Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tachyonbursts (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 29 April 2008 (→User:Tachyonbursts: unfounded allegations will do us no good). 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)

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

Dana Ullman and the Homeopathy probation

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

The discussion is wound out. It is degenerating into argument. I have reconsidered the situation and touched base with a couple of unconnected sysops for a sanity check. User:DanaUllman is under a three month topic ban from homeopathy articles, broadly construed but not prohibiting participation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. This has been noted at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. A review of the situation and touching base with uninvolved admins did not dissuade me from upholding the topic ban, on the contrary, it convinced me it may be insufficient. However, an arbitration case is pending on the issue and three months should more than cover the time needed for ArbCom to reach its conclusions. Just to note, I have informed Dana of my decision not to overturn my action, beseeching him to reconsider his approach. Vassyana (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• DanaUllman (talk · contribs) informed as noted above (diffs break the discussion archive template).

Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.

We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him.

Scientizzle responds:

Ullman continues to say that Scientizzle supports him, despite his objections.

Scientizzle sees this, and asks:

Ullman responds... by arguing with Scientizzle that he, in fact, supports him.

Note: Ullman's link to Scientizzle's comment is wrong, it should be

We've gone beyond parody into full scale trolling here. Ullman:

• Argues with Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supports him.
• Claims that Scientizzle did not provide a complete quote, while he... uses elipsis to change the meaning of Scientizzle's quote:

Ullman says Scientizzle says:

“

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.

”

However, What Scientizzle actually says, in full, is:

“

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms." statement). — Scientizzle 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

”

The words Ullman deleted, while criticising Scientizzle for not quoting his full statement, COMPLETELY CHANGE the meaning of Scientizzle's remark away from being about inclusion of this study at Potassium dichromate.

Background

We start at 15 January of this year, in which Ullman is complaining that he was reverted. He claims the resons are unknown, but his edit not only adds the study, but changes wording to add a strong homeopathic bias to the descriptions more favourable to homeopathy, and removes all critical content, claiming it is not specific enough to the particular homeopathic remedy.(See edit summary here).

He edit wars over its inclusion for a while: Arion 3x3 joins in the edit-warring fun: Then the page is protected:

Between the 15th and 26th or so of January, large sections of the talk page are spent discussing this. On 30 January, Ullman repeats his points, and insists it be included. and is again shot down.

No further discussion on the talk page occurs between February 3 and 19 April. At which point... Ullman brings up the study YET AGAIN, claiming that a few socks that were active at the time meant all previous discussion should be ignored.

He is short down again, by several people.e.g

21st April, he makes the same points again:

He claims previous discussion is "inadequate" and that:

Consensus again goes against him, so he claims that the five or six other editors are "stonewalling"

Baegis eventually archives the discussion, using Template:hat to avoid further disruption.

Ullman objects to this, and tries to pull other editors in to continue to beat the dead horse.

In short, Ullman has gone beyond tendentious editing into full-scale trolling. Homeopathy is under an article probation (Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation). Ullman should be promptly banned from all homeopathy-related pages.

There is, of course, a current Arbcom case, but Ullman is doing this trolling in the middle of it. Arbcom is not a protection from sanctions, particularly from ones like a topic ban that do not prevent the editor from editing the case pages. In short, if this article probation is to be meaningful, Ullman should be topic banned, and probably should have been some time previously.

This evidence has also been submitted to the Arbcom, of course, but it's probably going to be at least a month before they make any ruling, and the disruption is ongoing right now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses

Ho, hum. That definitely seems like the kind of problematic behavior (civil pov-pushing) that we are so bad at dealing with. Altering the wording of a quote in order to change the meaning is quite deceptive. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated on an area already under probation. Notwithstanding the current ArbCom case, an injunction that would prevent User:DanaUllman to continue this sort of behavior until the arbitration case is concluded would have my support. henrik•talk 10:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) has been placed under a three month ban from all homeopathy-related topics (broadly construed). Baegis (talk · contribs) has been warned for incivility. This has been noted at the current ArbCom case. Vassyana (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. ArbCom can always chose to modify it, if they see fit. henrik•talk 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Baegis should have been warned, though - after five pages of Dana being disruptive, it's a bit much to give a warning because an editor got mildly upset at the person causing major disruption. It's things like that thatt allow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to be used as a weapon against core policies, particularly against WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. (Vassyana is, of course, right that it wasn't very civil, and it was only a warning, so, you know, I don't want this to be seen as an attack on Vassyana's judgement, but I do think we could all use a big chat about Civility, if only because we're basing blocks on a policy that considers racist attacks less of a problem than using "vandalism" to describe a really awful good faith edit. Yes, really. WP:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility. ) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the warning was appropriate. I don't think that a block or topic ban would be appropriate, in part because the frustration is understandable. However, lashing out with insults is not a solution, and will only worsen already bad situations. For some edit warriors, no comment on this particular case, a hostile response is the worst response. Very often, for those making cries of oppression/censorship/discrimination/etc, being attacked both validates their viewpoint and gives them ammunition. CIVIL is not the problem. On the contrary, it's essential to a cooperative working environment. There are a lot of solutions for the problem, but flinging insults (regardless of the reason) is not the answer. On the contrary, it's utterly counterproductive. Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, right in every point, but expecting humans to always behave sensibly is a lot to ask =) It's probably not important in this case, but it is worth discussing where the line falls. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, we're all human and thus suffer from that pernicious human fallibility. :) That is part of the reason I didn't use a "standard" warning (template or not). I encouraged him to walk away from such situations and not to let his frustration get the better of him. There's a huge distinction between relatively isolated incidents (the rude comment by Baegis) and a continuing, tendentious pattern of behavior (the stumping by DanaUllman). I probably would not have even bothered with a warning if he was not previously informed of the article probation and previously blocked for incivility. In this instance, the warning served as a heads up and good faith exhortation to walk away from such frustration. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action, Vassyana. This line of argumentation was well past surreal, a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I'm glad we can move on. — Scientizzle 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is well-past time for the community to address these types of issues. Disruption is disruption. With new editors, we should accord them good faith and earnestly attempt to assist them in comprehending and acclimating to the principles and accompanying rules of Misplaced Pages. However, when someone has had such things explained to them multiple times and the person should clearly be aware of what is (and is not) acceptable, it's time to start banning them from topics where they cannot work productively and blocking them if the disruption moves beyond one or two topic areas. There is problematic behavior on "both sides" of many disputes and we need to say "enough of this nonsense" to all disruptive parties who know better by now. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to additionally comment that many times it is said that some people are acting in good faith, in their defense. I want to state, unequivocally, that good faith and intent is not an excuse for disruption. For example, someone may in all good faith be advocating for a particular POV, in the beliefs that it is best for Misplaced Pages, but that is still completely unacceptable. Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, hello, Vassyana. I assume good faith, and I have a heightened respect for editors who voice critique of my work IF and when they don't have a content dispute with me. Needless to say, it is more difficult to hear critiques from editors with whom there are content dispute because it is more challenging to separate out the critique of my "style" than critique of my "content." That said, I wish that you would have at least heard from me before issuing your topic block of me. I would first like to ask you to reconsider your decision to topic block me for 3 months. Part of the problem here is the misinformation that you have been given. For instance, Shoemaker's Dream asserts, “Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.”

First, I never said that Scientizzle "supports" me. I only wrote that Scientizzle supports the inclusion of the reference to this study (and his quote confirms this). Although Scientizzle only wants a "minimalistic" reference to it, he said that he wanted at least some reference to it. As such, archiving this discussion while it was still active seemed wrong to me. Further, Shoemaker's Dream makes a more outlandish statement. He said that I wrote that there was "consensus" for including reference to this study, and yet, despite giving many diffs, he doesn't provide any diffs for this wrong assertion: "We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him." I NEVER said or suggested that there was "consensus" for this study. I was simply against archiving dialogue that was still active. In fact, just hours previous to Baegis archiving this dialogue, Shoemaker's Dream asked me a question to which I responded. I actually thanked Shoemaker for asking this question, and I gave him a substantative response, quoting an editorial in the Lancet (!) in reference a 3-study meta-analysis on the homeopathic treatment of allergies. Although this subject was not on the direct topic of Potassium dichromate, several of the editors with whom I was in dialogue on this page had asserted that there was no notable research with a result that showed that homeopathic medicines worked beyond that of a placebo effect. And yet, "coincidentally," my reference to the Lancet editorial AND the meta-analysis was "archived" within hours. I was objecting to the archiving this active dialogue, especially in the light of the fact that there was much earlier conversations (and non-active ones) that seemed more appropriate for archiving. Vassyana, rightly or wrongly, you have chosen to block me in the middle of the Arb Committee hearing, and although you have not blocked my participation in the hearing, you may not be familiar with the gaming of the system that some editors are using to block and mute me. It seems obvious that Baegis' decision to archive this ACTIVE dialogue and to do so initially without consensus seemed wrong. I urge you to re-evaluate your decision. DanaUllman 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana is now misrepresenting Scientizzle, Shoemaker, "other editors" on Potassium dichromate's talk page and himself, all on the same post. That's a remarkable feat. I think that it should be rewarded with a 1 month extension to his ban for trolling ANI, for still refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing from his part, and for still insisting on the damned Lancet editorial thing that has been explained to him several times by several editors.

It has gotten to the point where I am so used to his assumptions of bad faith that I almost failed to notice "the gaming of the system that some editors are using to block and mute me". I warned Dana for bad faith assumptions --Enric Naval (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear that I had meant he said there was consensus in the past:

However, that there was "consensus" for its inclusion at any time (the only time I am aware it was in the article at all was during Dana's edit warring for its conclusion, 15-19 January), let alone the "several weeks" Dana claims is something I'd need to see proof of before I believed it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for archiving that particular thread were that the topic was in no way helping the article because consensus had been established, so much so, in fact, further discussion for inclusion woud be disruptive and it was starting to veer off-topic. No one else voiced disapproval of my actions. That's all I have to say about that. Baegis (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms." statement)

For the sake of argument, if one had only seen this quote by me, one might reasonably think that I support inclusion of this damned Frass et al. paper, in some form or another, in some location. However, I repeatedly made multi-faceted arguments against inclusion; in the context of these statements, that Dana assuredly read, there is no reasonable cause to state that I want "at least some reference to it" (as Dana states above). Consensus was decidedly against inclusion; I am decidedly against conclusion.

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here (who eliminated all reference to its use in homeopathy), as shown by my simple inclusion of general homeopathic information with no reference to Frass et al. The provided link directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic of how & why homeopaths use Potassium dichromate. (However, I do not support the inclusion of Frass et al. in any other article, as most of my objections against inclusion are independent of the article in which the reference might appear.)

un-banning Dana

For admins tempted to un-ban Dana, please notice that Dana has:

• given no signal of understanding or acknowledging why he was topic banned
• not given any signal of regretal for his actions
• actually repeated on his post the same behaviour that got him topic banned on the first place
• cherry-picked Scientizzle's comments, look at Scientizzle's complaint that he never agreed with Dana and his implicit agreement with topic ban and archiving of discussion in current form
• never mentioned the real reason of why he was banned, which was misquoting Scientizzle in a way that has a zero percentage of being cause by chance, in order to support a particulary outrageous point to support a position that he has been disruptively arguing for months.
• subtly misrepresented other editors' position and his own position, (on ways too long to discuss here, continuing a pattern of behaviour that has been analyzed to death on the arbitration case)
• claims that Vassyana has been given misinformation and implies that Vassyana would have had at least to hear from him before topic banning, and would like Vassyana to reconsider his decision. However, Dana was banned for spreading misinformation on the first place, and, you see, not that I want to assume bad faith or something, but maybe Dana intended to give misinformation to Vassyana to avoid the ban just like he is now doing on his post here. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep Dana Ullman banned. Their personal beliefs about the topic are so strong that no amount of mentoring seems to be sufficient to bring their editing into compliance with minimum requirements. At the same time, Dana should be treated with kindness and respect by all. Jehochman 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of other sysops on this issue. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I'm hardly an uninvolved sysop, but I think you made the right call, Vassyana. — Scientizzle 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Can we get some editors to please restore the article homeopathy to neutral point of view? The pro-Homeopathy POV pushing has elicited a negative response that may have made the article overly hostile in some ways. The article reads poorly because of undue attention to many minor points that were placed by the two factions. Jehochman 15:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman - Just to be clear, are you saying the pro-homeopathy editors have annoyed the anti-homeopathy editors so much that they have made the article excessively anti-homeopathy? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • No chance of that while tempers are running high. Any re-editing of that by the uninvolved would lead to imprecations being hurled down on the head of the unfortunate editor. Which is why civility is important, as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • (now that nobody is wikilawyering about minor points there is some work in progress to, for example, reduce UK undue weight on the lead, and there is a proposed lead revision on Talk:Homeopathy/Lead) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanx for recognizing that this drama is more complex than you may have originally assumed and thanx for asking for help from other uninvolved sysops. I myself appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. I want to apologize if one of my previously cited quotes did not provide the entire quotation. I primarily inserted the part that was left out. I was not trying to "deceive" anybody (heck, I even provided the specific diff for it...I had/have nothing to hide!). To Shoemaker's credit, he quoted me correctly saying, “As for "pushing" this study, consensus was reached to include it in the past, and it was a part of this article for several weeks. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it.” My point here was not to say that we had consensus recently, but some consensus was reached previously. And even though Shoemaker is very good at providing diffs, he chose to not reference Scientizzle's remark back in January 15th, “Glad we could come to a reasonable compromise on the text.” And later, “What this study does certainly provide is a foundation on which to test future hypotheses about potassium dichromate as a homeopathic remedy: it doesn't close the book, it simply ends the first chapter.” This statement is important because I take some pride in working to achieve compromise and to work with other editors, especially in an environment that has been extremely hostile. In fact, this environment is so hostile that some editors are doing what they can to silence/mute me. Enric Naval has asserted that I "cherry-picked Scientizzle's comments" and that Scientizzle has "never agreed with Dana." However, this diff prove Enric wrong! Jehochman was kind enough to encourage that I be treated with kindness and respect, probably because I try to treat others that way. However, Jehochman also recommends that I be banned for being too pro-homeopathy. I'm wondering, therefore, if other editors here should be banned for being too anti-homeopathy. Please note that there has been a tendency for some editors to try to throw as much mud at me in the hopes that some of it sticks. Shoemaker's Holiday wrote a 7,000+ word attack on me at the Arb Committee even though he has been informed that only 1,000 words is requested. Finally, because I am so darn civil (even in this hostile environment), some editors try to assert that I am POV-pushing, while tending to ignore their own POV-pushing and their stonewalling. I sincerely hope that block against me is lifted. DanaUllman 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

!Agree --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Dana often is his own worst enemy. He has just made an effective argument in favor of his topic ban, including enough red herrings to stock a seafood market. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I took a look at the Potassium Dichromate article to see what the fuss was about and was amused to find that it relates to the product HeadOn - a suitable metaphor for the repeated headache that this topic causes. :) I failed to see why Dana should be banned for his work there but noticed a tendentious and unsourced statement in the article by Mccready which I removed. My impression is that many/most editors working upon this topic seem quite fanatical and so we just have a lots of pots calling the kettle black. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... It relates to a study that Ullman wanted included. Did you look at the talk page at all? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Adding a source seems like a reasonable idea since the article is generally lacking sources and the homeopathy bit has none at all. I added a source about dermatitis just to show how it's done. You guys seem to prefer arguing to adding sources. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• cough*condescendent oversimplification of a complicated issue*cough* --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus" in mid-January to which Dana refers was rapidly overturned. On the 15th, Dana added the study. I and David D. (talk · contribs) were not convinced of its appropriateness and worked to at least decrease the blatant peacockery--discussion here. Simultaneously, discussion at Talk:Homeopathy (found here) received wider input and came down more convincingly against inclusion. Talk:Potassium dichromate#Notability of COPD shows this, too, as the study had been removed, then re-added, and further arguments came down more clearly against inclusion. Discussion here, here, here, and here (and a tangential discussion regarding the phenomenon of non-homeopathy articles having substantial pro-homeopathy information added to them began) served to solidify the consensus that inclusion was not appropriate. At the end of January, after all this, the article looked like this, with no reference to any homeopathy (and remained so until I added some back just a couple days ago). — Scientizzle 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a tad ironic that Scientizzle inserted information into this article on a homeopathic medicine called "HeadOn" but did so without ANY recent discussion. Even the follow-up discussion had one editor for inclusion and one editor against it. He obviously feels OK about adding information to this article that may make fun of homeopathy, but he and other editors work to keep out any serious scientific research on the subject. Please know that there are a gang of editors who have extremely antagonism to homeopathy and who work diligently to keep potentially positive research about it out of articles. Enric Naval then got belligerent saying that Dana is "still insisting on the damned Lancet editorial thing that has been explained to him several times by several editors." Enric is confused here. This is the FIRST time that I had made reference to the Lancet's editorial that had accompanied the Reilly study on asthma in 1994. If I'm wrong here, I ask that Enric provide the diffs (because he is insisting that many editors have responded. If I'm right, I hope that Enric will apologize. It should be noted that Baegis archived the discussion within hours of me quoting the Lancet's editorial, which, for the record, was a very strong statement for homeopathy: The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either anser suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It is no wonder that Baegis and other anti-homeopathy editors wanted to archive this information as soon as possible, and further, it is no wonder that they are trying so hard to silence an editor that has civilly sought to provide RS, notable information to wikipedia. I ask again to be unblocked from the topic of homeopathy. DanaUllman 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I don't care about HeadOn. You never raised any reason not to include it when I made my good-faith attempt to acheive a middle ground, and nobody has objected to it after I did add it. I basically restored the article to (an improved version of) what existed before you tried to ram the Frass et al study through. As for the claim that I "obviously" feel "OK about adding information to this article that may make fun of homeopathy", I guess I probably needn't respond... — Scientizzle 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please archive this page? This thread is quickly turning into the Potassium dichromate talk page, part 2. Dana is only repeating the exact same tired accusations that landed him the 3 month ban in the first place. For the good of the ANI board, lets just move on. Baegis (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

DEFINITELY NOT RESOLVED! -- Fyslee / talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be funny if it wasn't for your silly wikistalking revert I pointed out on your talkpage and to which you have no response. Why don't you do something useful instead of sniping meaninglessly, wikistalking and making patently silly reverts? Even Butler reverted you on the date issue. And now you are going to the extent of removing "semi-retrired" signs from other people's pages??? Time for a wikibreak Mr Fyslee, or perhaps some acupuncture might solve the problem?Mccready (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mccready (talk · contribs) is exhibiting (he's done this before in other cases) very disruptive behavior that is a violation of the principle involved in 3rr violations, among other things. He keeps reinserting a large edit in the lead that has been reverted by several other editors, yet he insists on repeating the same behavior. It's definitely uncollaborative editing. The problem with the edit itself is that it is not in a format suitable for the lead, not that it's untrue. Many editors have explained this to him, yet he persists. Is there a penalty for stubborn hardheadedness? Here are the diffs (so far). Other editors' reactions can be found in the edit history of that article and the talk page:

• 18:20, April 3, 2008
• 23:23, April 7, 2008
• 18:00, April 8, 2008
• 08:02, April 11, 2008
• 03:13, April 18, 2008
• 04:27, April 19, 2008
• 01:12, April 20, 2008
• 07:16, April 21, 2008
• 09:17, April 21, 2008
• 04:33, April 23, 2008
• 06:31, April 23, 2008
• 01:38, April 25, 2008
• 02:40, April 25, 2008
• 07:21, April 26, 2008
• 08:48, April 26, 2008

Right above he is abusing this board to complain about his inability to succeed in an identical edit war on another article! Someone please stop this nonsense. A topic ban and 3rr block would be appropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be appropriate is that you reformat the information if you don't like it the way it is. Not waste everyone's time defending the deletion of good sources. Mccready (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the one seeking inclusion, therefore it's your job to format it properly and seek inclusion in the body of the article. Then we can include mention of those otherwise good sources in the lead. That's the way we do it here. You have been told this numerous times, yet you insist on including that poorly formatted whole long list of sources in the lead, which is quite improper. Yes, I agree that acupuncture's effectiveness has been debunked numerous times and that needs to be mentioned in the lead, but only after it's documented in the body of the article. This is mostly a formatting issue, not a POV issue. That's why many editors who otherwise agree with your POV are opposing this edit warring of yours. -- Fyslee / talk 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate that Mccready uncivilly calls me a POV warrior. . . He accuses me of edit warring. . . yet they are his poor edits. . . with no consensus. . . he keeps forcing on us which I have reverted. If it were up to me. . . he should be topic banned at least. . . blocked temporarily at most.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot that I could say about Mccready's pattern of disruptive editing. Probably the main point is that the pattern is long-standing. See the one-month community ban proposed by FloNight in September 2006, here and here. Note in particular the number of pro-science, skeptical editors in that thread who say that he's exhausted the community's patience. After that ban, he disappeared for about a year, but when he returned, he quickly settled into the same disruptive pattern. That resulted in my asking an admin (User:Mastcell) to intervene. Mastcell replied:

"There is clearly a problem here. I'm thinking about the best way to address it. My instinct would be to place Mccready on 1RR on these articles to address the constant edit-warring. I've left a note for User:Davidruben to get his thoughts. I agree with you that ArbCom would probably deal with him pretty harshly given the history, and it may come to that since he appears to reject any outside attempts to address his behavior by impugning the integrity, experience, etc of the admin in question."

The upshot of that intervention is that Mccready, in order to avoid a sanction, agreed to limit himself to 1RR. Since then, he's edit warred and gone beyond 1RR several times (I Ching:; I Ching; and see last 8 diffs from Fyslee at start of thread). He also chronically ignores WP:LEAD, adding contentious, poorly-formatted and poorly-weighted material to lead sections even if the material he adds isn't covered in the article at all.

A a minimum, a re-do of the topic ban done by FloNight, for all alternative medicine and construably "pseudoscience" articles, seems in order. And I think the ban should be indefinite, since he been at this for years, seems immune to constructive criticism, and voluntary self-restraint doesn't work. Sure, Mccready has made some good edits along the way, but lots of editors are able to do that without chronic, tendentious disruption. He's dragging the project down, and the good stuff he adds doesn't warrant keeping him around, IMO. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This is a very very simple dispute engineered by the usual POV warriors who want to defend acupuncture at all costs. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Simple and sweet. The true believers acknowledge my position but try to wiggle out by claiming my edits are not formatted properly or do not belong in the LEAD. If they spent as much time on addressing this perceived flaw as they do attacking me we might all be able to be proud of a better encyclopedia. Mccready (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All of that stuff shouldn't be in the lead. Would you stop if the lead was pruned to just the first para:

• • Acupuncture practiced and taught throughout the world.

and the effectiveness stuff went into the article? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

@Mccready: :"Usual POV warriors"? Not at all; Mccready's edits have been criticized by editors across the board. The following editors are all scientific, skeptical editors, just like Mccready says he is, and they have all been highly critical of his tendentious editing: FloNight, Fyslee, and MastCell (evidence above), as well as Davidruben , Eldereft , Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk (archived talk), Orangemarlin , Friday , Jefffire , and Arthur Rubin . And I'd count myself, since I was a chemist (M.A. Harvard '89) before training as an acupuncturist, and I understand the scientific method pretty well too. I think this evidence demolishes the "Mccready the scientist vs the POV warriors" straw man. What it does show is broad community support for a sanction that is long overdue.

Did I mention the flagrant WP:NPA violations? This guy is damaging the project and needs to be reined in. --Jim Butler (t) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OOooohhh dear, poor little Jim. now it's digging up all the dirt he can, not all from "scientific" editors either. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to address the simple fact that poor little jim hates to address. He knows acupuncture has not been proven effective for anything. He knows he edits to remove this fact whenever possible. He knows the straw man attempt won't wash. Get real. And since when did a hard hitting expression of disgust at POV count as NPA. And by the way it's silly to argue we should believe you since you studied a bit of chem. Linus Pauling did too but no one of substance takes his vitamin c claims seriously. Jim, your position is flawed at every level. Why don't you simply address the issue, not the man? Mccready (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong on substance, since there are hundreds of studies and several systematic reviews on acu's efficacy, as well as V RS's caveating study design, and these are cited in the article. And utterly, flagrantly wrong on Wikiquette. I link to criticisms of Mccready's edits by other editors -- all, every single one of them, known as scientifically-minded -- and he replies with personal attacks, and then adds the WP:KETTLE-ish suggestion that someone had ad-hominem-attacked him. To editors familiar with his history, this is typical stuff. --Jim Butler (t) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell, place Mccready on 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's try to keep focus here. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Can we please address the issue? Mccready (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue being discussed here is actually your behavior, and more specifically whether it is productive for the encyclopedia or not. The content dispute is discussed elsewhere. henrik•talk 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, Mccready has done half the work necessary for building a quality encyclopedia - finding and describing sources. Their attitude seems to be that this shifts the burden to "the community" to include this information in an encyclopedic fashion. It is very frustrating to feel compelled to revert the otherwise good edits of an editor who refuses to take the time to present in an encyclopedic fashion this accurate and well-sourced information.

This user is not immune to reason, and has recently shown a willingness to keep good edits unrelated to this list instead of blindly reverting to a previous version. I would argue that a full pseudoscience (broadly construed) topic ban is unwarranted, but a 1RR or temporary article ban (would a month or three allow this article to move forward?) would be nice. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a 1RR restriction might be a good thing to try. henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still this issue of incivility. . . even in this posts he calls us "POV warriors". . . This behavior has to improve.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the quick solution to this situation. Just merge the material and add it to the appropriate section. It would be helpful if editors tried to improve on the edit instead of reverting. Please address the content dispute instead of ignoring it. Makes sense? QuackGuru 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now done Mccready's job for him by putting the material, properly formatted, in the proper section. --Jim Butler (t) 00:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility could be improved across the board, including from yourself (, ). henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In my time at Misplaced Pages I have encountered numerous problems with Mccready's editing style and general inability to collaborate effectively, in particular at chiropractic-related and acupuncture-related articles. He has already received numerous blocks and bans regarding chiropractic specifically and has engaged in another edit war at veterinary chiropractic leaving rather rude summaries. To wit:

• Jesus talk about misusing the sources!!!
• again here

So, let's cut to the chase. Over a period of 2 years, Mccready has been officially beenblocked 4 times at chiropractic and already twice this year. This does not even take into account the canvassing to get sports chiropractic article deleted (after 3 days of existence, no less) and then calling those involved wankers.

Proposal

Given Mccreadys clear attempts to disrupt wikipedia repeatedly and violating amongst other things WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and engaging in repetitive tendentious editing practices at both chiropractic and acupuncture I propose, at a minimum a topic ban at those 2 subjects. Admin MastCell's recommendations in this for a 1RR is, in my view, a band-aid solution to a chronic problem with Mccready. If he is a net contributor, then impose a topic ban and let him edit productively elsewhere, if it is deemed he is a net-liability, (which I perceive him to be) then a indef block or extended ban is warranted. I have merely presented but a fraction of the evidence that I have accumulated, if more diffs are wanted to show a lengthy history of disruption at chiropractic (and related articles) I can provide them. I think the regular editors at Acupuncture could very well do the same if inclined. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I too think a 1RR is too easy, since that is basically what he's doing most of the time anyway. He's carefully flying under the 3RR radar by not making too many reverts each day, but he still returns to the same door that has been closed by many and tries to open it again. That's just stupid (truly uncivil and more accurate terms could be chosen, but I'll refrain..;-) He should be taking the advice he's been given, reformatting his good references, and then trying to get them included in the body of the article in an appropriate section. Then, instead of getting reverted and ending up here, he'd be getting support from numerous editors, myself included. He's simply uncollaborative and acting like a jerk. A topic ban would be more effective, since other measures, including bans and blocks, have been tried without success. He seems incapable of learning, but I'll leave the DSM-IV diagnosis to the MDs. While Einstein wasn't an MD, he did say that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Nuff said. -- Fyslee / talk 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Henrik's gentle nudge is substantially identical to many others that admins have left on Mccready's talk page; he never changes. And contrary to Henrik's comments, I don't see any consensus at all that 1RR is better than a topic ban. I think it's significant that the editors urging leniency are those with the least experience with Mccready. The fact is that he's been a disruptive editor since 2006, has been repeatedly sanctioned, and doesn't change.

I doubt 1RR will work very well, since he's been under voluntary 1RR since 11 February, and has violated both the letter and spirit of it many times. Just look at the list Fyslee compiled above. Revert, revert, revert, revert. Sometimes within the letter of 1RR, but never the spirit, which is to seek consensus on talk pages. 1RR won't do anything to address the longstanding, intractable problems with WP:LEAD and WP:CONSENSUS (I'm not even going to mention WP:CIVIL, because that's coming to be seen as a sign of weakness when arguing about science, although it's certainly key.)

I simply don't understand the reluctance to topic-ban this editor. Read his talk page and its archives. Look at his block log. He's been sporadically disrupting the project since 2006, and has done more harm than good to the goal of producing a better encyclopedia. I've seen editors get community banned at AN/I for less. What on earth is wrong with a topic ban? --Jim Butler (t) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for 1RR

Henrik left this comment on Mccready's talk page:

• "After the discussion here, it seems that the consensus is that imposing a 1RR would be best, rather than a topic ban or other remedy...."

He replied:

• "I don't agree that such a consensus emerged...."

I agree with Mccready. There was no such consensus, on the contrary! A 1RR changes nothing at all and will not change his behavior. He can keep doing exactly what he's been doing and abide by a 1RR parole. -- Fyslee / talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be funny if it wasn't for your silly wikistalking revert I pointed out on your talkpage and to which you have no response. Why don't you do something useful instead of sniping meaninglessly, wikistalking and making patently silly reverts? Even Butler reverted you on the date issue. And now you are going to the extent of removing "semi-retrired" signs from other people's pages??? . Then you call me crazy? You who claim to agree with my edits yet revert them. Something crazy there? Time for a wikibreak Mr Fyslee, or perhaps some acupuncture might solve the problem?Mccready (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee wrote: "He can keep doing exactly what he's been doing and abide by a 1RR parole." -- Or not:

• 00:22, 28 April 2008: changes lead (ignoring discussion that he can't be bothered to read), and restores the material he's been edit-warring over, despite my having added and formatted it earlier today.
• 01:49, 28 April 2008: Following my revert of his edit for reasons above, he goes to 2RR. I didn't try to "trap" him into this. His edit really was bad: poorly formatted, redundant, and counter to concerns raised on discussion.

So, Mccready says, and then demonstrates, that he'll abide by 1RR except when he won't. Great, so we have a good idea how well that's going to work.

I have only one question: Should we waste the ArbCom's time by bringing a case whose outcome we can all predict, just because a couple admins are too timid (a/o simply unfamiliar with the history) to topic-ban this editor? --Jim Butler (t) 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: 02:59, 28 April 2008: WHEE! 3RR! --Jim Butler (t) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Repairing your sloppy work hardly counts to 3RR. You said you had fixed this but (conveniently?) did not. This case is a simple matter of an acupuncturist doing everything he can to put a positive slant on the acupuncture article despite overwhelming evidence. Even his use of his favourite source, Ernst is biased. He will use every trick in the wikipedia arsenal to get his way. Including claiming the talk page agrees with him when it does not. The complaint is that I have not had time until the last few days to FORMAT data in the approved style. Hardly a hanging offence but one I will try to improve on. No one has said the data is wrong. Indeed I have been congratulated for my efforts in gathering it, yet Butler the POV acupuncturist likes to attack a good editor who he disagrees with. His childish WHEE above and his childish placement of a trout on my talkpage show the mentality of the man.Mccready (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that this edit counted toward 3RR, because it didn't. I said that these three did, because they did: 00:22, 28 April 2008, 01:49, 28 April 2008, 02:59, 28 April 2008.

And yes, you're to be congratulated for finding those Cochrane reviews for acupuncture. Cutting and pasting is challenging work; it can take hours.

I am not the problem here, Mccready -- you are. I'm not perfect, but I know my subject areas, work well with other editors, annoy very few people, and don't get blocked. --Jim Butler (t) 03:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Now we have the Butler defn of 3RR? I don't think so. The community can judge who is making the maximum effort to slant the article in a POVish fashion. Like everyone has said, my research is good. You try to remove all reference to it in the LEAD and then you claim consensus? Give me a break. Mccready (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." The three edits I cited qualify , , . Your mainspace edits and your talk page comment make your contempt for the 1RR probation clear enough. --Jim Butler (t) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is enough evidence here for a week-long block for disruptive editing. User blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the users response here, I have no objections. I attempted to give him one last chance, but he did not respond in a way that made me believe he intended to reform. henrik•talk 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

Mccready (talk · contribs) should be given a topic ban on all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for no less than six months. This is a massive ongoing issue. His block log and recent actions make it clear that he simply needs to avoid those topics. Despite multiple blocks, several people trying to explain the principles of the place, and many attempts to invite him to conversation, he is still acting in a completely unacceptable fashion. I would also suggest that he be placed under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. The probation should require him to explain reverts on the article talk page and warn him against further disruption such as ignoring consensus and edit warring. Enforce the probation with blocks or an expanded topic ban to include the broader category of the probation (compared to the initial ban). Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) See here for thoughts generated by recent and previous cases.

• Support such topic ban, enforcing the probation with escalating blocks up to one year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Object to such a severe ban. QuackGuru 04:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Without a topic ban, this user will likely self-destruct. It is quite likely that any further disruption will result in a one month block, and escalate from there onwards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why you oppose the ban? Would you also please explain why you feel it is severe? Vassyana (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment this user has had six blocks in the last three months and is still edit warring and reverting. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support for sure, but make it indefinite. Long overdue. Only Mccready's periodic extended wikibreaks have prevented an outright ban before now, imo. --Jim Butler (t) 04:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support such a topic ban. There is abundant evidence that less has never worked and that he seems unable to learn. Einstein was right (see my comment above). -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have seen enough attacks against me here. Byebye. QuackGuru 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. Jim Butler quickly and politely redacted his comment upon my request. I implored QuackGuru to explain his opposition and redact this comment. His response indicates that he considers my requests to be harassment that made the situation worse. Vassyana (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support As one having to deal with this editor since 2006, I'd support a community ban. His "my way or the highway" attitude even spreads to seemingly benign articles like bicycle.--Hughgr (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support He has demonstrated more than enough times that he is unable to collaborate and uses editing tactics which damage the project, and drives away good editors. The topic ban is warranted and is justified by both the chronicity (it's been since 06) and the recidivism that has taken place since then with blocks have no effect. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, simply because this is a matter that should result first in a user RfC. I'm also not too keen on the discussion happening primarily with administrators, instead of the community at large. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The arguments themselves, even if just from admins, is fairly sound, so consider my position a weak oppose. I know these discussions have become somewhat common on ANI, but it would still be a better idea to take the user-RfC step, and place the discussion in an area where all users would feel comfortable in commenting on. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe both users have been the subjects of RfCs. I'll let someone else dig them up, since I have to run. -- Fyslee / talk 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Considering that this user has been blocked several times and been the subject of several noticeboard discussions, I believe that we are far beyond the point of a user RfC. (This goes back over two years. See here and here for examples. There was an RfC around that time as well, with well-respected editors endorsing the view that he was disruptive.) The purpose of such RfCs is to make clear to the editor the desires of the community. Mccready is already well-aware of the community's wishes in regards to his behavior and editing patterns. Vassyana (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The block log isn't that "impressive" when you give it some context, but since there has been an RfC, great, I have no reason to oppose this. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support This topic ban is a step towards resolving the drama over this article. MBisanz 06:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I just encountered him for the first time at Sciatica where he edited in an unnecessarily combative way, removing references to acupuncture and chiropractic which were trivial to cite to serious journals. Since he must know a lot about this subject by now, his edit seems disruptive. His general behaviour seems so blatantly bad that I half-suspect that this is a black-op by the other side. Either way, he should be restrained. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, I have looked at his edits to Bicycle and, while they show some stubbornness, they seem more reasonable. An editor with strong views should be encouraged to spread himself rather than getting hung up over particular issues. That way, we get the benefit of his boldness without the aggravation of the warring. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to argue with Vassyana's rationale; I think this editor has had more chances than we give many others, and is still exhibiting the same counterproductive and uncollaborative behavior. I think a 6-month topic ban is reasonable, with the understanding that it's a last step before an indefinite block if the same old behaviors recur at the ban's expiration. MastCell  17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)c
• Support - I literally had to stop watching the Acupuncture article for about a month because his edits were so disruptive. It is clear he only wants to trumpet the references that point to no proof of efficacy and ignore the references that do show efficacy. So I am suggesting each side be given weight, in the appropriate sections. MeekMark (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - His behaviour is terrible and I'm only supporting a topic ban if there is some chance he would be an asset to the community if he edits elsewhere, otherwise I would support a formal ban. Nick (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

This is distracting from the conversation above, and degenerating into sniping, general accusations, soapboxing and other nonsense. If you need community feedback about a particular user's issues, RfC is that way. If you need administrator assistance for a specific incident or to deal with a long-term pattern of behavior, please start a new section. (In either place, show clear evidence of your claims, and do not use broad accusations, inflammatory language or name-calling.) I would strongly encourage editors to steadfastly avoid the above-mentioned "nonsense" in either venue, and would encourage my fellow administrators to nip any such disruption in the bud if it reoccurs. Vassyana (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs)

• Comment To be fair to Mccready, he's just hot-blooded and wears his emotions on his sleeve (I know where he comes from). But, I would be remiss if I did not address a similar disruptive pattern amongst Chiropractic that dates back to Mccready as well. User:QuackGuru deserves a similar investigastion. Looking at his block log, you'll see similar stuff to Mccready. I count 8 in less than a year, most with Chiropractic. He's engaged in long-standing disruptive practices now, but under a civil POV push. I believe that QuackGuru also merits such a topic ban and think we should open the floor for such discussion. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support a similar investigation and fate for QuackGuru. -- Fyslee / talk 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• how can you support a similar fate without the afforementioned investigation? Viridae 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously only if an investigation resulted in findings that deserved such a fate. That should be obvious. -- Fyslee / talk 06:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support an investigation into QG. QuackGuru demonstrates neither the expertise, nor the sensitivity needed to obtain NPOV in Chiropractic and related articles. He is been tendentiously pushing an agenda that includes disruption, stonewalling, wikilawyering, edit warring, failing to meet inclusion standards as per WP:MEDRS (or the CAM equivalent). I could also throw in tons of baiting as seen here. Diffs into any formal investigation will be provided. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to vote on it, you can just keep talking... -- Ned Scott 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ned's exactly right. There's no need to !vote on an investigation. Provide some evidence and pointers. I'm sure the sysops and community will review and discuss the situation. Vassyana (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment* QG seems to have considerably fewer problems than McCready. I think it would be unwise to conflate the two cases. I think Cortico shouldn't throw rocks from his glasshouse, considering his blocklog and previous history. An editor should be judged by their current actions. Jefffire (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Jefffire, however, my argument in fact that QG has been even more disruptive than Mccready, albeit in a civil fashion. He has also repeatedly violated the terms of of Feb 08 block which imposed a strict 1RR. His edit warring at Chiropractic, Sports Chiropractic and particularly at Veterinary chiropractic suggests that he does not regard the terms of his probation. Given he has 8 blocks on chiropractic-topics in the last year, this warrants further attention. As I am at work I cannot provide the diffs just yet, but when I have the time, later on this evening, I am confident that I will present a case that will justify a full topic ban. QG has crossed the line from rational skeptic into some kind of unhealthy fixation with chiropractic which has made editing there a private hell for me, for the last 3 months, but do many others over the past year. So, to summarize, indeed editors should be judged by their current actions and I will provide current diffs on QG tendiously editing, disrupting chiropractic-related articles, violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, using WP:COATRACK strategies, ignoring completely WP:MEDRS, dodging concerns via WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using WP:BAIT tactics all while edit warring under probation. It's an open and shut case and QG shouldn't have persisted with the same behaviours and editing tactics which got him in trouble in the first place. More tonight. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Jefffire that QuackGuru is not in the same league as Mccready. I've observed disruption and edit-warring from QG in the past (i.e., a few months ago), but not lately; however, that may be a simple artifact of my editing less. An RfC may be indicated depending on his more recent conduct. --Jim Butler (t) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that QG exhibits two or three uncivil behavioral traits which either need improvement or other remedies need to be instituted. Again, these are just my opinions so if someone disagrees, please feel free to discuss. 1) Similar to McCready, QuackGuru keeps inserting controversial edits into article-space despite ongoing discussions and a clear lack of consensus. I understand his frustration at times, but he seems to quick to make these kinds of edits. He will keep doing it, trying to see if they will stick. 9 times out of 10 they don't. Still he will be back the next day and try again. 2) He can be extremely snotty. This is tough because it is incivility in disguise. A lot of times, he hides these snippy remarks in sarcasm or in edit summaries. I guarantee you that anyone who has every been on his bad side can attest to this. 3) He doesn't take criticism well. Just look at his user talk page history. He is quick to delete any criticisms (usually followed by a snotty remark or accusation). I even "fear" what retribution he will have on me for posting this (part of me is quite sure that this be turned into an attack on me). It is this inability to take criticism constructively which makes me wonder if options such as an RFC/U would be beneficial at all. 4) He can be quite often completely unreasonable. It is irrational behavior like this which even makes users on his side of the argument - such as Fyslee - wish he would just go away. (Why? Because he weakens their position and disrupts any consensual headway the article is making.) All in all, I don't think a recidivist such as QuackGuru can improve. However, I don't see the harm in at least experimenting by giving him a temporary topic ban and seeing how this affects his behavior. Otherwise, I think QuackGuru is speeding headlong toward an indef block. -- Levine2112 17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment absurd witchhunts being perpetrated by Chiropractic true-believers and their erstwhile political allies. QuackGuru should be commended for fighting against the unwarranted promotion of chiropractic. I would like to see an investigation into the activities of User:CorticoSpinal and User:Levine2112 who both, in my estimation, deserve to be kicked off Misplaced Pages immediately for using it as soapbox to promote their weird beliefs that manipulating spines is somehow the cure to all manner of maladies and that "BIG MEDICINE" is ruining the world. We don't need people who wear these preposterous ideas on their sleeves making a headache for the sane non-"true believers" here on Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This statement typifies the ignorance of and the types of straw man arguments used to discredit complementary providers. First, chiropractic medicine, in case you haven't noticed, is primarily used to treat neuromusculoskeletal disorders (90%). That is conditions involving the muscles, nerves and joints. You, and other skeptics, and hung up on whether or not manipulation is effective in certain visceral conditions (the jury is still out, Hawk et al. are doing the best research in this area presently). Anyways, you're insinuations are completely unfounded and I reject them completely. You put words in my mouth ("using it as soapbox to promote their weird beliefs that manipulating spines is somehow the cure to all manner of maladies and that "BIG MEDICINE" is ruining the world") which is a personal attack and I hope you retract it. It's not a question of believing; it's a question of understanding the science behind manual therapy, which many in orthodox medicine do not. I recommend you look at this text and brush up on the last 25 years or so of research. Otherwise, you are using dated, invalid and misleading comments that can easily be debunked. Cheers. CorticoSpinal 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as per Science Apologist. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have edited a few articles that QuackGuru edits, and have found him overall to be violating WP:MEDRS, ignoring WP:CON and WP:NPOV. It is these sort of tactics that drive editors away from the project. DigitalC (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a recent diff showing QuackGuru ignoring RS, MEDRS, and CON. . The consensus on the article talk page was that this source was not reliable. DigitalC (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here. Is QG disruptive on chiropractic-related pages and did he explicitly and REPEATEDLY break the terms of his probations of 1RR? Definitely. It's happened several times as well:

Here is an example of a civil POV push with QGs "scientific investigation" of chiropractic which he pushed despite the majority of editors at Chiropractic feeling it was substandard and needed to be reworked for inclusion. He ignored consensus and attempted to insert it repeatedly, in a disruptive move:

1. 17:44, March 18/08

19:37, March 31/08 22:03, March 31/08

Ignoring the ongoing talk which several editors raised POV tone and validity concerns, QG goes ahead:

1. April 6/08
2. April 7/08
3. April 8/08 Notice how there were 3 separate editors who reminded QG that this was discussion was ongoing and to please wait until the discussion was finished prior to inserting it. He ignored them 3 times, one day after the next. It's this type of tendentious and disruptive editing which has resulted in many edit wars at Chiropractic. QG is a catalyst in most.

It has moved to the Veterinary chiropractic article as of late. A majority of editors there felt that QG up to his old tricks with more disruption beginning with adding and renaming a section of the article that had consensus from a majority of editors. The intent, as always is clear: to maximize controversy and drum up the emotions hoping someone (like me in the past) loses their cool. WP:BAIT for sure. Here's recent examples:

1. Effectiveness
2. Effectiveness again 02:38, April 19/08
3. 06:13, April 19/08. This is despite ignoring the ongoing conversation at Talk which was asking QG to please not edit war over the section title which he is also POV pushing at chiropractic. Did this changes thingss?
4. 08:50, April 19/08
5. 22:15, April 21/08. Note more wikilawyering and ignoring the ongoing discussion and majority consensus on the talk page.
6. 19:26 April 26/08. Again ignoring the will of the majority of the editors, QG continues a civil POV push that is clearly disruptive by now. Still not done, apparently. It continues again, despite DigitalC requesting a temporary stoppage so he can pursue a RfC.

Back to chiropractic, on April 18/08: Removing my comments from Talk pages and threatening me with WP:HARASS and WPL:BLOCK. He reverted my comments 3x in a matter of minutes which prevented me from continuing an important conversation

17:52 April 18/08 17:55 April 18/08 He was warned not to do so by Admin Swatjester here and, as per typical QG fashion, he erases his discussion page to remove any evidence of wrong doing. Here is is trying to play admin Vassyana against admin Swatjester. These tactics have regularly been used against myself and other editors at chiropractic related pages.

He also regularly nominates chiropractic-related articles for deletion in more attempts to disrupt, subvert and obstruct productive editing and contributions. Since Feb 08, he has nominated the following articles for deletion

1. This is 2 days after he proposed to keep the article and include in the main chiropractic article. Although it is circumstancial evidence, it is plausible that it was from a WP:CANVASSING attempt from Mccready, diffs which can be found on the AfD sports chiropractic page. Note he suddenly wants to delete the vet chiro article which he has been "contributing" to since day 1. Odd.

So, that was a quick one off, I can dig much deeper and get other users, admins diffs who have also questioned the tactics of QG and his disruptive practices at chiropractic. To be clear, I am not against rational chiropractic skeptics. I can deal with scientific skepticism, but this goes beyond. It make editing here completely difficult and needlessly aggravates the situation with edits wars, civil POV pushes, canvassing and general disruption. His contributions to chiropractic has been nominal at best and his continued presence has driven away editors, and he has personally been on my case in some form, since day 1. This isn't a case of sour grapes, its a case a chronic recividism with editing practices which harms the integrity of the project. I have more if needed, but I await commentary first. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A vendetta against QuackGuru. Not very nice, considering you are formerly blocked editor for edit warring. OrangeMarlin 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)

Do you have evidence of this 'vendetta'? I'm not sure if it is relevant here, but here are 4 diffs showing Orangemarlin helping QuackGuru to insert edits into Chiropractic articles that did not have consensus on the relevant talk pages - QuackGuru was on 1rr at this point in time. , , , DigitalC (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin is directly complicit in this investigation as well. I have been the target of unrelenting personal attacks simply because I am a chiropractor. Orangemarlin hates racists, yet he is one in the scientific realm. I have been called an "unscientic, "anti-science" "POV warrior" "edit warrior" and other demeaning, condescending and frankly baiting words. Look at all the times he has far crossed WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:VANDALISM. That's right, Admin Swatjester (bring him here) cited Orangemarlin's reversions at Chiropractic vandalism.

As for OrangeMarlin calling me anti-scientific? I consider this a personal attack have told him so since March 20/08 I have asked Orangemarlin to please stop attacking me. Yet this has not stopped since then despite my numerous requests (diffs available upon request). I have even asked him to tone down the anti-science POV towards Chiropractic on March 20/08 as well. He has since blatantly disregarded this sensible request. I even filed a ANI here on April 18/08 which went belly up (friendly admins should recuse themselves). Yet, it still persists.

The thing that bothers me the most has been the persistent, antagonistic attacks and baiting seemingly trying to "goad" me into getting blocked again (which occurred because of previously poor reaction to a long standing civil POV push and disruption at Chiropractic which has snarred so far, Mccready, Quack Guru and Orangemarlin. Orangemarlin has crossed the line here. I've been nothing but corteous, trying to ignore his clearly marginalizing statements used to discredit me and my contributions here. Look at this mess!here and here and here and here a demeaning edit summary here claiming I use treatment methods that are anti-scientific AGAIN and a disparaging remark regarding snowmobiles and sled dogs here more anti-scientic suggestions here.

Again, as of April 19, he resumes the attacks, with admins ALL AROUND who turn a blind eye to the obvious violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA to name just a few. This can be seen here and (notice the constant attempts to undermine my character and good faith contributions) and again here "pretending to be civil" and again attacking here Edit warring without discussion (misleading content and edit summary noted)

I even asked admin MastCell here to please talk to him but has not responded as of yet. Let it be known that Orangemarlin has friends in high places, and he has seemingly gotten away with a lot of incivility, especially of late. Something must be done at this point. He is attacking me relentlessly, portraying me as an anti-scientific, fringe POV pushing editor who needs to be blocked. This is absolutely absurd and I would like to be treated with respect and would appreciate if neutral, uninvolved admins who do not have a conflict of interest please look into this. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I find that requests to defuse interpersonal conflicts are sometimes best handled off-wiki, where people are less concerned about how their words will play to the crowd. Hence the lack of on-wiki response, though I probably should have notified you that I would work on it. Seems moot at this point, anyhow. Sigh. MastCell  06:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Friends in high places? Sounds like a song. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. OrangeMarlin 06:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Case and point. Is there some kind of WP:ABOVETHELAW? Unbelievable! CorticoSpinal 23:20, April 28, 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like a systematic effort to remove anyone who has ever challenged your material. Am I to be added next? Jefffire (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please

This is seriously getting out of hand. If you have specific evidence of a problem, please provide it along with a neutral summary of the issue. Please stay polite and avoid unsubstantiated accusations and broad allegations. This is quickly turning into a battleground, filled with bickering and insults, and growing short on substantive discussion. This is not a lynch mob, nor your personal stump. If you're using this section for any such purpose, or just making unproductive comments, be aware it is obvious. It is also most certainly disruptive and just plain f****** rude. It may be wise for some people to consider striking their comments. This is obviously not for everyone who posted in the above section and subsections. To those it applies to, I sincerely beg you to reconsider your actions, consider striking or redacting your comments, and seriously consider just walking away if the conversation is too hackle-raising to be dealt with appropriately by you. Vassyana (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread began with worries about User:Mccready (who has now been blocked for a week). User:QuackGuru's behaviour but is not like User:Mccready's, nor is User:Orangemarlin's like either of their's and I'm very wary of seeing these two users conflated into this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing this thread, please

A common factor is that these editors openly scoff at the principles of assuming good faith and civility. OrangeMarlin, for example, has a paean on his page which says essentially that other editors should be told to "fuck off". Victimising Dana, who is scrupulously civil, while winking at these blatant bad boys is sending quite the wrong message. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest filing a separate RfC on each editor or, if either editor has done something which clearly calls for admin action now, please note it as a new thread here on ANI, with simple diffs (and not a narrative which accidently looks like a shopping list). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Review indef block of User:כתר

כתר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

My apologies for bringing up a rather stale issue, but it's been nagging away at me. This user was blocked indefinitely on 2008-04-20 by Moreschi (talk · contribs) for reason "Adieu". The only warning given was for 3RR. This user has requested unblocking. In the ensuing discussion, the block was explained as because "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Is it now our practice to block users indefinitely for sockpuppetry with evidence of this type? Isn't that what WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are for?

I asked the blocking admin to escalate this issue, but the conversation petered out, which is why I'm bringing it here. I'm not very experienced at tracking down sockpuppets, but it seems to me that we'll be biting newcomers left, right and centre if we continue on this path. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that this user's contributions (mostly asking why he's being accused of being a sockpuppet) are high quality, nor that Moreschi is acting in bad faith.

On another note, I see that this user also requested unblock on the unblock-en-l list (password protected), but received no reply, which is unusual.

So, am I worrying about nothing? Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It does look strange. See here. I don't think Future Perfect, Moreschi or Max Sem (see here) have explained themselves well or provided sufficient evidence. If people are pushing inappropriate content, but you can't pin down who it is, then concentrate on improving the content rather than lashing out at shadows. Future Perfect also seems to have lost his cool in response to another editor in a similar matter. See here ("are you still here? Go rant somewhere else") and here ("This is my user talk page, please. When people tell you to keep off their talkpages, you better keep off.") in response to another editor that Moreschi blocked for 100 hours for "disruptive editing". I'm also unclear here as to why Moreschi blocked for 100 hours in one case, and indefinite in the other case. I think the reason is sockpuppetry, but that seems unproven here. I suggest Moreschi and others proceced with caution. If their actions are causing collateral damage, that won't be good for the future viability of the Macedonian discretionary sanctions. Especially, blocking indefinitely users who have not edited any articles but instead have only been contributing on talk pages, is not a good road to go down. The block log reason of "Adieu" is grossly inappropriate, as is "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Did Moreschi and others learn nothing from the MatthewHoffman arbitration case? Moreschi in that case said: "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet.." . I said in my statement in that case: "some people lurk before getting involved, and some people take to Misplaced Pages like a duck to water. Accusing such people of being sockpuppets without evidence of who they are a sockpuppet of, and/or with checkuser requests, is severe biting of a possibly new editor." The conclusion of the arbitrators can be seen here. Note also that a previous indef by Moreschi was later overturned for mentoring. See here. It may turn out that DanaUllman doesn't have a future here (see the ongoing arbitration case), but can Moreschi honestly say that his actions in extending the 24 block to indefinite really helped? Moreschi has a history of blocking on the basis of what he thinks is "obvious" and of extending blocks placed by others. Neither of these actions are helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking not as an admin here but as the editor affected in this case, you guys can do what you like, unblock that account if you want to take the responsibility for watching him afterwards. But I remain convinced this account was just one in a series of throwaway sockpuppets that have been showing up on a regular basis lately, with no other purpose than to harass me, usually trying to prompt some other Greek users to start edit-warring against some edits of mine. It's always the same pattern, always evidently the same person or a small coordinated group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The admin who did the blocking is responsible for any damage the blocking causes. When someone unblocks, the editor is usually warned about their future conduct (or they are given an apology for the block), and what then happens is that we have a collective responsibility to review any future problematic acts by that editor. There is no reason at all for an admin to "watch" those he unblocks (that is called "probation", and should not be handed out unilaterally by admins). I trust my fellow editors and admins to take appropriate action in the future, and I don't think immediate blocking and indefinite blocking is helpful in cases like this, especially not with spurious claims of sockpuppetry floating around. In other words, an unblock and apology, followed later by a block if there are later problems, doesn't mean anyone was "right" or "wrong" in the first case. You can't retrospectively justify actions like that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as you cannot speedy delete for something being a copyvio , unless you know of what it is a copy, you cannot block for being a puppet unless you know of who. Without even saying who it's suspected of being, this makes no sense at all. If there';s no explanation, I am willing to unblock. DGG (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Had my block of DanaUllman stood, the encyclopaedia would have been saved months of tendentious time-wasting. Fact.

Secondly, this chap gave Fut. Perf {{uw-delete}} on something like his 5th edit in a clear attempt to harass and provoke. That is not the behaviour of a newbie or even a lurker. WP:BITE does not apply. Harassment-only SPAs get blocked, particularly if they self-evidently have prior experience (which means they should know better). No debate to be had here, unless there's collective sanity-abandonment in progress. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Spurious accusations of sockpuppetry? Fourth fucking edit! He clearly has prior history - even if that is good history, bad-hand disruptive socks get blocked as well. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"even if that is good history" - you don't sound quite sure any more. If you had a checkuser case for sockpuppetry, I would support an indefinite block. In this case, why not reduce the block to time served for "disruption", withdraw the sockpuppet allegations, assume good faith that this is the user's first account following anonymous editing, and give the user a chance to edit constructively and prove you wrong? Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This is abusive sockpuppetry: he created an account purely to troll and harass an excellent administrator against whom he had a grudge: so much is self-evident. AGF is not a suicide pact: he has demonstrated clear bad faith by his harassment. Hell, has he even apologised? Where's the case for clemency? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, it is a fine line to draw sometimes, but the presumption here is clearly on you to make a case for sockpuppetry. You will surely admit that you are not always right, and you can see others besides me disagree with you, so why not swallow your pride and allow an unblock and see how this goes. Future Perfect has said he will not stand in the way of an unblock. We might all learn something here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cacharoth, I've re-examined and I am not longer willing to unblock. --this is taunting the admin involved, and as I read it, admitting he is a sock. I would have given a clearer block summary though, such as "disruption-only editor" which I think meets the situation. DGG (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both counts - this is clearly an abusive sock but it would be helpful for the rest of us if the block summary in such cases could make this clear. Incidentally, what are the characters in the user name? I don't recognise the script. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew, I think. Seems to be the Hebrew word for "crown" or somesuch. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's the Hebrew word for crown. Enigma 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am.", is ambigious. It could be interpreted as an admission of sockpuppetry, but it could also be sarcastic. For example, if I (Carcharoth) said "I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am.", I would hope that Moreschi would recognise I was being sarcastic, and would not block me and then justify the block with some "obvious" comment. It is purely the newness of the account here, and the transition from IP to account makes the account look more experienced than it is, that sets off red flags in some people. I think ktr was being sarcastic, which wasn't the best idea, but still not enough to justify an indefinite block. Remember, only 26 edits, of which 15 were after the unblock, and none to article space. Look at the 11 edits before the block - only 8 of these are substantive edits. ktr also recognises that Special:Contributions/85.75.93.132 are his edits (at least for this time period), so combining the two we get 18 substantive edits in the following sequence:

• requesting sources
• reverting and removing contested source
• goes to talk page
• takes part in talk page debate
• initiates complaint over sock accusation
• ask Future Perfect again about sock accusation
• personal attack on Future Perfect on his talk page
• reverting talk page removal
• vandalism warning
• explaining a Greek phrase used on a talk page and another one used in an edit summary
• another talk page revert, plus adding vandalism warning
• upbraids Future Perfect's behaviour
• talk page revert
• vandalism warning
• questions 3RR warning
• revert with smiley in edit summary
• personal attack on Future Perfect
• contests sock accusation again and suggests Future Perfect is being paranoid

What, among that lot, justifies an indefinite block for ktr, when compared to the 100-hour block for User:Elampon? I stand by my assertion that Future Perfect and Moreschi have over-reacted here. This looks to me like a standard case of a new account being created after a short period of IP editing, and the new account jumping into a disputed area - not the best idea, but unsurprisingly this is something done by both trolls and genuine new editors - there is no way to reliably distinguish the two, and those most involved will lose perspective and be unable to tell the two apart. Future Perfect seems to have lost it at the point here, where he said "In fact, sock, now that I re-read the two sources But, sock, what happened And, for any reader of average intelligence, sock, that of course Other than that, the sources are sound, sock." It is unhelpful in the extreme to mix up genuine explanations with perjorative sock accusations. It also seems that Future Perfect said something in Greek here - at the very least, Future Perfect should be asked not to use Greek edit summaries, regardless of what he actually said, and certainly not if what he said was offensive. A block of some sorted was probably justified for ktr. The accusation of sockpuppetry and the indefinite length of the block was not. Moreschi, I ask you again, will you shorten the block and retract your accusation of sockpuppetry? Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: : This guy has got everything he wanted, he got the attention he wanted, he got me annoyed, he got me in a bit of trouble, now he's happily off, pondering "future similar incidents (which sure will happen)". Great. If anybody still thinks this was a legitimate user, I can't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note asking ktr to stop commenting in that way on the ANI thread from his talk page - it is only aggravating things. OK, now I've done that, I'll go back to Future Perfect. Future Perfect, please don't use the response by a currently blocked user (they are sometimes unhappy about being blocked, funny that) as an excuse to avoid the questions I'm asking you. I think the questions are reasonable, and I would appreciate a straight answer on whether you think taunting editors you think are socks, and switching to accusations of sockpuppetry in Greek language edit summaries, is acceptable? Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say about this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that this user shares the same IP range with sockpuppets Spiros 13 (talk · contribs), Bolti7 (talk · contribs), and Ntou7 (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See my question below. Is this based on you running a checkuser? Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that in some cases checkusers will decline to even look if WP:DUCK applies. I support the block by Fut Perf as explained by Moreschi, it does indeed seem reasonable. I think WP:BURO applies here. Orderinchaos 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I said I'd drop this, but just noticed this error of fact here. It was a block by Moreschi, not Future Perfect. I'm dropping this now, and asking someone else to review. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect and Greek edit summaries

Making sure this doesn't get lost above. I haven't looked further than the following two edits by Future Perfect, and one previous one nearby on a talk page, but could others review the edits please?

• mixes up sock accusations and content editing explanations (unhelpful taunting, full discussion here)
• Greek edit summary (it has been claimed this means "get out of the shanty, sock")

Looking back further, it seems this is not the only time that Future Perfect's use of Greek has caused problems. See here: "That's always the danger when you try to say something funny in a foreign language; you can never know if it really means what you think it means. I'm glad to hear I wasn't that far off. Seems those Kypatzides taught me correctly after all... ;-)" - seriously, when editing in this area, using Greek when you are not a native speaker, is not going to help if it causes misunderstandings. Did the arbitration case say anything about this? Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the content carefully. The instance that you said "caused problems" was a harmless slang expression meaning "damnit" (in its wide-spread present day colloquial usage) and nothing else. Another Greek user had just confirmed that it meant exactly what I intended. (And that user, Xenovatis, has no reasons to defend me out of friendship or anything.) The fact that the two anons/socks were trying to give that a spin as if I had seriously insulted them is in itself proof of bad faith on their part.

Yes, the other one means "get out, sock". I have little to add to that, it gets the message across.

I will speak with Greek users in Greek in whatever way I see fit. Don't bother trying to give me advice about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read the context. I still wanted clarification. I do object to people talking to each other in a language I can't understand, when one of them could provide a translation in English at the same time. What is the general policy/guideline for this sort of thing? I would also appreciate input from other people as well. Do you (Future Perfect) object to that? And do you think it is helpful to taunt people you think are socks? Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most of us have better things to do than trumping up controversy over such a self-evidently trivial issue. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the trivial issue? I see that the issue of suspected sockpuppetry is non-trivial enough for you to investigate (above), so you can't mean that. Or do you mean the Greek in the edit summaries? Or the taunting of someone Future Perfect thought was a sock puppet, which only served to inflame things? Two simple questions: would you act this way (repeating calling someone a sock), and do you mind if other people act this way (inflaming disputes rather than calming them down)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In a quite similar case, I remember I had to justify an indefinite block I made earlier this year where all reviewing admins and participants agreed with but I don't remember leaving a Japanese edit summary. Apart from 'Arigato gozaimashita' and names of places, people, etc., i'd not use Japanese for anything in the project. Probably I could have helped fix the Nihongo script on the Misplaced Pages logo instead of prompting unnecessary Q & A's. -- FayssalF - 09:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made your point that you consider Future Perfect's reaction poor. You are free to do so. However, at some point (which seems already passed), your dogged pursuit of the matter—going so far as to make an issue out of the use of Greek in an edit summary as if that is some monstrous deed—has become disproportionate to the actual crimes presented. We don't need self-important commentators inserting themselves and insensitively causing more distress to someone who is already feeling harassed, when it looks like you are trying to make a controversy where there is really very little substance. Dmcdevit·t 09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But people clamming up and walking away is not exactly ideal either. I will note that in cases where people acknowledge what I say, or engage with what I am saying (instead of being defensive, or skirting the issue, or diverting attention elsewhere) I am very quick to drop things and move on. But equally, it shouldn't be the case that a defensive reaction causes people to walk away and not bother looking into things. Indefinite blocks are serious stuff. If I walk away now, where does that leave ktr? I asked ktr to quieten down, and I am waiting for Moreschi to respond here. Several people raised concerns that this might not be sockpuppetry - if it turns out it is sockpuppetry, that still doesn't justify blocking on suspicions alone. And can I be clear here, have you gone on a fishing expedition with checkuser? Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't gone on a fishing expedition. I checked a user for whom there was a reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and was blocked for it, since there was disagreement. To be honest, as an outside reader just coming to this discussion, I don't think you are understanding me. Your comments here are bordering on uncivil. It's not just your pursuit of the matter, but the manner in which you are doing it. Some editors are just the nicest uncivil people you've ever met; they can make accusations and assumptions of bad faith, but couch them in questions and righteous quests for Justice, and rarely get called out, all while dampening the community spirit. You are being one of those people right now.

You could have asked me if I had used CheckUser, but instead you decided to use a loaded question like "have you gone on a fishing expedition with checkuser?" You also asked earlier "do you mind if other people act this way (inflaming disputes rather than calming them down)?" "And do you think it is helpful to taunt people you think are socks?" "I would appreciate a straight answer on whether you think taunting editors you think are socks is acceptable?". Do you think making accusations in the form of loaded questions—such that, since you have already assumed the wrongdoing in the question, the only answers are "yes, I was taunting" or "no, taunting is acceptable;" "yes, I was fishing" or "no, I didn;t run a checkuser"—is acceptable behavior. (Yes, that was irony). I don't. Dmcdevit·t 10:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is nothing left to see here. Can we move on guys? -- FayssalF - 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was writing the bit below. Is there a suitable place to discuss the wider issues of getting the balance right between supporting each other as admins and also calling each other out when things go wrong? This is a serious issue, and one that needs to be fully discussed at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries Carcharoth. I believe in your effort in discussing legitimate concerns. Of course there are plenty of suitable places to discuss this in a collegial and friendly atmosphere. We can go to the AN instead or else my user talk page is open for such discussions, wikipedia or arbcom mailing list, wikback.com, maybe the new forum created to discuss ways on how to deal with cultural and ethnic edit wars on Misplaced Pages, personal e-mails to people who may help, etc... The thing is that you are half-right -same as Future Perfect but arguing and repeating oneself in lenghty discussions makes one more wrong than the other. We seek two rights and we won't be interested in two half-rights/wrongs. Please feel free to discuss your concerns with me on my talk. -- FayssalF - 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. Was finishing off an article. Thanks for the suggestions for places to discuss this. If Dmcdevit doesn't see my response below before it is archived, I'll take my concerns to his talk page. One thing I should do, sometimes, is use user talk pages more often (I do nearly always, I hope, do this before initiating any thread here, but I mean here in terms of following up loose ends). It is surprising how often people respond differently on their talk pages compared to a venue like this. One final thing, this shouldn't be about me or Future Perfect, and I apologise if I dragged this off-topic, but about ktr and Moreschi. My view of sockpuppet blocking is that it is better to err on the side of caution. Better to let a few through and block them later, rather than block too many and cause collateral damage when getting it wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for the checkuser fishing comment. I would appreciate a fuller checkuser analysis, as your current analysis doesn't seem to say very much at the moment. I also apologise for being somehat aggressive here, but as I said above, if people engage and talk to me, like you are doing, then things generally turn out fine. It is when people get upset and walk away, or take things personally, or come out with posts like this, that things fall apart. Should I have to feel that I can't raise points or ask difficult questions (difficult for the person answering them, that is)? It sometimes feels like that when people get defensive around me. I might ask hard and critical questions, but I think that is sometimes needed around here. Anyway, if you want an example of me calming an incident, have a look at this. Looking further back, I once severely criticised Guy over his blocking of a group of academics over the Oxford Round Table conference article. Guy was good enough to recognise straightaway that he was wrong, and he apologised. When I'm shown to be wrong, I apologise. Chilling effects work both ways, and a balance needs to be struck between supporting each other as admins, and calling each other out when things go wrong. Read through the entire screen here, and then tell me whether you still think that I should pull back and change the way I do things. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dmcdevit. Nice to have it confirmed I'm not completely clueless and can still spot the reincarnations of malevolent trolls, even in my senility. Adieu. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, I'm not too sure - those particular Macedonia revert-warriors weren't even the primary candidates I was thinking of, sock-wise. They seemed less sophisticated than this one. It's a large DSL provider as far as I know, possibly the largest in the country, and I'd expect any number of our regular Greek contributors on the same ranges. But I haven't asked Dmcdevit for any details about what he saw in that checkuser. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocking

I think we are dealing with a problem of semantics. If an account is blocked for sock puppetry, there really should be a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU report. There have been cases where lack of such a report has been a real hinderance to me when I've been tracking down a problem user who has returned with new socks, but can't find any evidence about those that have been blocked before. Only if socks are exceedingly obvious and the puppetmaster is known, can the reports be skipped, in my humble opinion.

In this case, a "new" user appears and starts disrupting like an experienced troll. Moreschi, next time the block reason could be "disruption-only account" and you could leave a few diffs on their talk page after the block notice. There's no need to identify the puppetmaster if an account acts like a giant dick. They can be blocked for their own behavior. Jehochman 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Seems that we are back to getting legal threats on this one: --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a previous thread on this from August 2007 called "Anonymous legal threats create an impasse". (i'm at work so i don't have time to look it up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not blocking him for the moment per WP:DOLT. Recommend extreme care. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have left a strongly-worded WP:NLT warning. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this further it appears that most of User:Mofb's edits were acceptable or justifiable, whether rewording sentences or removing unsourced sentences and commentary. I've done a quick cleanup, made it a little more NPOV and added back links that should not have been taken out. I think we can put this to bed. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well i personally think that we are now with a POV version - for instance the insertion of this (rather speculative) item:

...as dismissed by the court, which, however, expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioner's position and would have found in his favour if the Government had not discovered, at the last moment, a line item in the EU Budget authorizing expenditure on the Social Chapter under the Maastricht Treaty that the UK Parliament had previously expressly declined to authorize. The Government took Monckton's challenge so seriously that it put up the Lord Advocate personally against him. The outcome was such that the Government was unable to recover its costs in the cause.

Thats a bit over the top isn't it? That combined with a large deletion of criticism, and whitewashing of sentences (such as a change that he is only sceptical of "catastrophic" global warming - which doesn't jive with either his writings, nor articles about it. And the complete deletion of criticism of his scientific views (not personal ones) from climate scientists as well as Monbiot.

Is that justifiable?

Can i again ask why the COI version was edited towards NPOV instead of the original version? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And whitewashing continues . Is the Scotsman article correct - or do we take the word of the person? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Received a further legal threat on this - leaving to other admins to see how best to deal with this. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also protected Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley due to the combined issue of edit warring and this BLP problem. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have frequently expressed dismay over the trend to give subjects an effectual veto over articles, I need to say that some (but by no means all) of the corrections made by the subject appear reasonable, and that the tone of the article prior to his edits might need some adjustment. The protected version at present is, incidentally, the version the subject edited, with some appropriate corrections by Stifle prior to the latest threat. I hope he will decide to remove the protection and continue editing, because he seems an appropriate neutral editor, and I think may be accepted as such even by the subject--the threat was not directed at him. The subject, of course, would have done much better to continue working with us, rather than against us. DGG (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Intend to do so after an appropriate cooldown. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From Monckton of Brenchley: I have specified what is factually incorrect on my page by editing it to remove the inaccuracies. I have also now instructed my lawyers to send to Misplaced Pages a list of 16 inaccuracies, with reasons, and with proposals for their correction - proposals which are fully reflected in the edits which I have made. Please inform me of how to complain formally about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's long history of distorting my biographical entry. His latest tactic, after being thwarted by your restoration of my edits (for which I am most grateful) has been to approach other members of the "global-warming" alarmist community to invite them to restore his errors piecemeal. So I must also say how grateful I am that you have frozen the page altogether for the time being.

Provided that the page remains substantially as it now is after your kind restoration of my edits, there will be no need for me to proceed to the courts: though, for my own protection against further attempts at libel, I have instructed my lawyers to send to Misplaced Pages the list of corrections to the biographical entry as it stood before I corrected it.

I am afraid that neither Misplaced Pages nor Wikimedia will be able to escape their obligations not to perpetrate or perpetuate libels if I am eventually compelled to lodge a petition at the Sheriff Court for an interdict, followed by a petition at the Court of Session for libel. My solicitors will if necessary join as parties the (relatively small) number of internet trunk carriers in the UK, whom the Court may - if it chooses - order to block any Misplaced Pages content that mentions me by name, as a way to prevent further circulation of the libels. Since Scots law is constructed purposively, there would be little that the carriers could do except to comply, particularly in the face of evidence that Misplaced Pages had sought to shelter behind a not-for-profit shell corporation outwith the jurisdiction. Those providers, many of whom operate not only in the United Kingdom but also in the jurisdiction that shelters Wikimedia, might well then take action themselves against Wikimedia within its jurisdiction of convenience to prevent it from permitting or facilitating the circulation of further libels on the networks managed or controlled by them. If I were to succeed, thousands of other disgruntled victims of Misplaced Pages libels would follow the route which our standing Counsel in Edinburgh will devise.

On balance, therefore, Misplaced Pages may prefer simply to see the back of me, by removing my biographical entry altogether and preventing anyone from creating one in future. That is my preferred solution. However, as I have said, for as long as the page continues to be protected to prevent malicious and deliberately inaccurate alterations to the unreasonable and unfair detriment of my reputation, I shall of course stay my hand. Thank you for your kind and helpful attention to my difficulties. - Monckton of Brenchley. Mofb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we will be removing the page, although that might be an option. On the other hand our forbearance on the Misplaced Pages:No legal threats policy is wearing thin. I would like other administrators to consider this case as a matter of some urgency bearing in mind the page complained of has been under WP:OFFICE previously. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. This is the 3rd or 4th time that we've had this legal threat from a person/persons saying that they are Monckton. Including some that ended up in the media Did Lord Monckton fabricate a claim on his Misplaced Pages page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Monbiot.com is probably not a reliable source. Left a message on WP:BLPN. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given all the problems that we have had with this article and subject, I believe it needs to go to arbitration. I will be posting an arbitration request shortly and will post the link to it below when it's ready. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be simplest to block the conflicted editor for legal threats and COI attempts to spin his own article. I'm not terribly sympathetic to any of this. We are protected under U.S. law, and if he wants to try embarrasing Scotland by trying to ban the Internet there he is welcome. He is of course welcome to submit complaints, suggestsions, etc., either through the discussion pages (assuming he is not blocked at the time) or via the OTRS system. Misplaced Pages has policies in place to develop truthful, unbiased articles, and we are as a whole more neutral and truthful than many other sources and news outlets. However, if the person in question is a global warming denier and upset over being portrayed as such, I'm not sure he and an unbiased reporting of the truth have a whole lot to say to each other. We should use our regular procedures on this one, which work pretty well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is definitely unuseful here. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, Wikidemo. I propose unprotecting the article on Monday (once everything has had a chance to cool down) and dealing with the article under standard procedures, and explaining very cleary to User:Mofb that he will be blocked on ANY further mention of legal action. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely necessary. I don't know how familiar you are with the article or with this contributor, but I've been watching both for a long time. There are major conduct issues here that need to be resolved irrespective of the legal side of things. Please reserve your judgment until you've read the arbitration request. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will. I will shortly be going away and will be back on Sunday evening. I plan on leaving the article protected for the time being. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Monckton has, as far as I recall, a long-standing dispute with George Monbiot. I'd not use the latter as a source in respect of the former. On the other hand, where climate change is concerned, Monckton is, I think, in a tiny minority, and given the dearth of qualified experts who back his position, he is widely cited as a supposed authority, which he is not. This has been a problem before. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Right then. What I propose to do is:
  • Unprotect the offending page
  • Give User:Mofb a final warning that any further legal threats will result in an indefinite block (with no more second chances)
  • Remind User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (and everyone else for that matter) about WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:SYN — anything going into this article must be strongly sourced and we cannot add our own opinion of what the source said
  • Watch the page so that I can deal with anyone else.
• If ChrisO wants to file an RFAr, he's welcome to, but I still don't see it as helpful or necessary. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  Ah. ChrisO has already indefinitely blocked Mofb for legal threats. That probably simplifies things. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for community review

I feel this issue needs a wider review by the community. There has been a long-running history of problematic edits to this and other articles by User:Mofb and anonymous IPs, some of whom have identified themselves as the subject of the article, from December 2006 to the present day. Key edits are as follows:

Edits by 62.136.27.125 (talk · contribs):

• 01:44, 5 December 2006 - POV deletions of sourced content

• 20:51, 6 December 2006 - article blanked and replaced with message "This article has been removed pending resolution of libel proceedings against Misplaced Pages. Do not alter this page."

• 20:39, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning critic of Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"

• 20:43, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning product by Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"

IP address blocked for vandalism.

Edits by 81.77.248.148 (talk · contribs):

• 13:14, 30 May 2007 - self-promotion

• 19:50, 6 June 2007 - legal threat, pastes entire newspaper article into article

• 20:43, 6 June 2007 - IP editor identifies himself as Monckton and issues legal threats against Misplaced Pages.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley semi-protected.

Edits by 81.77.230.46 (talk · contribs):

• 07:42, 7 August 2007 - adds inaccurate claim to have won £50,000 libel settlement from The Guardian

• 08:24, 7 August 2007 - legal threat

• 23:46, 7 August 2007 - edit warring, POV-pushing, legal threat

• 00:09, 8 August 2007 - legal threat

Edits by Mofb (talk · contribs)

• 11:43, 28 August 2007 - posts a request for arbitration (denied)

• 12:46, 25 April 2008 - major changes to article; some justified, other not (deletion of critical views, alteration of quoted sources, self-promotion)

• 13:13, 25 April 2008 - legal threat

• 13:36, 25 April 2008 - legal threat

• 15:31, 25 April 2008 - explanation of legal threat

• 15:51, 25 April 2008 - deletes CoI notice as "irrelevant"

User blocked per Misplaced Pages:No legal threats.

As far as I can tell, this user has never actually discussed with other editors any of the issues he perceives with the article. Virtually all interactions with Misplaced Pages and other editors have consisted of (a) deleting content he doesn't like and (b) issuing legal threats. To the best of my knowledge, this is the third occasion since December 2006 that he has threatened legal action.

As Stifle mentions above, I have blocked this user temporarily per WP:NLT while the latest legal threats are dealt with. Does any further action need to be taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article. Viscount Monckton qualifies as notable (IMHO) but there is a lot more verbiage included in the article than I think is warranted.

How about deleting everything after the biography section. Then review point by point and put back only the information that is a) very well sourced and b) clearly important. I think we would end up with a better article, about 1/2 the length of the present one. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This ringing statement of opposition to censorship written by Moncton of Brenchley is worth reading in the context of the complaints here. --John Nagle (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's worth pointing out that a lot of the unsourced verbiage was added by Monckton in his most recent edit. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

we've indef blocked him & a trusted editor is watching over the article. I dont know what more the community might need to do--or can do, for that matter. DGG (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stalins enema

This user is really getting annoying, and nobody seems to be home at AIV. Can someone help? Loren.wilton (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a vandalism-only account. Blocked as such. SQL 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Runtshit sockpuppet - thanks for blocking him NSH001 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw Stalin's Enema play the CBGB, back when it was still in the Bowery. They were badass. Or maybe it was the Dead Kennedys, but Stalin's Enema is still a great name for a mediocre punk band. MastCell  05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Nilges user Spinoza1111

Blocked user spinoza1111 is currently filling up the Ayn Rand talk page with insults and POV comments. He is posting from three IP addresses, though mostly his home one. He is not hiding his identity and traceroute confirm the IPs are in Hong Kong as is his primary account. Not sure what you can do about it as it's an IP address, but he's continuing to be very insulting as we was in the past, which got him blocked. Currentlky he's posting wild threats about exposing fraud on wikipedia and personally naming me in his insults. It's tiresome. I created a sockpuppet page with his three IP accounts on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Spinoza1111 Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One of those IP's is definitely not him and you missed his home IP, which is 202.82.33.202. That is the only non-public, static IP address he edits from.--Atlan (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the last one is not him, but I don't think I added him to the list. I'll remove it and add the other one. !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan a dawe (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added his home account. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the last ANI discussion opened on 21 April, there was a suggestion we wait and see if the editor would stop. Since he has resumed, it is now reasonable to issue a long-term block to Nilges' static home IP. His use of that IP constitutes evasion of the indef block on User:Spinoza1111. Shell Kinney said when blocking the named acccount in October 2006, User claims to have left Misplaced Pages but continues to harass and attack other users via talk pages, a diagnosis which still seems correct. I have blocked 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for six months. Others are welcome to review or modify this block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this block, although this might lead him to edit through public IP's more. I was always in favor of not blocking him just to be able to easily keep track of him, but it's gotten out of hand now.--Atlan (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:David Tombe

User:David Tombe has been trying to insert a specific viewpoint in centrifugal force (fictitious) and related articles (Coriolis effect, reactive centrifugal force). Several users, including myself, have reverted him since his edits do not agree with modern physics textbooks. This has led to a continuous stream of reverts and counter reverts, bordering on, in my opinion, tendentious editing on David's part. However David has recently gone beyond this, and is now wikistalking those editors who disagree with him, reverting minor, non-controversial edits:

• reverting a vandalism correction
• reverting a removal of self-linking
• reverting a removal of linkspam
• reverting again a vandalism correction
• reverting removal of a non-sequitur

--FyzixFighter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: David Tombe was warned that this behavior is considered vandalism . He responded to the warning on an article talk page , and then went on to state that he will continue, unless we "stop deleting his edits", and that he'd like to see an administrator brought in. . (I agree with him on that last point.) The last three of the above edits are from a after he received the warning. --PeR (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts are that PeR and FyzixFighter are the wikistalkers. If you check the facts , you will see that they are engaged in a systematic team effort to delete every single edit of mine.

FyzixFighter has misrepresented the situtaion above. The issue in question at the moment is that the description of centrifugal force as it currently appears in the article is limited to circular motion involving centripetal forces that arise from pressure from a contact object.

I have been trying to generalize the description to "When an object moves in a curved path, it experiences a centrifugal force directed outwards from the radius of curvature".

FyzixFighter and PeR systematically replace this every time which a much less accurate clause which talks about centrifugal force as being a reaction to centripetal force.

FyzixFighter's claim that he is advocating a textbook based position is false.

The true reason for the edit war is because there is a team which includes these two and extends to Henning Makholm, RRacecarr and Wolfkeeper. This team have actively decided to ensure that they are the only ones to be allowed to edit the centrifugal force page. And clearly their knowledge of the subject is very limited. David Tombe (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is very rich irony that PeR in particular should decide to report me for wikistalking. If you check on PeR's recent contributions to wikipedia you will notice that a large percentage of them have been reversions of my edits and the rest have been to argue with me on the talk pages, usually totally illogically. Often the arguments and the reversions are not even directly connected. He is systematically deleting everything that I put in and now he has accused me of wikistalking him. There was another case again today. It's very hard for me to wikistalk PeR considering that most of his contributions are aimed negatively at mine. David Tombe (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the content dispute is irrelevant, and will be resolved through the proper dispute resolution process. That's not why I made this report. David Tombe's edits that I listed above appear to be simply an attempt to get back at those editors that revert his edits. David's own comments on the talk page mentioned above by PeR seem to corroborate this. If that was not the intent, then I invite David to share his reasoning for those edits here. I would also request an administrator quickly look into this, and even PeR's and my edit histories too, to determine if there is any wikistalking/vandalism going on and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And now we have some personal attacks: . Would an administrator please step in and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a personal attack. Please stop whining and do something constructive. John Reaves 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross accusations of disruptive editing

While checking out who exactly is wikistalking who and who started it, could you please have a look at user:Rracecarr. It would be interesting to see how many of his recent edits have been reversions of my edits. I would guess quite a high percentage.David Tombe (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"You started, no you started it!" Shutup already... John Reaves 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake radio/television stations?

Cans someone that knows how, check Special:Contributions/Word67 and see if the stations he is creating articles about actually exist? John Reaves 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

K15AE is fake only the Misplaced Pages article appears and a ton of Japanese or Chinese websites (some one could do a better job I did google). KJTV-CA appears to be channel 32 out side source. I will check the others shortly. Rgoodermote  17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of reals and possible fakes

• K15AE-appears to be fake.
• KJTV-CA backed up by outside source
• K68AR-appears to be real but not in Texas
• K41CZ-appears to be fake
• W49CB-appears to be real, backed by outside source
• W44BF-appears to be real, backed by outside source
• K32GF-appears to be real, backed by outside source
• W66DC-appears to be real, backed by outside source

There are a lot more but this should be enough till I get done with the rest. Rgoodermote  17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued List of reals and possible fakes (should say possible real)

• KDAX-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source
• K16ER-appears to be real, backed by outside source
• K34FH-appears to be real, backed by outside source
• K26DL-appears to be real, backed by outside source
• KAMT-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source

It took me a while but I think I got them all. Rgoodermote  17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up. Apparently (]) he is a sock of banne duser Dingbat2007. Is anyone familair with his MO? Does he create real article so he can slip in fake ones? John Reaves 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I took a look at his contributions and I see that the user does indeed have several real radio stations. So I believe like you said his MO is to make real Radio/TV article and then he slips them in. Probably in an attempt to prove some kind of point. Take a look at his contributions and you are welcome. Rgoodermote  18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked the admin who blocked him about his MO. Rgoodermote  18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat2007 had no deleted contributions - i.e., I don't see where he created any bogus articles. All the edits I saw scanning just now were insertion of bogus information into articles: false cities and networks. Not to say that his tactics couldn't have changed over time; that block was issued 9 months ago. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For US broadcast station checking purposes, the FCC Broadcast Station Database is the definitive source. --John Nagle (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fake" entries may be errors or premature. K41CZ says "K41CZ is a low-power television station in Lubbock, Texas affiliated with FSN, the station is owned by Una Vez Mas Holdings, LLC". In fact, from the FCC database, Una Vez Mas has two low-power licenses in Lubbock, TX, "KDFL-LP", and a pending license application with no call sign assigned yet. . The facility number doesn't match, though. (More to the point, are UHF broadcast repeater and translator stations even notable? They're just relay stations. It's like listing power substations or cell sites.) --John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that broadcaast repeaters/translators/STL links and the like are not only non-notable, they are something that probably should not be made available to people that wouldn't normally know about them. Along the lines of WP:BEANS. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

K41CZ is definitely fake; I have gone ahead and speedied it. There is no way FSN airs on broadcast television, period. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will bookmark that site. I was just doing a simple lookup for the call numbers. I was unsure of the information in the articles myself just didn't know where to look. Rgoodermote  00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can comment on Dingbat (sorry about taking so long; if it deals with TV stations you can usually leave a message on WP:TVS and we can get back to you quicker than we can here).

Dingbat/Word's usual MO is to create fake TV station articles where the station is inexplicably affiliated with a cable network, or modifies an existing station to be so (for a good example, see WSB-TV, which he converted to Nick Jr. 2 Action News several times). Usually if it has FSN, The Disney Channel, a redlinked non-existent channel or any cable network that would never air over a broadcast station as an affiliation, better safe than sorry to revert him and report to AIV. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of Misplaced Pages for class project

New user Globalecon (talk · contribs) posted an article "Global Economics", since userfied to User:Globalecon/Global Economics, from which it appears that he is a professor planning to use Misplaced Pages as a web-space provider for his students' project papers. He advises them to put {{underconstruction}} at the top to avoid editing by others. Four student project articles have already appeared. How tolerant are we of this sort of thing? JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on the article produced. Of those four student essays, I think the last two of those, once wikified, could be perfectly adequate articles (I haven't checked to see if they duplicate existing content, though). The first two probably couldn't - and the first is at AfD already. Black Kite 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of teachers having their students write or significantly improve Misplaced Pages articles as part of a class. So long as everything is properly researched and written, I don't see much of a problem. --clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We've had featured articles come out of school projects, see WP:SUP and the recent Signpost article on the 2000th FA. Simply using Misplaced Pages for a school project isn't an issue at all (and should be encouraged, in my opinion). If the articles produced don't meet our standards, we just deal with them in the usual manner, perhaps giving a little bit of leeway to allow them a chance to improve the article. Hersfold 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Brock University, apparently. I take issue with his attempt to WP:OWN the articles. Misplaced Pages is not a personal playground to store your stuff. Not the mainspace, at least. Otherwise, there's obviously nothing wrong with people creating legitimate articles, whether it's for a college experiment or something else. Enigma 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Two of the four articles are now at AfD, and the other two have been tagged (one by me) with proposals to merge into existing articles. Deor (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it a problem that User:Globalecon/Global Economics mentions the real names of the students working on these pages? Although they're adults, the folks involved in this project seem to be new to Misplaced Pages and may not be fully apprised of the risks. Additionally, the names seem to have been posted by the professor running the project, not the students themselves. A full name plus the fact that they attend Brock University might be more information than is wise to disclose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and not only the university, but a specific class there. Maybe the names should be changed to initials, or first names and last initials? And the more specific info oversighted? Aleta 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further update: there are now eight articles listed on that page. One does not exist (and has never existed), 3 are on AfD, 1 has been prodded, and two have been proposed for merging (only 1 is actually going to survive on its own). And all of them have been tagged for cleanup. Hut 8.5 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another update: There are now nine articles listed and I suspect there are more to come. I hope this isn't one of those big lecture classes with 50 or 60 students. As it is, it's starting to put quite a strain on the time of admins and others monitoring this project, e.g. tagging, warning, participation in AfDs and merge discussions etc. It's a pity the professor who organized the project didn't read Misplaced Pages:School and university projects first. Many of the current pitfalls (and subsequent clean-ups), could have been avoided. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I see nothing wrong with a professor assigning students the task of contributing to Misplaced Pages, I can't see how they can claim any right not to have their articles edited by others. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok so long as they don't violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies. If they are POV pushing, claiming ownership of articles or anything else I think they should be warned. Misplaced Pages is not a free web host. James086 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just fire an email off to the guy. I'm sure the Prof's page at the university has his email. Just a quick email explaining that it is cool to assign students to work on wikipedia but the manner in which students are being assigned violates the principles on which WP is based. Shouldn't be hard. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent off a polite email (to his univ account) thanking him for encouraging contributions, but letting him know that he might want to read the discussion here and on his talk page. --Bfigura 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Are you sure the professor is from Brock University? The Paul Hamilton there is in the Politcal Science Dept. On the other hand, Paul V. Hamilton is a professor in the economics department (specialising in global economics) at Marshall University. Observe this comment in AfD discussion: Global censorship of Youth's books:

• Do NOT Delete This is a draft for course. Please leave unaltered until May 15, 2008. Thanks. pvh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.9.9 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the initals at the end of the comment congruent with "Paul V. Hamilton", the IP traces back to Marshall University. His email address can be found here. I notice that User talk:Globalecon also has "email this user" enabled. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, I wasn't sure. That was just my best guess from an Internet search. Apparently, I was wrong. Enigma 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent an email as suggested by Protonk and Bfigura via "email this user". JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Here are a few thoughts/clarifications: (1) Yes, I am a professor at Marshall (not Brock), (2) This is part of a class assignment (it's not an online class as one person suggested), (3) The students have been made aware of WP article criteria; if they don't live up to that criteria then their article can rightly be edited or deleted, (4) The "under-construction" / "please do not edit" was an attempt to give the student a few days to shape up the article. This idea was suggested on the main Misplaced Pages tutorial page. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception to WP edit policy, (5) I will abbreviate the student names to preserve confidentiality, (6) Yes, ultimately there will be a wide range in the quality and suitability of articles. I've asked students to take their best shot; there are about 100 students in my two sections so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week. Globalecon (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, you can't personally delete articles, even your own. Only an administrator can do that. The individual authors can request deletion themselves by blanking the article and replacing it with {{db-author}}. But an administrator still has to do the deletion, and it becomes even more complicated if others outside your project add sunstantially to the articles, despite your requests. Thus, Misplaced Pages administrators will potentially end up having to manually delete or merge 100 articles, even if they wait until after May 10th. Mightn't it be better for the students to write their articles on their user pages or their user subpages and only contemplate publishing them in the mainspace once you and they have a greater understanding of what kind of articles are likely to survive and why? Just a thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any links to good / featured articles created as part of school projects? That way it'd be easy to say "this is how it's done right", and WP gets to keep newbie editors who aren't disillusioned about having to complete schoolwork which then gets deleted because they've been told to do it wrong. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Hersfold said above, El Señor Presidente came out of a school project, and was our 2,000th FA. Veinor 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: Why not create the articles in Globalecon’s userspace, i.e. User:Globalecon/Article title here, User:Globalecon/Another article, etc.? Globalecon could then simply add {{db-userreq}} to the ones he wants deleted and the articles worth keeping could then be moved out to mainspace. —Travis 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, of course, I’ve just seen the very handy link to Misplaced Pages:School and university projects on Globalecon’s talk page. —Travis 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that articles could be worked on in userspace but, people on both ends need to be aware of the NOT webhost thing. I'd suggest to the students and anyone else to write the text of the article in Word/or other word-like form and use the help pages alot in order to "wikify" it. They can then present the professor with text only (the way the article would look) and the "wiki" bit with code inserted. Finished articles could then be uploaded (if appropriate) and judged by the community on their own merits separate from any issues with the class. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cave and NPR

Teri Gross interviewed cave on Fresh Air today, and quoted fro mteh article. the offending passage (which was PEACOCK or OR, depending on your view of Cave), has been removed, and NPR listeneers are highly unlikely to randomly vandalize, but it might be worth a few extra eyes today. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know he was still alive. I'll add him to my watch list. John Reaves 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JR above. He's still alive? Also watchlisted, partly because I enjoy his music, partly because of this post.......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, 50's not so old lol and I think he toned down his lifestyle a bit, so he has a while before people would ask 'is he dead yet?' :) Merkin's mum 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

new album Just hit stores, and I like it. Other than Teri's ripping on the crappy writeup we gave him, it's an amazing interview, and should be up on the website for Fresh Air. Well worth the listen, and hell yeah he's alive and kickin'. Red Right Hand FTW. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tachyonbursts

Originally on WP:AIV. Editors on September 11, 2001 attacks are having problems with this user. The latest is: (diff); vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block. This is a complicated issue. This user has constantly edited in the face of the Sept 11 arbcom decision giving editors the right to impose sanctions on those who engage in virulent edit warring. Examples: This editor has already been given a stern warning and block for his edits. Please redirect this to wherever it needs to go (if not the ARV), but this issue needs immediate resolution. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong..." — BQZip01 —  23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an embittered, smear crusade accusing anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what VegitaU has said. Tachyonbursts appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with — BQZip01 —, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --Tarage (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on myself: () -- VegitaU (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's pretty clear that Tachyonbursts is the returning NuclearUmpf and before that Zer0faults...editing style (especially edit summaries) and similarly themed usernames, as well as topics and POV. RxS (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RxS, I'm not sure what are you talking about, but I'm sure that I've seen (the pattern behind the) rise and fall of the user you've mentioned above. Do say; are these sorts of unfounded allegations acceptable? What sort of conduct you're expecting in return. Honestly. Tachyonbursts (talk)

168.30.128.198 and related

One or more users from this IP range have been making various nonconstructive edits to several articles, most notably North Georgia College & State University, Ted Haggard‎, and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb‎. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is, but this person is being a rather persistent pest.--Father Goose (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All protected for a short time for edit-warring, WP:BLP violations and unconstructive editing. here is a better place to report this type of nonsense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia point?

Misplaced Pages:Deletionpedia Patrol seems to me to be a WP:POINT violation. It basically advocates trawling through the list of deleted articles and recreating them. While I'm sure the intentions are good, the concept of recreating prods soon after they're deleted, just to do so seems quite a bit disruptive to me, especially since it basically duplicates WP:DRV. Any thoughts? ⇒SWATJester 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

I agree with you, SJ. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied it as a G5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have requested the pages' content here. I would like to recreate it, but in a way that is not a violation of WP:POINT. Basketball110 /_{Tell me yours} 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• One of the main problems is that while Deletionpedia probably does contain a few articles that could be resurrected with a bit of work and research, it also contains articles that shouldn't be restored under any circumstances - BLP deletions and pedophilia-related articles spring to mind straight away. There's nothing to stop people trawling it themselves, but I don't think we need it advertised on Misplaced Pages itself. After all, as Swatjester says, that's what DRV is for anyway. Black Kite 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest while I see the political issues this project raises, I don't think this page duplicates DRV, because DRV is primarily for authors of a page and/or administrators to request re-creation of a deleted page, whereas this is a project organized for locating pages that should be submitted to DRV; for example, a page abandoned by its original author that got illegimately PRODed or CSDed. There's no clear POINT violation, since the project seems targeted at addressing a legitimate problem, rather than as an attack on current deletion practices. Ideally users would be able to do this type of deleted article review on Misplaced Pages itself, at least for articles that don't pose legal issues, but this isn't currently possible. Dcoetzee 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is no more a policy violation than a list of pages deleted at afd would be, and there are various such lists around, including people keeping lists of the pages they are proud for having gotten deleted.. People restoring pages do so at their own risk. DGG (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Including this page. If people want to restore it they should go to DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just process wonkery really, though, because the page was deleted as G5 (created by a banned user) so re-creation by anyone else avoids the deletion reason. Black Kite 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Deletionpedia page does what DRV doesn't do, i.e. it allows non-admins to see the deleted page under discussion and if anything will be a tremendous asset for DRV discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that it's useful for DRV discussions, the question is whether a project that advocates trawling DP for articles to resurrect is necessary a good use of projectspace. Black Kite 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that making bunches of articles go through DRV for insufficient reasons or making them go through AfD twice is an extraordinarily poor excuse for a "project." Deor (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec, unindent) I see utterly no harm in this project. It merely points out that there is a stash of deleted articles that routinely archives them, so that one can see deleted articles. Articles are deleted for many reasons; often they are legitimately deleted, but sometimes not, and pointing to Deletionpedia as this project did, and possibly coordinating editor efforts so that work is not duplicated, could very much help this project by identifying improperly deleted articles, as well as by providing what can be sometimes useful: deleted content, which may be of use for merge, etc. Deletionpedia merely provides to any user what is already available to any administrator. The project page was very careful about not encouraging rash restoration of articles that have been deleted. So I'll be proceeding to Deletion Review, I think.

The suggestion that this project duplicates Misplaced Pages:Deletion review is preposterous. It is a project to examine deleted articles, using a readily accessible cache of them, to determine if there is usable content. Deletion review is a process to discuss and find consensus on restoration of deletions, it does nothing to identify such content for discussion. The deleted project page would feed Deletion Review. (In some cases, with some speedy deletions, it could bypass deletion review, as, for example, it has been suggested here that any user could restore this project page since the deletion reason was creation by a sock puppet -- something which I haven't verified yet.)--Abd (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please - this is just taking the piss something which I haven't verified yet. - Abd and Sarprillia are in constant contact, the standard tactic is that one proposes something and the other supports it, it's a clear pattern, such as here. It insults everyone's intelligence to pretend that's not the game here. Yes, I know I'm blocked but look into the edit pattern of Abd and his meatpuppet it speaks for itself. --87.112.64.32 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this one. I'm in regular contact with the Sarsaparilla, yes, but he does not tell me everything he is doing, I often learn about stuff quite a while later, and, in any case, I had not looked at the deletion reason when I wrote the above. Sarsaparilla is interested in Misplaced Pages governance, and so am I. Yes, he mentioned the governance discussion to me, in email, but we did not coordinate in any way and, in fact, we disagree about quite a bit. I looked at it and made my own comments. He may have done the same, from what Fredrick day charges. It was a huge discussion, and I have not read all of it.

As to the topic here, Misplaced Pages:Deletionpedia patrol, please see . The creator of that project suggested I join it. So I did. I think it's a good idea, whether the creator was Sarsaparilla or not. I had not researched the fact. I see that in edit warring with Fredrick day on my Talk page, what is apparently Sarsaparilla, editing IP, suggests to me that I recreate the article instead of going to Deletion Review. As often happens, I disagree with Sarsaparilla. It was well-written, so why should I take the time to rewrite it?

Fredrick day knows that people read the diffs, and he knows that some of his wild charges will stick in people's minds, because he knows how to feed people's mistrust of each other. That he was so effective at doing this is one reason why I put so much attention into dealing with him as a blocked editor and vandal. He essentially bragged that he could do what he does even if blocked. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I see no reason not to provide User:Basketball110 with a copy, but I'm a little unsure of myself with regard to the undeletion policy and the GFDL with regard to a banned user's posts. Is there any reason I can't restore and move it to Basketball110's user space, and delete the redirect? That seems better, GFDL-wise, than just provide him/her with the text. But then technically I'd be recreating banned user's edits, without taking "responsibility" for it myself. Seems completely harmless to me, but I'm about to leave for the night and don't want to come back in the morning labeled a meatpuppet of a banned user or something. --barneca (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's always email. Muskratatouille (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my first thought, but they don't have email. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the user was saying that copies of deleted articles can be provided by email (as opposed to getting entangled with all these GFDL and G5 concerns). 129.174.90.124 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Muskratatouille, a tasty Muskrat soup created a few hours ago. No relation to "Eat Mor Rodents," I hope?-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Sarsaparilla to stop it, even though I see that almost everything he does is aimed at project improvement. He's blocked, in my opinion unjustly, but he doesn't make things better by editing here. He disagrees, apparently. He's not my meat puppet. Fredrick day used to claim he was simply my sock or I his. Too bad about checkuser, eh?

As to the issue, I had signed onto that page, having been asked to join by the creator and agreeing with the page content. It really should be restored, simply, because it was, in that sense, not only Sarsaparilla's contribution. The license issue is cleaner if it's simply restored. But in an edit to my user page -- which at that point was unprotected, hopefully it's been protected, what must have been Sarsaparilla suggested that I simply recreate the content. But I don't have a copy.... Because I'd signed it, it should not have been speedied, so proper form would be to restore it. I'll ask for that, and then if someone still thinks it should be deleted, it would go to MfD properly. Speedies, if not for legal reasons, I understand, should routinely be restored on request. This one is obviously controversial and thus not a speedy candidate. (This is not claiming that the deletion was improper, per se, though I'd have thought that the fact I'd edited it should have been enough to prevent speedy. It's also possible that edits crossed, it was only a little while ago that I signed it. I wasn't aware of this discussion at that time, I was merely responding to the suggestion on my Talk page. Which was later removed by Sarcasticidealist. This is getting ridiculous.) --Abd (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The page has been restored at User:Basketball110/Deletion Patrol, per Basketball110's reasonable request. The speedy per WP:CSD#G5 was completely valid (all other edits didn't significantly alter Sarsparilla's original text), but I see no reason Basketball110 can't take responsibility for the page and repost it if that's what he wants. Of course, seeing the conversation on this thread, I see an MfD in the page's future, but if Basketball110 wants to repost it, I don't think it's speedy material anymore. --barneca (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was User:Sarsparilla's User page redirected to Abd's User page, if they are not the same person? Corvus cornix_talk 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Charron Attack Article?

I've tagged this for speedy deletion under criterion G10, but from reading the article it appears that this not the first time it's been created. Article author is User:Anoife. Might need to be salted. X Marx The Spot (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can wait a little before salting the article...it's only the second time it has been created. — Wenli  02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good. The author claimed it was the third time. Be well, X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day back for more mischief

Special:Contributions/87.112.64.32. Perhaps it's time my user page is semi-protected, like my Talk page had to be due to this vandal/troll/generally nasty blocked user, socks of whom I have exposed. It's tragic, actually, that Sarsaparilla is considered community-banned (is he?), for, on the one hand, doing everything he can to improve the project, but making a handful of jokes, but two admins resisted allowing Fredrick day to be banned, when he is really about as nasty as can be, tossing any lie that he thinks is sufficiently plausible in appearance that someone might believe it, causing in one day, on many days, more disruption than Sarsaparilla ever approached. Sarsaparilla was last blocked for creating Easter Bunny Hotline, which was real and sourced, merely not notable by itself. (The owner of the Hotline is arguably notable, and an article now exists, I think. Last I looked. These things can disappear in a flash.) --Abd (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just go to WP:RPP they will automatically protect your user page (not talk) for whatever you ask. I would just do semi-protect. Rgoodermote  01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The owner of the Hotline is arguably notable, and an article now exists, I think. Last I looked. - created tonight by Sarsaparilla! - isn't every edit by those two confirming the meatpuppeting? they are just taking the piss at this stage. --87.113.6.81 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not the article I was referring to. Looks like that article may have been deleted. Do I recall correctly that I created it? I had researched the Hotline originally when Larry E. Jordan, the legitimate continuation account of Sarsaparilla at that time, and when I found a reference for it I created the article, I think. Or did I simply read it from someone else having read it? Since it may have been deleted, I can't tell, I can't see my own deleted contributions, a serious defect in the system, in my view. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

yes watch my edits - watch them and wonder why I keep bring abd to the attention of the community - he and his meat puppet are working for commercial interests (proxy voting is basically a sockpuppet's charter to allow commercial articles to remain on wikipedia, you'll notice he makes constant appeals for people to contact him off wiki - this is so people can be worked on and they can identify those who could be easy to turn - similar to the recent CAMERA stuff) - I tossed my account because it served no purpose in exposing people like this. yes block me, but watchlist abd and watch out for when new editors show up to support his "ideas". --87.113.0.203 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to add a little more tinfoil to your hat. 129.174.90.124 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a place to bring your disputes. Rgoodermote  02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Robinepowell

User:Robinepowell is continuing to engage in disruptive behavior, refusing to yield to consensus, and ignoring all warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. She continues to change the DVD release dates and make other false modifications to the featured list List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, and its various season lists, claiming that because she lives in Canada she knows better than the reliable sources being used. She has been blocked six time, for this year alone for 3RR and her continual removal of references from featured articles and disruptiveness. Her last block was on the 22nd for 48 hours. She's already back to edit warring over the season pages, yet again, and redoing all of her inaccurate changes ignoring all requests she DISCUSS and refusing to acknowledge any evidence she is wrong, only claiming that she's right and that's that. She's already passed 3RR on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) (as technically have I in undoing her false changes). The numerous attempts to talk to her, and the multitude of warnings left to her can be see on her talk page, and at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Degrassi DVDs.

AIV considers it a content dispute, but at this point the editors of those lists see her more as a vandal and disruptive editor (and her edits are mostly being reverted as vandalism for deliberately introducing incorrect information). It seems clear that she has absolutely no intention of ever editing in a cooperative fashion, of acknowledging that we go by reliable sources not her personal knowledge, and that she can not just keep doing the cycle of edit warring, page protection & block, wait till both are lift, then back at it. I feel she has been given more than enough chances at this point and am hoping stronger measures will now be taken. Collectonian (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the DVDs, Robin claims that because the creator of TVShowsOnDVD.com is Canadian, that website is geared around Canadian release dates. It is not. It is a US website, owned by TV Guide, that happens to have been created by a Canadian. She figures that because he is Canadian, he would put the Canadian dates up there if they were different. The site does have a different date for season 1's DVDs, but not for subsequent seasons. Both List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes and Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) have sources showing different release dates, but she simply removes all content because it is "incorrect".

At Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), she repeatedly changes the title of the episode "Jessie's Girl" to "Jesse's Girl", to reflect the name of the character, and CTV's website. However, the title is with an i, and this can be verified by watching the episode at www.the-n.com/theclick (if you are in the United States). This has been discussed on the talk page (by a different Matthew that is not me).

At Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3), and Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), She also changes episode numbers and states that they are two half hour episodes, when in fact they are special one hour episodes. This is false, and she has been directed to the references in the article which verify this. Also, if you live in the United States and have iTunes installed, this link has the episodes as broadcast. She claims that they are half hour shows because that is what is on her TV, but these are syndicated repeats which have been edited to half an hour timeslots.

Because the main episode list is transcluding the information from each season article, every time she messes up one, she messes up another. This is not good. Also, each of those articles is Featured. Everything on there has been verified by other Wikipedians, the format has been agreed upon by consensus at WP:FL, and not only that, but the Degrassi episode and season articles are part of a WP:Featured Topic.

Initially I thought she simply didn't understand, but people are dealing with her all the time, putting themselves in jeopardy of being blocked for 3RR by constantly reverting what I now believe to be purposeful vandalism. Not only is she a pest on the Degrassi pages, but reading her talk page will show that she also causes repeated problems for the regular and dedicated Wikipedians who take care of Smallville and Las Vegas tv show pages. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Page deleted by East718.

Resolved – Summaries deleted, offending anon blocked, page semi-protected by FCYTravis.

Resolved – YURI2000 indefinitely blocked, AfD closed as WP:SNOW delete. Sandstein (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I went looking for a reason why this edit to my talk page might have been done and I am now fully aware of the current puppet issues related to user:Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents but there is no policy/guideline I know of that supports his comments being deleted from another user's talk page. Removing comments addressed to me represents a parochial attitude that insults my intelligence and independence as a Misplaced Pages editor. The decision to ignore him or to be sucked-in by support him was my decision to make. An admin electing to make that decision for me was offensive.

Resolved.

Resolved – User blocked for 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Legal threats are legal threats. Indef. blocked per this edit summary. seicer | talk | contribs 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards