 3RR from BLPs. The article in question is not a BLP as such There is no 3RR exception here. Even if there was an unsourced (trivial and it's content uncontested) sentence involved (brought up after the fact as an ex-post justification). Hobartimus (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, Hobartimus says that policy applies only for BLP, can you please make a clarification? (Iaaasi (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Exceptions are very clearly listed as to what does not constitute a revert Hobartimus (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And once again the unreferenced argument about a trivial sentence was brought up ex-post (after the edits took place). So it is irrelevant to this discussion. That was never the issue. The repeated removal of the flag without any justification was the issue. Hobartimus (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Iaaasi: What he is saying that reverting someone who persists in inserting defamatory information into a BLP is an exception to the 3RR rule. And whilst we are talking about rules, here is the list from the Blocking policy as to what constitutes disruptive editing to the point where a block can be laid:

• vandalism;
• gross incivility;
• harassment;
• spamming;
• edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule;
• breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy;
• attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Misplaced Pages processes, whether onsite or offsite.

Typically when we are fighting vandals they have four warnings on the board before they get blocked for adding/removing content inappropriately.

@ Hobartimus: Iaaasi says there is no reference saying that the flag was used in the way described, and that is why it was removed. --Diannaa 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hobartimus "The repeated removal of the flag without any justification was the issue" Not only this was the issue. You were keeping inserting a deleted unrefernced text (Iaaasi (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

@Iaaasi the first time you have mentioned that you have an issue with anything being unreferenced as a reason for your reverting, was when you made your 4th revert, in a short amount of time, to the article previously all your given reasons were reasons about the flag ("not being official" and similar). After you made your 4th revert with the "unreferenced" comment in the edit summary I did not readd that one trivial sentence (in fact I did not readd anything). Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So if the text has no references, and the commmentary about the flag has no references, they can and should be removed from the article. --Diannaa 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus, please restrict your discussion to the content of the article and dont make personal remarks about who is or is not on a "spree". Thanks. --Diannaa 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you object I'll remove the spree part, (is it a negative word? you learn something every day) and will instead note that I observed that a large number of reverts were made by Iaaasi in a short time on the Székely article. Hobartimus (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a lot more neutrally phrased. --Diannaa 22:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hobartimus You are the one who makes disruptive edits and you still have nerve to accuse me of multiple reverting? (Iaaasi (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Let's not get into a debate about who is a disruptive editor because it would lead us far. I only said that you made reverts. I will apologize if it turns out that it was a false "accusation" and you did not make several reverts recently in a short period of time on the Székely article. Hobartimus (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind this whole group of editors of a few simple facts of life on Misplaced Pages:

• Be civil
• If someone reverts your edit, immediately take it to the talk page
• Quit throwing Iaaasi's past history up in his face. Just quit talking about it.
• All content needs to be properly sourced.

I am going to the gym soon and will stop responding to this thread. --Diannaa 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat something I said above: "If this forum is swamped by you two arguing with each other for much longer, I expect someone will eventually block both of you. Frankly, there is far more important work to be done here than trying to sort out your endless squabbles - can't you just keep away from each other for a while?"- If it carries on much longer, I'm going to propose an interaction ban on the two of you myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a uninvolved user (other than reading the previous complaint on the city page) I tried to sort out the dispute between Iaaasi and Hobartimus. It resulted in Iaaasi trying to use DR policies and others stonewalling them. I would agree that in the 2 subesquent threads I've seen mentioning Iaaasi, it seems like an oil/vinegar combination. I would endorse the bi-directional interaction ban. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"I would endorse the bi-directional interaction ban" - what does this ban consists of exactly? I don't want to get any ban just because of Hobartimus. I don't know what Hobartimus thinks of me, but I am ready to cooperate with him if he does the same, I don't consider him my enemy, just a user like any other (Iaaasi (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

An interaction ban means the two of you are not allowed to talk about or to one another. Basically, you are required to leave each other alone. Violation of that ban leads to blocks. So, if you two can't quit fighting, neither of you will be editing at all. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think an interact ban is not necessary yet (Iaaasi (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

If the arguing continues, it won't be up to you. Just take a break, have some WP:TEA and avoid one another for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexandre8

User:Alexandre8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - repeated personal attacks'

I reverted this users personal attack and warned him on his talkpage see here with a repeat of the comment and suggested he apologize, as per a discussion on my talkpage User_talk:Off2riorob#Rroland the user has not only refused to retract or apologize as suggested but has repeated the personal attack yet again. As such imo the user is in need of an edit restriction to assist him in addressing this repeated NPA violation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not even any of your business. The user is perfectly capable of writing this himself. Oh, I forgot to mention, the other user is stalking my edits and his userpage is completely FOUL! Alexandre8 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You call people nazis on Off2riorob's talk page and you claim it's none of Off2riorob's business? Really? Reyk _YO! 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's a challenge. Look at Roland#'s User page, and try not to through up. I'd get a doggybag at the ready. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC) p.s If you think this is about making me realise the evils of my ways. I'm already perfectly aware of them. what I did was entirely wrong, but I cannot stand that user's stalking/disgusting and offensive userpage. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're aware that what you did was wrong, yet you just made another personal attack? BurtAlert (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok well, In all fairness, look at his page first, and then you'll see that he's actually asking for this kind of behaviour, hence why he himself doesn't report people. This is someone ELSE reporting my behaviour. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• note - Alexandre8 has now removed the comments from his talkpage, they can be seen here. Basically, it was a personal attack on Rolands talkpage and then I warned the user and rather than retract the personal attack they repeated it on their talkpage and again on mine. As the person that saw the original attack and reverted it and warned, I am completely in my rights when the personal attack was repeated on two more talkpages to report the situation here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. You guys are all too used to people putting up a fight! I'm not!!! IT's the same rhetoric. Hands up I broke the rules. I know! All I want you to do is turn off "human droid" mode, and have a look at that users page, and have a good old laugh with me. And by that user I don't been rob. I mean Roland. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which Roland are you talking about? Could you put a link to his talk page? BurtAlert (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:RolandR With pleasure :P! Alexandre8 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the subject of Roland's page come up just a few weeks ago? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It's very controversial. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it did, also involving Alexandre8. Since Pedro was very clear here, I'm blocking Alexandre8. I suppose we can start out with 24 hours, but if Alexandre8 is really going to take the line "I can't help myself and I'll do it again" (paraphrased), this will rapidly increase in duration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre the Gr8 has a rather peculiar editing history. I might have said that last time too. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the administrative action. Rolands talkpage may be controversial but I don't see anything there that qualifies as a get out clause to personally attack him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it offensive. I might have said that last time also. But if Alex seriously cares about it, he should take it through a proper deletion request. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I consider the cartoon on RolandR's talk page similar to the use of the word niggardly; you might intend for it to be taken one way, but so many people are going to misinterpret it, freak out, and complicate your life, that it might make more sense to just not use it. I wonder if anyone who doesn't consider RolandR to be Stalin or the AntiChrist has politely discussed it with him on his talk page? If not, then... there's a suggestion. If so, then if you've still got a problem with it, try an MfD (there's precedent, I think, for treating a portion of a userpage as a userbox, even if it's not technically on a subpage).

  I'm also concerned that RolandR appears, from a casual glance, to still be following Alexandre8 to pages he has not edited before, and poking them with a stick. I've got little time this evening to look into games of silly buggers, but an admin who's procrastinating from doing actual productive work might want to look into that in more detail, and perhaps just force the two of them to avoid each other with an interaction ban. Just because Alexandre8 can't avoid becoming irrational where RolandR is involved doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the other direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot Requesting Assistance

See here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, shit. Skynet is becoming self-aware! –MuZemike 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, just a really neat script that Anomie built into the bot. All bots should have it, I think. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Asimov was right... GiantSnowman 00:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

talk:Muhammed

I have an editor Chowbok (talk · contribs) who is repeatedly removing an ongoing discussion about the images on the page. I realize there's a page notice about it, but I don't really care, and I'm more than happ to wp:IAR it as a useless and tawdry bit of bureaucracy. This is a valid discussion that should not be shuffled off to some subpage where people who have the article watchlisted won't see it. Chowbok seems willing to edit war over it (three removals in the last few hours , , ), but rather than reporting him for 3rr, I just hoped someone could restore the section he keeps deleting and give him a warning about page-ownership. Notifying him now. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this comment pretty much sums up this editor's attitude. "I don't care about rules, policies, or consensus when they apply to me, but can you please warn this user I disagree with for violating rules, policies, and consensus?" Having the image discussions on a sub-page is established by long consensus, and I don't see why Ludwigs2 gets to violate that just because he's upset that not enough people are paying attention to him.—Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified. further, another editor reverted his deletion, so simply discussing the issue may be sufficient. --Ludwigs2 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't keep reverting, but I would appreciate it if somebody could step in and enforce this consensus that's worked fine for years.—Chowbok ☠ 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. but yes, clariy would be nice either way. can someone advise? otherwise I'll just keep on trying to have the conversation over his interference. --Ludwigs2 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just "this editor", it's also this editor and myself. The Muhammad/images page constantly has users posting complaints that the images are offensive to Islam. The complaints are regular and pretty much the same for which the answer is WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not very interesting as a result and not many look at it. This thread is different. It's not looking at it from the Muslim point of view but considering whether the images fulfil WP requirements generally. Having looked at the archived discussions, this issue has not been properly addressed before, dominated as it was by Islamic view v. WP:NOTCENSORED. If it is relegated to the images sub-page there isn't the traffic to have a proper discussion. The editors who have objected to this have shown no interest in participating in this discussion whatever place it's in, and seem more concerned with terminating it as quickly as possible eg this DeCausa (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the deleted discussion in question is here. --Ludwigs2 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As the third editor...my point is that the relegation of the discussion to the other page is, in effect, a form of silencing. The main talk page, Talk:Muhammad, has almost 1300 watchers. The images subpage, Talk:Muhammad/images, has less than 150. Are there any other talk pages (outside of wikispace) that have this type of format, where one specific topic is relegated to a far less watched subpage? I have no problem with a "big red hand" notice at the top that says "No, we're not going to delete all of the images because it's offensive to your religion". I do have a problem with saying "...and if you want to talk about it, go vent somewhere else". However, as I've posted on Talk:Muhammad, I guess I (personally, not speaking for DeCausa or Ludwigs2) can handle the discussion going on on the images page, so long as whatever consensus is reached there is respected when applied to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a number of article talk pages have subpages for persistent discussions that are unlikely to go away any time soon. Talk:Myanmar has one for the naming dispute Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What I find a bit disturbing about this discussion is the idea that we should censor something "because Muslims might be offended". There's a whole lot of stuff in wikipedia that Christians would find offensive. Are they going to be catered to also? Or is there some double-standard being applied in favor of Muslim sensitivities? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear: this thread was not about removing images because they might offend Muslims. That's not the issue. Please don't go off on that tangent otherwise you'll miss the point. It's about OTHER problems withn the images. Not about Muslim complaints. DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the thread is theoretically about. Where to keep the discussion is up to you all, as it's not very important. But the arguments being made, to remove the images because they'll offend somebody, is actually important. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But that's not the argument. DeCausa (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an underlying reason for having the discussion. If there were no controversy about the images, I seriously doubt that you'd have brought up the topic.

I don't really care where the discussion takes place, as I have both the talk page and sub page on my watch list. I'm fine with having the discussion play out on the main talk page and move it to the sub page when it dies down. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. I firmly agree with WP:NOTCENSORED and religious offence is not relevant to my thinking - and I raised this thread. I have repeatedly countered requests from Muslims demanding the removal of the images because of offence - and will provide diffs if required. However, what I have said is that everyone has been so busy defending WP:NOTCENSORED that the normal discussion you would have on the images (as you would have for any article) hasn't taken place. DeCausa (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I'll tell you my reasoning. I have absolutely no problem offending someone at need (as anyone who's ever edited in my vicinity must be aware of), but I don't see the point in offending people without need. Most of the images of Muhammed on the article do not need to be there - they do not show or depict anything that cannot be handled equally well with different images or text explanations - and since they do not need to be there and clearly do bug people, common courtesy says we should remove them. If here is any image of Muhammed on that page that actually has positive value for the article, that image should stay regardless of who is offended; I just question whether any of those images actually has positive value.

The main problem right now is that we cannot even discuss whether an image has positive value because of people trying to disrupt the conversation. that's just annoying. --Ludwigs2 01:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There really is no "normal discussion" to have; we have an article on Muhammad, and we have fair use images of Muhammad that can be used to illustrate the article. Case closed. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The location of the discussion isn't really a big deal either way; you're (not "you", Ludwigs, but "you", everybody (including Ludwigs)) focusing on the wrong thing. Hopefully, I am considered unbiased and neutral enough to be trusted on this. I am about to flip a coin. Heads, it goes on the main article talk page. Tails, it goes on the image talk page. (No, really I am honestly flipping a coin). And the result is: Heads. There. Resolved. You may now return to your previous discussion, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, it's interesting that you have found that problem too now. I have had it on the radar for a while, and also mentioned it in some places (probably some of the discussions around autofellatio and similar topics where the censorship red herring regularly comes up). Now BullRangifer will be confirmed in his belief that we are twins... First time I looked, there were more depictions of Muhammad on Muhammad than there were depictions of Jesus on Jesus. I see that meanwhile the Christians have been active to rectify this. Currently Jesus wins 20:6, if we count the 12 pictures in the gallery separately. The page looks like a Catholic church, which is appropriate. (It would also be appropriate if it looked like a Calvinist church, though.) However, I don't see why the Muhammad article should look like a Catholic church. I think there is some systematic mobbing of Muslims from Misplaced Pages going on that simply can't be tolerated.

As it happens, I am currently involved with Criticism of Muhammad. Comparison to Criticism of Jesus is still very instructive, although the article has improved a bit recently.

And to anyone going to shout something about censorship, before making yourself ridiculous consider this: None of the depictions of Muhammad show anything but what the artist imagined him to look like. Therefore to the extent that the article is not specifically talking about (historical) depictions of Muhammad in the west and in the Islamic world, or about periods when such depictions were normal, they are just ornamental and misleading. We are not talking about the article Depictions of Muhammad, which will of course always look like a gallery. Hans Adler 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: The location of the discussion matters to the extent that in the event that a consensus develops for removing some of the images, other editors can then claim that it's not valid because it didn't happen on the article's talk page. However, I don't believe that we can solve this problem without (1) a huge centrally announced RfC, (2) Arbcom, or (3) a clear call to order from Jimbo. Or maybe the Foundation should give us something like BLP that makes it clear that abject nastiness of this kind is not tolerated. I am sure that for every radical Muslim who gets angry at the pictures we are losing ten moderate Muslims (think of Turkish intellectuals, NATO soldiers or Turkish winegrowers, for example) who wouldn't care about these pictures if it wasn't so clear that they are only there to show disrespect to their fellow believers. Hans Adler 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would that wikipedia would show such concerns over disrespect towards Christianity and Judaism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Try putting an image of this type on Criticism of Jesus, make it stay there for a week, and then come back so I can take you seriously. Compare this to the last image on this version of Criticism of Jesus, which was there for a long time until it was recently removed. Try adding "criticism" of the type "Jesus is a devil and first-born child of Satan" to Criticism of Jesus (I am sure this can be found, although not from Muslims since they accept Jesus as a prophet). Then look at the Luther quotation on Criticism of Muhammad. Hans Adler 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this old adage should apply to Misplaced Pages too: "If a public library is doing its job, it has something in its collection that offends every single person." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Best to keep discusson on the images sub-talkpage, even if it's not about Muslim cencurship. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comment to the article talk page, undoubtedly insulting people, and which basically says:

• if you don't know why there is a separate images talk page, you haven't read enough of the past discussions,
• if you believe through enthusiasm that you have something new to say, you haven't read enough of the past discussions (at the very least, doing so will 'cure' your enthusiasm)
• if you object to the way people react to your enthusiastic new idea, you haven't read enough of the past discussions

And, good grief, this one page has seen more "consensus can change" chants than any other I know of. You have to bring something new and compelling to this. And convince people that you have read all of the past discussions. Shenme (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threat

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lynne_Spears - a seriously pissed off IP has left a legal threat, though under the circumstances I can hardly blame them. Exxolon (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP text removed (by Courcelles), page protected (by Excirial). I have a hard time getting worked up about the legal threat, although the odds that the IP is actually the person they claim to be are pretty low, and in a way that's a BLP issue too (I think I'll go refactor that comment now). I'm curious why an attorney is threatening to hire an attorney to sue us... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The legal threat is obviously over the top and likely bogus, but the National Inquirer is not a valid source for the time of day, let alone BLP information. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"The attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This really needs a closer look. The IP doesn't actually claim to be the lawyer whose name is used; it just drops the name in as a possible contact. The news story has been circulating for years, and picked up by reliable sources even though it first ran in the Enquirer. It doesn't appear to be defamatory -- subject killed kid playing in the road in auto accident, found not to be at fault, not charged -- and there's no sign Spears or anyone associated with her has objected to the story in the past; indeed, there's moderately reliable sourcing that the subject has confirmed the story. (whether it really belongs in the article is a different issue.) I think the IP likely has nothing to do with the named attorney (who's prominent recently as the result of being on the non-Sheen side of Charlie Sheen lawsuits), and there's mischiefmaking going on, whether by a Spears fan who just doesn't like the story, or by a Sheen fan trying to stir up trouble for the lawyer. Either way, I think the lawyer contact information should be rev-del'd and an eye kept open for further IP shenanigans. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and speaking personally I don't feel it needs Rev Deletion, redaction is fine. The name & phone number are public record (it is listed on his website); my opinion is that deletion is only valid for non-public information. I suggest that nothing much else needs to happen (from an AN/I perspective) other than someone to keep an eye on the IP to help them out if they come back --Errant 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Article disruption by topic banned editor Jaimemichelle

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) is edit warring and has reverted the article Frank J. Tipler 3 times even though he is topic banned from doing so. . The ip is his as can be seen at . Note: I originally filed this as a sock puppet as I thought Jaimemichelle was trying to avoid the topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

His edit summary suggests he does not recognize the topic ban. Regrettably, it might be time to increase sanctions to a block. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor and IP both blocked for 1 week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Anyone is free to lift or modify the block without any need to contact me first, should they deem it appropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable use of Twinkle by User:PhGustaf

Over the last month and a half or so there has been a flare up of disputes on abortion related topics. Over this time User:PhGustaf has used Twinkle to revert several opposing editors during content disputes (see a few below). As Tinkle is expressly designed for non-controversial routine maintenance and to counter vandalism this seems like the inappropriate use of a tool. After being warned about this on his talk page PhGustaf's very next edit was to use Twinkle to make a revert in a content dispute on an abortion related article. - Haymaker (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• On the page "Abortifacient", and again
• On the page "Crisis Pregnancy Center", again on the same page
• On the page "Lila Rose", and again on the same page, and again
• On the page "Planned Parenthood, again on the same page, and again, and again, and again

This is a content dispute. You two seem to be disagreeing, at varying degrees, about specific pieces on a controversial topic space. Gustafs's twinkle use seems to almost entirely use edit summaries, explain the actions, and I'm not sure ever violate 3RR. There's 0 about this that involves Twinkle. Tools have restrictions because of their potential abuses. If someone uses edit summaries then worries about twinkle are no different than "abuse" of undo. If you have a content dispute or a 3RR dispute there are forums for that. But I feel like you've got a content dispute you want to elevate because you think you found a technicality. I disagree. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with using a semi-automated tool to perform a revert IF YOU LEAVE AN EDIT SUMMARY explaining the revert. This user did leave an edit summary in each of the diffs you gave. What is not permitted is using rollback or twinkle with no edit summary other than "reverted edits by xyz to last version by abc" or some such thing, unless the edit is vandalism, spam, a bulk action, etc. --B (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Duke of Pei

I would like other opinions on whether Duke of Pei (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs). Based on edit pattern and user name, I suspect that this is a sockpuppet, but I'd like some other opinions. --Nlu (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a loud quacker to me. Elockid (Alternate) 13:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. I've done it for you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as Yongle. TNXMan 15:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Padania article

Please excuse me if I'm writing on the wrong place, but I'm not sure if the case I'm reporting to you fits a more specific page.

Since January, User:Enok has made huge changes to the Padania article. Some were good, others were not accepted by other users (at least four: Filippo83, Keith 64, Dans and I, plus one or two IP users). We had a long time appeasing Enok and accepting his advices, as the article's history and the talk testify. However, Enok continues to remove the material he doesn't like from the article, in defiance from other editor's will. Filippo83 and I started to rollback him, but nobody of us wants an edit war. Also Therequiembellishere noticed Enok's actions and rollbacked him. Keith 64 showed up in talk page to urge him to stop. Filippo83 proposed that we should ask help to an administrator and that's what I'm doing now. In the last case Enok removed opinion polls and the Padanian flag proposed by Lega Nord. Any help and advice from an administrator is welcome. Thank you so much for your attention. --Checco (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Enok appears to be taking ownership of the article. Breaking parts of it into a separate article that focuses on the independence movement may be a good idea, but I see no indication of consensus to do so. In any case, it's a content dispute that likely needs to go into the resolution process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Checco's speech: he summarized the facts as they happened, and I do support his position. I also agree with N5iln's position.

Filippo83 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Checco, it is mandatory that you notify editors when you start threads about them on AN/I, per the big orange box at the top of the screen when you edit. I have done this for you, but please remember in the future. I have warned Enok about edit warring, but further engagement will probably be required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to N5iln for showing up. I will have no problem in going through a resolution process, but everyone here should note that there is already a consensus in the talk page and that consenus is opposed only by Enok, often in subtle ways. I'm also wondering if Enok's actions can be identified as vandalism, as other users suggested in the talk, or at least as lack of Wikitiquette, civility and respect for others' opinions...

@SarekOfVulcan: Sorry about that. I notified Enok in the article's talk page first (as he sometimes contributes without logging in and he always shows up at the article) and I would have notified him about thje ANI in his talk page soon. You preceded me. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Janos Boros (3rd nomination)

Can we get a few more eyes on this please? It's becoming a mess, with cross-wiki canvassing and apparent nationalist bickering on my talk page (which I just collapsed). T. Canens (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of process WP:CHILDPROTECT issue

WE have a New editor Cjgraham (talk · contribs) who basically popped up on the talk page just to attack another editor as a child pornographer . Given as none of the instructions at WP:CHILDPROTECT make it clear what we are supposed to do, I bring it here. A Block is probably in order and REvdelete as well but further action may be needed. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly notify Cjgraham; if no one has done so when I've finished this post I will do so. Secondly, accusations? With any rationale? Sounds more like a wp:harass than a wp:childprotect. Also, out of process??? I'm confused. Are you saying Cjgraham was out of process? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically when it come to this you dont make accusations on Wiki but Email stuff to Arbcom your concerns and let them take appropriate action. Accusing on the talk page is out of process from the proper procedure. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Cjgraham; it seems s/he was making a fuss about an image on Commons, now deleted. I suspect a troll. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 17:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops my mistake The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A good faith mistake is better than an unreported issue which turns out to be sinister. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IP with a problem

Could an admin review this IP's edits and take appropriate action please ? I've come across his edits a few times and I think Misplaced Pages would be better off without him. This edit where he lists biracialism as a congenital disorder is fairly typical. This contribution is also an example of how he likes to spend his time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed they've had hardly any warnings - I've given one now for that latest change -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Long term harassment of user:Hohenloh by user:Freshstart101

I am not sure how far back this goes or what was the original interaction between these users which triggered this, but starting with IPs from early 2010 and continuing today as Freshstart101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this editor keeps badgering user:Hohenloh to essentially acknowledge that they should be on good terms either Hohenloh likes it or not. What disturbs me is the length of this campaign that this person has waged against Hohenloh. I would like an interaction ban at a minimum for this user from ever contacting user:Hohenloh again. Thank you. Here are some diffs to illustrate my points starting 26 April 2010 and ending today:

• Revision as of 04:12, 26 April 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.96.88 (talk)(→Why are you behaving like this?: new section)
• Revision as of 16:15, 30 April 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.210.11 (talk)(→Reported on ANI: new section)
• Revision as of 18:35, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(Undid revision 359933761 by Hohenloh (talk) I am doing this in good faith, as I don't sincerely believe you could be so callous.)
• Revision as of 18:57, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(Undid revision 359940871 by Hohenloh (talk) What have I done to earn such contempt?)
• Revision as of 19:01, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(If they should strike you, then offer the other cheek.)
• Revision as of 19:04, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(→Lets get perspective`: new section)
• Revision as of 16:09, 11 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.45.207.131 (talk) (→Are we cool yet?: new section)
• Revision as of 17:45, 11 May 2010 (edit) (undo)SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)m (Protected User talk:Hohenloh: per user request on RfPP (
• Revision as of 18:18, 25 May 2010 (edit) (undo)Horologium (talk | contribs)(→Discussion on my talk page: new section) Here they involve user:Horologium in their bizarre campaign to make "amends" with user:Hohenloh.
• Revision as of 14:23, 23 March 2011 (edit) (undo)Freshstart101 (talk | contribs)(→Dear Sir: new section) Dr.K.  19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In previous discussions, the user concerned said (inter alia) "I find your NPA policy to be an utter joke, ...", "I despise your policies", and "My God, the contempt I hold for this website at this very moment is overwhelming". Unless his attitude has changed drastically, there is no place for him here. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not so much concerned about the place of this person here or not. What concerns me is the persistent badgering of user Hohenloh over such a long period. Dr.K.  19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The examples you quote are almost a year ago. I was so ashamed of my conduct after that that I completely removed myself from this site in self imposed exile. To be honest I think this is all a little much, my history is well known and I make no secret of it. As the 'book of evidence' alludes to, my most recent interaction with the said user was in May 2010... to suggest that this is a persistent campaign of harrasment makes the word 'exaggeration' seem a little... well... exaggerated. Freshstart101 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The jury should be pleased to learn that an attempt to was rejected by the originator of this report. Whether this changes anything with regards to the motive of the reporter, I am unsure. Hopefully we can arrive at a solution where I can edit wikipedia unharassed in the future. Freshstart101 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved in your dispute with Hohenloh therefore there is no motive on my part other than to make you understand that if Hohenloh does not want to interact with you, he shouldn't have to. If you just forget about pursuing your long-term goal of making him accede to your demand that he should be on good terms with you, or acknowledge whatever you said he has to acknowledge, then this can be resolved. Dr.K.  20:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are backtracking. Fine, I'll put my cards on the table. You wish to someday be an admin. In order to achieve this goal you need to display your zeal for dealing with perceived troublemakers. THis decision to report me should have been Hohenloh's alone. Yet you intervened and manufactured a drama out of this for no reason whatsoever. THis is part of the reason why wikipedia is plagued with personality politics and contrived drama of this sort. This report was malicious and personally offensive. If hohenloh doesn't wish to respond to me, then I'll live with that. But your behaviour is open to question here. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You call my clarification "backtracking". And you are opening a crystal ball and looking at the future and you claim to know my wishes. What can I say? As far as the report being malicious, I am making factual statements about long-term demands by you focused on a single editor. Your allegation of this being malicious is, well, bad faith on your part. Dr.K.  21:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something Freshstart conducted his campaign in April and May 2010 (according to your diffs), then stopped (apparently dropped out of WP) and then made an admittedly slightly strangely worded apology this month. Why is the last post harrassment - unless you are saying it's sarcastic. Is that the point? DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that anyone who focuses on a single editor with a single bizarre demand and resurrects the same bizarre demand after a year has passed, causes the other editor to be at least concerned, disturbed, worried or worse. I call this harassment. This long-lasting focus on a single editor (Hohenloh) and for a specific purpose, to acknowledge good relations with Freshstart, is bizarre and disturbing. Dr.K.  21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he could, as he implies, have a guilty conscience and want to make amends. We should perhaps WP:AGF. I think you can't really say that apologising after a long gap constitutes harrassment. The only doubt I have is if the apology is ironic (eg signing off "your humble steward" etc. Why isn't Hohenloh complaing btw? DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the whole tone of the message: quote: "Would you condescend to give me a reply", the closing remark as you mentioned etc. don't make this message look genuine at all. But even if it were genuine, Hohenloh seems unwilling to engage with this person, as is his right. So even if someone's intentions are good, pursuing them on an unwilling partner is harassment. Have you heard of the persistent suitors of Penelope? Dr.K.  21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but WP:AGF. If I have a little flair to my prose, surely that is no reason to condemn me? In fact you understand the etymology of 'condescend' you would understand, that in this context it was very respectful of user:hohenloh. 'Condescend to help me', would be something a Roman citizen would say to the emperor if he was requesting something. It is a recognition that the ball is in hohenloh's court and that should he choose not to condescend to give me a reply then I will live with it - like a good Roman citizen would!! Oh, and AGF. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AGF is irrelevant here. Even if you have the best of intentions, Hohenloe doesn't wish to play ball with you. You said: It is a recognition that the ball is in hohenloh's court There is no court and no ball. There is no game. If you understand that, this can be resolved. Dr.K.  21:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you yet realised that you have invented a drama here? If hohenloh reverts my edit... SO BE IT. Get that into your head. Its not harrasment if your apologising and willing to accept anything he/she says. Honestly. You are manufacturing drama for its own sake, its quite annoying. Just admit you are wrong and let us shut up this stupid thread. I've said over and over and over again that all I did was apologise and will accept it if he ignores it. Jesus Christ. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Dr.K. is suggesting quite a few disturbing things of his own. He is alledging that I am in some way 'disturbed', even though I went out of my way to show contrition (Absenting myself for nearly a year) and then went out of my way to apologise after the event. My motivation is straight forward; Hohenloh is a prominent editor in an area that I myself am interested. It serves no-one any good if we hold animosity towards each other. If he wishes to ignore me then I'll live with that. I'm not obsessive. I'm genuinely sorry about my past behaviour.

I am eccentric. 'Your humble steward' is an obscure Irish literary reference that I think hohenloh might have got. If not, then so well. What can I do. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I think this is an argument over nothing. Freshstart101 has apologised for actions from a year ago (if in a slightly flowery way), and Hohenloh is free to respond or ignore. I don't see any need for any admin action, so I'd suggest we just leave it at that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, I was going to say the same thing. If he approaches Hohenloh again (if Hohenloh doesn't respond to his aplogy) then maybe admin action would be looked at then. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I tried to prevent in the first place. To the extent that no more unsolicited friendship/reconciliation messages are directed at Hohenloh in the future, it is fine with me. And I wish Freshstart101 the best in their future endeavours. Dr.K.  22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah right. Not only have accused me of 'long term harrasment' but also say I am 'disturbed' and actually accuse me of being ungenuine. You created this drama for its own sake, I really don't know why, maybe you simply enjoy. Frankly I think some kind of apology is in order, but I've quickly come to learn that rules of wikipedian civility simply don't apply to perceived 'outlaws'.

Not once has Dr. K being pulled up for this by admins or mods. Shameful. Freshstart101 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on, can we please drop this now? What I see is good faith from everyone, but perhaps just some misunderstanding. There is no admin action needed here - nobody to block, nothing to delete, nothing to protect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two pages wot need deleting

Hello all - I PROD tagged two pages a week ago, specifically Greg Secker and Knowledge to Action. The less I say about the subjects of the articles the better... suffice to say they're rather litiguous ;)

Pages are blatant adverts in any case, albeit better done for that kind of thing than most wiki adverts, which is presumably why they've survived so long (if there are any bored wiki detectives then maybe you'll find some huge paid-to-edit ring. Or maybe you won't :P

Anyhow, the prod time is up, so if anyone wants to do the honours.... Egg Centric 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any reasons given for the PRODs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's yer reason up there. They're totally unnotable and the articles are clearly adverts... Egg Centric 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean the reason needs to be IN the PROD at the time so that people can ponder it, not given on this forum a week later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Boing!'s right on this one, Egg Centric. I've contest both of the PRODs and copyedited them with a chainsaw to (mostly) fix spam issues. There was nothing verified left on Secker's article, so I redirected him to the company. AfD it if you wish. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards