Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ave Caesar (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 24 May 2008 (→WikiStalking and {{user|Ender78}}: +). 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?

Personal attacks from User:Haiduc

• Makes vandalism accusation after unreliable sources (personal websites, US News and World Report to verify a scholarly claim about Shakespeare) removed:

• Is warned by another editor:

• Persists in calling edits vandalism, also calls them ignorance, persists in referring to me with male pronouns, in spite of the fact that he has been told I am female (why I don't know): -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc does not characterize your editing as vandalism in the third diff. In fact, he says that I "may well be right" that your changes do not constitute vandalism. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His edit is titled "vandals" (and is grossly incivil on two other counts...) You "may well be right" isn't exactly an admission that he is in error/has violated the NPA policy..-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• He's also up to five reverts on Historical pederastic couples now...-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Five consecutive reverts. WP:3RR: "Consecutive reverts by the same user with no intervening edits by another user will be counted as one revert." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • He's still edit warring (6 consecutive reverts)--that's why I added it here since there's no 3RR report to make. Undoing all of another's edits and calling them vandalism, and then adding additional insults at an article he thinks he WP:OWNS. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. Petra, your persistent removal of material after you have been warned that it is based on the work of bona fide scholars, especially in the absence of reasoned discussion, borders on sabotage. If it is no longer viewed as vandalism by strict Misplaced Pages rules, then I apologize - I have been here a long time and have not kept up with all the changes in Misplaced Pages culture. Please do not misinterpret this statement as approval of your behavior. I am sure you recall that the last time you attacked an article on which we were both working you ended up being blocked for a week. Let's hope that this will not happen again. On the other hand, I do have to say that this time your comments have been more moderate than the last time, and you seem to be doing more research before coming to conclusions. I would like to think that you will eventually become a serious and productive editor here. In order for that to happen you will need to do even more research, and you will need to be a bit more respectful of other editors' work and responses. Haiduc (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware that calling another editor's edits "vandalism" is completely unacceptable. You need to stop doing several things, immediately 1) WP:OWNING a collection of articles 2) attempting to enforce the "ownership" by personally atacking editors with the audacity to challenge your "ownership" by criticicizing bad sourcing, such as personal websites and tabloid journalism used to verify scholarly claims, etc. There's a lot of OR and speculation in the articles, as well as NPOV problems. ( If I were you, I would also stop referring to me as "he," as I interpret this as misogynist.) All of the articles you think you own are going to be throroughly reviewed by me, and I have sought outside input from several Wikiprojects and noticeboards as well, and will continue to do so. If you persist in ownership behavior and personal attacks while these reviews are happening, expect to find yourself here every single time. You were blocked for a week for a "nasty personal attack," don't let it happen again. -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Link to discussion about dubious claims and dubious sources which Haiduc has shifted from calling "vandalism" to calling "sabotage": http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples#Shakespeare -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And Haiduc has an unfortunate history of making ad hom attacks in lieu of arguments when reliability of sources are questioned on "his" articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pederasty#The_.22Encyclopedia_of_Homosexuality.22:_reliable_source.3F.3F -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • All these allegations are nothing more than your personal opinion on the matter. Enhance your calm, please, you are starting to sound hysterical. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Just a note to indicate that I am aware of the above remarks. I decline to comment further. I will make an exception in the case of the gender issue. Petra, as you are probably aware, Misplaced Pages aliases are intrinsically ungendered, no conclusions can be drawn from them. While you are welcome to be whatever you are, I based my opinion about your probable gender on the pugnacious tone of your dialogue and your interest in articles dealing with male homosexuality. Such qualities do not a feminine countenance evoke, at least not in my mind. At any rate, I did not mean to give offense so please forgive me if my words rubbed you the wrong way. Haiduc (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • • I have an interest in articles relating to child abuse, specifically, making them more neutral against a particular lobby. You have already been told repeatedly that I am female. I could easily prove it any number of ways, by showing up at the meetup June 1 etc, but why should I have to, or anyone have to--I tell you what my gender is, and you don't call me anything else, period. Your reasoning for why I am not female is extremely sexist and offensive. It's also totally bizarre--I have yet to see anyone else on Misplaced Pages tell women they could not possibly be women, etc. It's definitely a hostile environment for women in some ways, but you are an extreme case.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
            • In Petra's defense, the name "Petra" is a common female name in Slavic cultures. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
              • In my "defense"? You're missing the part where he was explicity and repeatedly told I was female, but decided I was a liar because in his opinion, I am not "feminine," which is repulsive, disgusting, and misogynist (and gender-based harassment). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Seems to me like Haiduc is both trying to out the identity of another editor, namely petra, which is not acceptable, and also trying to use personal attacks to get this way in a content dispute. Haiduc has been with us quite long enough to know what vandalism is,a nd i assume his use of this word is to provoke. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • You're still missing the point, Squeak. Imagine if I decided the opposite: Haiduc pointed out that he was male, and should be referred to with male pronouns, but I told him "I am not persuaded you are male," and continually referred to him as "she," because in my opinion he was unmasculine/effeminate. Misplaced Pages is freaking retarded on the issue of sexism sometimes.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Point taken, this user clearly needs watching. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Are you publicly admitting to stalking, Squeak? I'd love to assume good faith but given your past behavior...--Dragon695 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • The issue is respect. Refusing to accept an editor's statement of their gender and instead referring to them by the opposite pronoun may seem like a small detail but it's not. It's an expression of contentiousness and disrespect, and as such is uncivil and disruptive. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • No, it is not just about respect--it would be one thing if he accidentally referred me to me as male, etc.--what he did is intentionally and repeatedly insisted that I was a liar, because in his opinion, I was "unfeminine"--this is ugly sexism. And note again the reverse example--if I said to any male editor, I refuse to beleve that you are male, becuase in my opinion you are effeminate and unmasculine, therefore I will refer to you only as "she," I have no doubt that this would quickly be interpreted as deliberate harassment. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • Sorry, I missed this part of what Haiduc wrote above at 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC): "I based my opinion about your probable gender on the pugnacious tone of your dialogue and your interest in articles dealing with male homosexuality. Such qualities do not a feminine countenance evoke". Having re-read the thread, I see your point and concur with your concern. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Haiduc has continued in his ownership behavior and incivilty during this thread--he deleted a cited sentence inserted by User:Phdarts with the edit summary "remove nonsense":http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pederasty&diff=214158358&oldid=214158251. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If he continues perhaps a user Rfc would be in order. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In the "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality": reliable source discussion as noted above, Haiduc accuses another editor in a similar way, where he wrote phrases including: " please do not come here on a pedophile witchhunt" ... "imposing your opinion of a work" ... "Do not make it seem as if we are to operate as virtual idiots, as citation-gathering machines." ... " it is not ignorance of the topic that you bring to the table, but your antagonism to pederasty," - those phrases are not written about PetraSchelm, so they have nothing to do with her contributions, but they do show a pattern of discussion that is antagonistic rather than collaborative. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is regrettableregretable, it is no worse than the usual tone used by User:Filll and User:ScienceApologist. I would also recommend taking the first bit as sound advice, we do not need anti-PPA tendentious editors any more than we need pro-PPA tendentious editors. We certainly don't need moar crusaders, either. Not accusing anyone in particular, but there has been an appaling lack of good faith shown by both sides. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, regardless of what the nuts at wikisposure think or try to stir up. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What does this have to do with the fact that Haiduc and Haiduc alone is calling other peoples' edits vandalism, engaging in gender-based harassment, and article ownership? It might also help to clue you in that Haiduc doesn't edit any "PPA" articles, doesn't consider himself a "PPA," and takes offense at the idea. You're short on clues. And "hysterical." :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you take it this far, and would never hand yourself in for equally disreputable behaviour...? J*Lambton /_C 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else get the feeling that this clique discussion is most probably ideologically biased? J*Lambton /_C 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I envy you all for having the leisure to engage in this kind of chit-chat. As I just told Squeak, let's concentrate on our work here, and not on each other. Regards to all, please do not forget to smile. Haiduc (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Squeak gave you a clear warning, and you should heed it, or there will be a user conduct RfC. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

reposted from archive to bottom of page because still unresolved: Pigman☿ 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Misplaced Pages editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.

Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Misplaced Pages editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

Please note also that /Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.

AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:

From: Jeff (SURNAME REDACTED) (mailto:REDACTED)

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM

Subject: Misplaced Pages Cabal Alert

Dear Folks,

You are all people I have approached about helping me preserve the articles on Misplaced Pages related to individuals and subjects important to our community. If anyone receiving this has not logged in to Misplaced Pages as an editor, please do so. It's really easy, and you become one right away. But please, use a nickname rather than your own name, like almost everyone else does. Believe me, there are some people who take this stuff way to seriously, and will hassle you about your activities; plus, no one can challenge you on Point of View or Conflict of Interest issues if you remain anonymous.

If you have already become an editor, I urge you to edit...anything! Even correcting typos or grammar here and there will establish you as an editor; if you don't, when you vote on something they'll put a flag next to your name that says "this editor has provided few or no edits besides this issue", which is a way of saying that you're not really an editor, but probably just a sock-puppet (fake additional account) for some editor who wants to pad the votes. We are not doing that; you are real people, not dummy accounts.

There are two articles nominated for deletion that I'd appreciate help on. First, go to their articles, click on the words "this article's entry" in the box at the top explaining that it has been nominated for deletion. That will take you to the deletion nomination page for that article. Please register a vote to keep; to do that, you must hit "edit this page" at the top, then click your cursor right below the last person's entry and add Keep - This subject is notable enough. Keep should have three apostrophes before and after it. You can word the last part any way you want, or expand on it and say why you think so, although someone may argue with your reasoning if you do, and you may not want to keep checking back and responding. After your entry, remember to print four tildas like this (EXAMPLE REDACTED), which will add your Wiki name and entry date to the vote. If you have the time and interest, you can actually try to improve the article with new citations and data, but this stuff happens fast so first register your vote RIGHT AWAY.

The articles nominated for deletion are Dennis Chernin and Nicki Scully. Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Misplaced Pages and expressing their opinions. Also, there are a couple of editors who have a problem with articles either written by me or associated with Starwood, and others who have issues with Pagans, hippies, New Agers, or whatever they perceive these folks to be, and even three people working together is a lot on Misplaced Pages.

Other articles tagged as having questionable notability include Philip Carr-Gomm, Richard Kaczynski, Skip Ellison, Morwyn, Vivianne Crowley, and Chas S. Clifton. Most were tagged by the same person who nominated the other two. He also tagged Nevill Drury (if you can believe it), but retracted it for now. He succeeded in deleting the articles of Phil Farber (author of Futureritual), Pamela Ball (author of over fifteen books on New Age and magical subjects), and Halley DeVestern (who sang with Big Brother & the Holding Company the year they did Starwood). He and his little group successfully deleted the following as well: WinterStar Symposium, Jeff Rosenbaum, Victoria Ganger, and Taylor Ellwood, and tried unsuccessfully to delete Sally Morningstar and Matthew Abelson. They've also been deleting mentions of Starwood and WinterStar wherever they find them using one excuse or another.

Please feel free to contact me about any of this, either by phone: cell - (REDACTED), off - (REDACTED), or e-mail me either here or at (REDACTED).

Thanks for your interest. I will continue my efforts to keep articles about prominent members of our community present, up-to-date, and free of slander on Misplaced Pages, and monitor subjects like "witch" and "psychedelic experience" for misrepresentation. Thank you for any help you can give me.

Ad Astra, Jeff

This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Misplaced Pages, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Misplaced Pages practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Misplaced Pages:canvassing. It says: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Misplaced Pages editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said "Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Misplaced Pages and expressing their opinions." This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Misplaced Pages, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Misplaced Pages. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Misplaced Pages. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the "Ekajati sockdrawer" (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Misplaced Pages. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Misplaced Pages editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page

I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it's an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration . I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Misplaced Pages. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive. -- Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after really long posts

It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here...oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Misplaced Pages," or to discuss Misplaced Pages issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Misplaced Pages, please see ], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. -- Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

* Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep...lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. -- SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no joke. Copyright vests to the authors of the email, which was sent privately to private individuals. The author of the email has noted above that he has not given permission for its reproduction. The fact that another individual violated the copyright and sent the email w/o permission to several mailing lists does not mean that the email can now be freely reproduced w/o permission from its author. I thought Misplaced Pages admins were much more savvy about copyright than to violate and then joke about it like this. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After viewing the input of editors so far, I feel that enough have expressed their opinions that what I did was a violation of the policies against canvassing. I must apologize for having done so. I can only say that I did not read it that way, and was unaware of the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case (though I've got to say that comparing that case to what I did is like comparing a war to an argument). I truly meant to encourage friends of mine that had expressed an interest in my stories about my work in Misplaced Pages (of which I am proud, despite my stumblings) to get involved and help improve and support articles about people and subjects important to the communities we share. I see that the way I went about it, and particularly my specific mention of articles nominated for deletion that I hoped would be kept (even though I specifically told the folks I contacted to review them and vote according to their own judgement), evidently crossed the line. Both articles have been deleted; ironically, Nicki Scully probably would have survived if not for my blundering.

I am contacting each person I sent my e-mail to and asking them to ignore it, telling them that what I did turned out to be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and that there is a case against me for having sent it out. I accept that I owe the Misplaced Pages community an apology, and offer one sincerely. I can only say that I felt that an undue number of articles I had created, mostly NOT related to my personal activities, were being tagged and/or nominated for deletion on notability issues, including several I thought were extremely notable, and I thought this was once again a campaign by an editor with a history of conflict with me to attack articles not because they were actually non-notable, but because I had written them. In the past, I have tried to ask arbitrators for help in such cases, and either gotten no response or, in some cases, been told that my editing was acceptable, but the editor(s) in question simply ignored the arbitrators. When I tried to get help from other editors, I was accused of canvassing. For the sake of fairness to the subjects of the articles, I had hoped that more eyes on the issue would be a help, and I have always wanted more involvement in Misplaced Pages by people from the communities these subjects are important to, so I thought sending out this e-mail was a good thing all around. However, I accept that my actions were improper, and I can only apologize, retract my e-mail from those I sent it to, and promise never to do it again.

Over the past many months, I have written many articles about individuals who are unrelated to the events I work on. I have created little or no new links to the ACE or Starwood pages, and no external links, though I have vigorously discussed the merits of deletions of existing mentions and wiki links on several talk pages and deletion nomination pages. In a very few cases, like Firesign Theatre, I followed up such a talk-page discussion with a revert of a deletion, but not more than one revert. An examination of my work since the arbitration last year will show that aside from talk pages and deletion pages, the vast majority of my work has been to either add to and improve articles (especially ones tagged or nominated) or to write new ones unconnected with my personal work. I can supply records of this if asked (and given time).

I can only hope that I will be allowed to continue to edit here. I truly believe I have been an asset to Misplaced Pages in the fields of my interests, and occasionally elsewhere. I have spent hundreds of hours just adding to bibliographies and discographies, finding citations and references, expanding and wikifying text, turning in-text notes and links into proper references, and other just plain work. I have never visited the articles of those I've had conflicts with and tagged them or treated them the way I saw myself treated; and I realize that articles don't belong to anyone, but I'm just saying that when I have had a problem it has been reactive, not proactive. I am not here to cause trouble or vandalize or disrupt, just to write and improve articles. With very few exceptions, I think my editing has improved a great deal over the last year. I sincerely hope I can continue to contribute, and I will seek to get a better understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits, and I will refrain from ever violating canvassing policies either on or off Misplaced Pages. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended actions

By my reckoning, no one has defended User:Rosencomet's actions, four editors have clearly recommended a block, one editor has less clearly stated what Rosencomet did was "a textbook example of canvassing" without specifics of action and one edtitor's opinion seems unclear on actions to take. While Rosencomet's apology above is a consideration, I also note that here, Davidkevin says that Rosencomet's letter was posted to 4 Yahoo groups. This genie doesn't go back in the bottle that easily. This is not an isolated event and his actions over the past two years have generated a number of RfCs, mediations and an Arbcom case. My recommendation is a minimum three month block and if I had my druthers it would be for much longer or permanent. -- Pigman☿ 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the arbcom case? -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The evidence page is here. The main page is here. I'll save you the trouble of going through this rather lengthy and convoluted case and say the proposed remedy in relation to Rosencomet was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." -- Pigman☿ 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's probably worth mentioning that I was the one who brought the case to Arbcom in the first place although you can see that many other people participated. Please also make a note of the Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati to be clear who was defending Rosencomet's actions in this case. -- Pigman☿ 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I only sent the e-mail to a few friends. Only a half dozen received it, and none have expressed an intention of becoming editors. Unfortunately, one of my friends didn't understand that it was not meant for the general public, and HE forwarded it to the yahoo groups without my consent (and he has apologized), where Davidkevin read it. I have sent an e-mail to the people I originally contacted saying that my e-mail had violated wikipedia canvassing policies, and that I had apologized on wikipedia, and urging them to ignore the first e-mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment having no one to advocate for me, I would repectfully point out that this case involves this e-mail and it's violation of wiki canvassing policies; at least, that's the only current evidence being considered. It has nothing to do with an Arbcom on activities that took place in 2006 during the first 4 months of my editing which doesn't mention canvassing once. Also, I had no knowledge of Ekajati's sockpuppets, nor were they the only editors in support of my position in the Arbcom or the two mediations that preceded it. Within days of my first edit, I found myself to be in the middle of a war between two people using an army of sockpuppets: Ekajati and Mattisse (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mattisse. I didn't even know what the word meant. If you read the decisions, you'll see that it also said:

"Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others. He has made good faith attempts to understand policy and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.

Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

Pigman's right about one thing; it was a convoluted case decided at the end of March 2007 that covered activities starting from August 2006, and I don't think it can or should be re-tried via a snapshot now. I don't think this decision should be about everything I have ever done or been accused of doing since becoming an editor, or whether Ekajati or Mattisse had more sock-puppets, nor should that Arbcom be selectively re-hashed by the one who brought it as part of this case.

I made a serious error in sending this e-mail out. There is no question of that. But unless some objective analysis of my editing since then is conducted, I don't think the Arbcom should be mixed in here. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has always been borderline tendentious and tending to promote your own interests, so that at least has not changed. -- Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I mediated (for a while) the case that wound up at the ArbCom case.

I think a block would be, at this point, needlessly punitive. Pigman is right -- the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Blocking Rosencomet, for any length of time, is not going to undo the damage, both realized and potential, in this incident. But it's also not going to teach Rosencomet anything that he isn't already being told by a flood of editors -- myself included -- in varying degrees of detail and empathy. And since the incident in question is one that is off-wiki in nature, a block inherently cannot be seen as preventative.

An indefblock, as suggested by Pigman above, I think is grossly inappropriate, since Rosencomet does seem to actually want to do better. Does he fall (far) short of the mark at least some of the time? Obviously, as this incident evidences, yes. But his apparent desire to be a positive Wikipedian, no matter how misplaced his efforts, makes an indefblock inappropriate.

That renders any block levied at this point in the process, after the incident is by and large over, purely punitive. And I would like to remind all involved here that we don't do that here and we shouldn't do that here.

Here are my suggested constructive solutions which would both be in keeping with policy and would help Rosencomet grow as an editor:

1. topic ban, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.
2. mandatory mentorship, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.

I suggest specifically that these two be simultaneous.

I, of course, welcome comments on this proposal. -- Revolving Bugbear 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I need to make it clear (and I apologize for not having made it clear already) that I am only a member of two of the four YahooGroups to which the letter was posted, and that in the two in which I saw the letter it was in fact Oberon Zell-Ravenheart who re-posted it, not Rosencomet himself. It very well may be as Rosencomet says, that it was Oberon's idea to do the reposting, not Rosencomet's -- I've known Oberon personally for 36 years and he is both a man of immense good will and also occasionally a man of impulse. I have no doubt that he thought he was doing a good turn.

Even if it was originally addressed to specific individuals and not intended for group publication, however, the letter as it is written, seen out of the context of being part of a chain of correspondence, still thoroughly appears to be an attempt to "ballot-stuff" in an edit dispute, and inappropriate by the rules under which we all are supposed to work as Wiki-editors.

Having occasionally corresponded with him, and seen some of his interactions with other editors, I don't think Rosencomet had evil intent. It appears to have been a "doofus" kind of action, something of which I don't doubt we all have been guilty at one time or another in one context or another -- Goddess knows I certainly have, both here in Misplaced Pages and in plenty of other places, too.

I agree that banning is merely punative and only grossly instructive at best. I think, with no intention of being patronizing, that mentorship is a much better solution for Rosencomet -- if I had had such, perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I did when I first took up here.

I don't think a topicblock is appropriate as there are subjects about which he is knowledgable, where he can greatly improve articles. Under active mentorship social errors such as this current situation can be avoided, and we all win.

I wish him nothing but well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to dropping to topic ban suggestion if there is agreement that Rosencomet can trim the things that have been getting him in trouble. My suggestion for a topic ban was more out of caution than anything else -- there are some people whose patience is running extremely thin, and it would be disastrous for a boneheaded but well-intentioned move to wrench an otherwise positive mentorship. But like I said, if it's not necessary, that is of course fine. - Revolving Bugbear 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Revolving Bugbear's 21:32, 16 May 2008 post above which I took far too long to write.)

With all due respect, Revolving Bugbear, I think you are wrong. Yes, a punitive block/action is never appropriate. We do not block punitively; blocks are only to protect the project, not to punish. However. I know I also weigh the editor's history (if any and if I can) leading up to any incident. This is not Rosencomet's first incident of canvassing (see from Dec. 2007). I also have concrete evidence that he sent a different email to 30 recipients (in Dec 2007, IIRC), again canvassing off-wiki for support. I can quote from that email if requested to do so but my source has requested confidentiality.

Over the many months of my interactions with Rosencomet, I have consistently provided him with polite help, links to appropriate policies and guidelines, explained situations when he was unclear about WP process or protocols, etc. I briefly explained how to provide a statement in the request for arbitration, an arbitration case I myself brought against his actions, particularly reminding him to keep it under 500 words because I was aware of his tendency to write at length. While certainly not a mentor to him, I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Misplaced Pages during our exchanges. While Rosencomet and I have often been in conflict and at odds over these months, I've always hoped he would eventually shed his ownership issues with articles and develop an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS as well as other policies.

Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here. To put it plainly: He doesn't play well with others. That is not a blockable offense. But serial violation of the same policy, particularly when blocked for it the first time, is. Pigman☿ 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pigman, you were not a mentor to him. That's what he needs -- focused, exclusive, intense guidance. With all due respect to you, and without calling your actions into question at all, you can't really expect to be instructive to someone when you are in conflict with them. Rosencomet has expressed to me that he feels that "no one is in his corner". That may be a situation of his own making, but he realizes that he needs to change the way he does things in order to be accepted and productive. That can be shown to him, but not, to take your example, by a party to an ArbCom case essentially filed against him.

What are you trying to accomplish pushing for this block? Whether or not you think he's any good at it, he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand, so this is definitely not an indefblockable offense. So what, exactly, will this block accomplish? There is no instructive or corrective merit to a block here. What good will it do, other than to satisfy a few users who are irritated? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. At best, I've just been courteous and occasionally helpful to Rosencomet; this is not, in any imaginable way, equal to mentorship. I can, however, take issue with "he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand." (my emphasis) I'd say he expresses a desire to improve right here, right now, on ANI, faced with a block. Is this a failure of WP:AGF on my part? Perhaps, but as I said above, I also look at his history and explanations in relation to the canvassing. He was brought up once here at ANI for doing it on-wiki. If that was the extent, I'd be more lenient. We now have two separate instances of canvassing off-wiki that we know of. Above in this thread, he tries to wikilawyer and split hairs about whether he was really canvassing. While the CAMERA incident isn't close in scale to his known canvassing violations, it is related.

As Guy mentioned above, Rosencomet has also been a tendentious editor during his 20+ months on WP. I believe this is related to the tactics he then uses (canvassing, for example.) I agree an indef block is extreme and not appropriate. My suggestion was three months because I see such canvassing as quite antithetical to consensus on WP. His record of policy violations on WP, which includes letting others use his account, has been remarkably consequence-free for him. When caught on one thing, he stops that thing but, lo and behold, he's caught on a different violation a few months later. This is my point: He games the system by playing at being the ignorant victim. What editor of 20 months and fairly extensive WP experience doesn't know such canvassing is a policy violation? After being warned once before, four months earlier? Pigman☿ 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction In December Rosencomet was warned three times about canvassing, and referred to the relevant policies: . He then says "I have looked over the material about canvassing. ... I do not see this as canvassing, and I certainly don't see it as a "blockable offence". Then once again he was reminded that he's been warned, and given the policy: "Misplaced Pages:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing. The relevant section is this: 'Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary.'" - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment These are all about the same incident. You are making it look like this is a record of three incidents of canvassing, which is not the truth. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Pigman when he says that he has been civil and polite to me. On the contrary, I have felt that he has treated me as if he were a parole agent, constantly watching, watchlisting, and commenting on my every edit. He, Kathryn and Mattisse have gone on two sprees of tagging and deletion nominations in the last few months on articles I've written, once tagging about 35 in the space of a few days. I have NOT engaged in revert wars or contentious editing; in fact, I have reserved myself to the talk pages and deletion nomination pages, and asked for help from arbitrators. Over the past six months I have written almost entirely articles that are NOT related to Starwood or ACE, but because they are mostly associated with Pagan and Magical people and subjects, Pigman has treated my editing as if they WERE Starwood related. I have not inserted new Starwood mentions into articles, and in most cases I haven't even argued, as mentions from before the Arbcom have been stripped from article after article, even though they were IMO appropriate in several cases. I either discussed it on talk pages or provided citations to support their inclusion; and if they were still reverted, I did NOT reinsert them. It seems to me that my editing has approached the norm in wikipedia, except for the constant pressure Pigman, Mattisse and Kathryn insist on exerting.

My editing HAS changed drastically, but these three not only refuse to see any of it, including the dozens of new non-Starwood related articles, but they are trying here to re-try me for activities that have already been settled in the Arbcom that ended in March of 2007. This is like double jepardy; except they are selecting particular one-sided pieces of that case without anything from the other side, and acting like I'm editing the same as I did back then, with no defense for me. And they are ignoring the fact that the results of that Arbcom were that my behavior was at least partly due to the fact that I was plunged into a contentious battle between two multiple sockpuppeteers starting when I had only been editing for a few days, that my editing had improved since then, and that I was free to keep editing as long as I don't do it aggressively; which I have not. My only real conflicts have been with these three editors since then; they refuse to let me be, refuse to recognize any improvement, refuse to stop trying the same Arbcom that they were dissatisfied with the results of, and they are hooking a lot of you in by presenting just parts of their side of that Aerbcom. I would ask you; if it is so clear cut, then why was the decision what it was? Please ask the arbitrators who voted 4 to 0 if this rehashing of that case is fair or balanced.

He and Kathryn have consistently claimed that I should not be allowed to edit any article by a Llewellyn author or anyone ACE's bookstore has ever had a book for sale by, even though an arbitrator, Fred bauder, has explicitly said that this is not true and that I am free to edit any article, even those of associates, as long as the edits themseves are responsible and not original research.

I am placing in Revolving Bugbear's hands an assessment of the editing I have done since the Arbcom. I've given him a sample of every article I've written alphabetically from "A" to "J" (the first ten letters). It includes 37 articles, 4 that have been deleted, 3 within the last couple of weeks. I will supply a similar assessment of ALL my edits if need be. You will see that all the new articles since March 29, 2007 are not Starwood or ACE related, and that I have not inserted any new mentions of the same into any old or new articles in the list, or revert-warred on any of them. You will find vigorous dialogs on talk pages and deletion nomination pages, but that's any editor's right.

I am asking for time to present you all with a better picture of my editing since the Arbcom, to show you that I have improved and want to improve, and that I have at times been provoked into reacting against uncivil behavior done with a polite note and a smile. I mainly want to show you that this should not be a case of evaluating everything I have done since I began editing, but I should be judged as someone who has tried hard to change and has done a lot in that area (don't take my word for it, let me document it for you). But I blundered badly about this canvassing thing; I realize that and I truly apologize, and vow not to repeat it. And I certainly need mentoring in how to react when I perceive myself to be treated unfairly without violating policy. I feel like for the past six months I've been harassed, and I am only told what I should not do or should not have done about it, but never what I CAN or SHOULD do about it. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support block

I have experience of trying to work with Rosencomet. He may mean well, but in practice he wears out any and all opponents by attrition. He wore me out. As long and as copiously as he has edited here, he still seems unaware of, and uninterested in, the practice and culture of the place; the meatpuppet e-mail posted above is a good example of his methods, but far from the only one. I read with interest his post above, which sounds rather like this is the first time anybody's ever tried to explain basic policy to him: I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits. This elicits benevolent assumptions of good faith from many who have posted above. However, my experience of his editing techniques is not "an honest disagreement about good-faith edits," I wish it were. Instead it resembles that of Pigman: I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Misplaced Pages during our exchanges... Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here.

I support Pigman's proposal for blocking Rosencomet for at least three months. Revolving Bugbear asks what good a block will do. At a minimum, it will free up the time and energies of good editors, which Rosencomet uses up. These people could and should be writing articles, rather than struggling to contain his tendentious editing. (Please read Pigman's post immediately above carefully.) -- Bishonen | talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that saying he "expresses" a desire to improve is more appropriate, I will concede that point. However, the distress he has expressed to me seems rather genuine, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe he's struggling with some of the policies, maybe he really never got around to reading most of them (you'd be surprised), or maybe he really does think he can weasel his way around them...in any case, I think a focused effort to make him aware and respectful of these things will show improvement. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth a shot. -- Revolving Bugbear 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a block as well--and to my mind, the only course here is indef. In light of the fact that a) he previously was blocked for sharing an account and b) he's been warned before for canvassing, I'm of the mind that it's time to close the door. -- Blueboy96 22:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

--Support Block: Short list of Misplaced Pages attempts to educate Rosencoment--

Conflicts arose around the large number of articles associated with Rosencoment's Starwood Festival and his apparent control of other Misplaced Pages articles listed on the Starwood Festival and related pages. At one point, there were over 145 links from Misplaced Pages articles going to Starwood Festival commerical links selling CDs, tickets etc. Rosencoment and those later found to be socks repeatedly replaced these commercial links when they were removed. There were also other problems such as WP:COI. Regarding attempts to reach an understanding with Rosencoment over policies and guidelines in editing on Misplaced Pages, please read a sample of energy of editors that has gone into such attempts:

• Starwood Festival Talk Page
• Starwood Mediation 1
• Starwood Mediation 2
• Starwood arbitration (December 2006) request, Evidence , Workshop,Proposed decitions

It was during the Arbitration that it was revealed that major supporters of Rosencomet at that time were Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati

If you want to see the scope of the number of articles that Rosencoment and supporting socks were WP:OWN at that time, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse where many (but not all) of the articles covered by Starwood Festival are listed. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was also revealed in the same Arbcom that the problem began when Mattisse, using a host of sockpuppets herselfCategory:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mattisse, tagged almost every article I had written in my first few days of editing with requests for citations. I did not know at the time that links to the Starwood website to support what I had written were not acceptable, and I was being told by Ekajati and Co that they were correct and that Mattisse was the problem. It was easy to believe, especially when it turned out she had written additional dummy articles and attributed them to me on various editor's talk pages! Some still exist today. I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was when this was happening; I thought these were all different editors, and that there was nothing clear at all about what I should or shouldn't be doing, since all these people who had been there before me disagreed with each other about what was a good or acceptable edit, source or citation. And whenever there was a RfC or a nomination for deletion, there was vote-stacking going on from both sides that I had no clue of; it turned out that Mattisse often voted on BOTH sides of the same issue? (I'll be happy to dig up some examples if you like.)

Please don't allow Mattisse to make this case about a re-vote on the Arbcom that involved activities nearly two years old now, especially by only introducing the parts she likes. Either read through the entire two mediations and the Arbcom, or ask the arbitrators to comment on this; ask THEM if there wasn't plenty of blame to go around for that fiasco. And allow me to document how different my editing has been since then, despite the fact that Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse, refuse to see it. And let me demonstrate that I not only want to improve, but that I have been working on it. That's all I ask. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Mattisse's links are quite illuminating, and I well recall my interactions with this editor.... The purpose of the encyclopedia and that of Rosencomet are at odds with each other; Rosencomet views the project as a means to publicise his endeavours without regard to WP standards of impartiality or conflict of interest. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. Rosencomet's actions, and the diffs provided by other editors, speak for themselves. I have also attempted to educate Rosencomet about policy, repeatedly, for almost two years now. I believe he simply does not care about the Misplaced Pages community, nor the quality of content on Misplaced Pages, and is only here to promote his own interests. His canvasssing e-mail of December offered suggestions to 30 people of how to game the system and subvert consensus. He was warned three times by two admins, briefly blocked for it by another admin, and now has done it again. What I have seen is that, when caught, he often expresses remorse and promises to change; then when people have moved on to other things and he feels he's not being watched, he returns to violating WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:V and lashing out at those who remind him of WP core policies. I do not believe he will change; I do not believe he wants to change. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both Pigman and Kathryn have alluded to a December e-mail that only they know of from a source they refuse to disclose. I really don't think that's fair, and I think I should be allowed to face my accusers. This sounds like something that may have been trumped up by someone who doesn't like me, perhaps even among the folks I work with. One or two of them have issues with me, and one of them is in complete control of our yahoo groups and outgoing mail; and my only email address is associated with a website he can alter as he wishes. I ask you to discount any discussion of some e-mail they refuse to produce or source, and which may even (through no action of theirs) be bogus. And in point of fact, though I have in my geek-like way bent many an ear about what I've been doing on wikipedia and how much I'd like some help with it, I know of none who has shown an interest in giving up any of their time to work with me. They just don't see what I find so interesting about it, or why I'm willing to take the stress and keep at it. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. The assumption of good faith gradually dwindles over time if the editor concerned keeps up the same behavior. It had seemed to me that he was mellowing out in January, 2008 around the time of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination), but evidently this did not continue. We have to assume that people *know* when they are using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for promotion of their business enterprises. Nobody should be surprised when such a thing is pointed out. -- EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate to you that I have not been using wikipedia promotionally. Let me show you all the articles I've written since the Arbcom that have no relation to Starwood or ACE, and the dozens of deletions by Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse of such mentions dating from before the Arbcom closed that I have simply stood and watched, or only commented on from talk pages. Instead of simply accepting their claim that I'm as bad as ever, let me document the truth. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As this all seems to have appeared here quite quickly, let me add my belated opinion. Going strictly on what I see above and with no previous experience, I would be against an indef block, neutral on a reasonably short defined-length block, and for mentoring. While there are some indications that Rosencomet may well be gaming the system, there are also some indications that maybe he really didn't think he was breaking the rules in this canvassing. I believe it is possible to read the policy in such a way that it implies that canvassing is only bad if it occurs on-wiki. I'm not saying that is the intent; clearly it is not; but nonetheless I think it could be read that way. Since I have no previous experience with this editor and not seen claims that he is directly responsible for any horrible offenses, I'm in favor of giving him at least one more chance. (It is not clear to me the mentioned socking is directly his fault; it appears to me to be overly-enthusiastic supporters of his. I may be wrong in that, but so it seems to me at the moment.)

I also want to point out that the letter actually asked people to become worthwhile contributing editors to Misplaced Pages, and then additionally asked them to stuff some votes. The second part is bad. I don't believe the first part is, and in fact I consider it positive. If the people became editors and failed to vote, they would have been respectable editors and not meat puppets. If they voted as asked, but before voting examined the case and decided they believed they should vote in favor, then I question whether the vote would have been in bad faith, and hence whether they truely would have been a meat puppet. Indeed, they might have decided to vote against, despite having been asked to vote the other way. So even though the request was wrong, in the end it may have been a net positive gain to Misplaced Pages in the form of a few valuable new editors. -- Loren.wilton (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet's multiple requests to "document the truth."

"And let me demonstrate...let me document the truth." -- Rosencomet, nobody is stopping you from presenting any evidence you think will support the case you want to make. You want to say something, say it already...but if I may make a friendly suggestion, be as brief as you can. Your tendency to over-write works against you. It's not fair, but it's a fact, so get whatever else you need to say posted in as concise a manner as you're able so that it can be considered and final consensus reached. -- Davidkevin (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if mentioning this will be helpful or not. Rosencomet has recently (21 May 2008) done an analysis of many of his article edits on his talk page here. Although lengthy, I think it is illuminating. I particularly encourage checking the edit histories of the articles against his descriptions as well. Pigman☿ 05:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but I've looked over the list and spot checked the histories and it appears to be accurate. You, Pigman, appear to be attempting to re-try this user for pre-arbitration activity. Could you please document recent (say since the beginning of May) contentious editing??? Specifically, can you show a single edit since the beginning of May in which a Starwood link is added? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of this incident report, which is focused on allegations of canvassing. It is not helpful for anon. IP's to comment on Rosencomet's case. If you want to help him, register an account and become an active part of the community. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Summation 2.0

Current opinions are: 9 in favour of some form of block, most seem to favour an indef block. 2 opinions in favour of no block with Rosencomet entering mandatory mentoring. Is this an accurate representation of the opinions? -- Pigman☿ 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if you're including me in that vote or not, but if you're not, I am Against Block, Against TopicBlock, and For Mandatory Mentorship. As the person who first reported this current incident, I never meant that he would or should be blocked or banned -- in fact, I warned him that this might happen and was trying to get him to pull back before it did, never intending for this to snowball the way it has. (Perhaps I was naive.)

I think a block will only increase the feelings of persecution Rosencomet already exhibits. That solves nothing and helps nobody.

Regardless of that, if consensus is for a block, at least make it temporary, with the mentorship attached to it upon his return. Very few actions are unforgivable, and this isn't one of those; very few habits are unchangable, and this isn't one of them. Err on the side of mercy, please. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to list User:SheffieldSteel's comment calling Rosencomet's actions "...a textbook example of canvassing." While that isn't explicitly a call for a block, I'd say it falls closer to the "block" end of the spectrum than the "no block" end. -- Pigman☿ 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I've struck through this comment. I specifically said he didn't voice an opinion on blocking but adding my interpretation was uncalled for. His words speak for themselves. I apologize. Pigman☿ 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to putting words into SheffieldSteel's mouth, as it were. If he/she has a vote, let her/him express it rather than anyone make an assumption. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Davidkevin -- I myself agree that it was "a textbook example of canvassing", and I am obviously against the block. Intuiting votes from people who haven't expressed them is not a good idea. - Revolving Bugbear 12:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this phase II of votes for banning? -- Badger Drink (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

* Beaver Drink, if you have a point, please make it. I wrote above that I support Pigman's proposal for "at least a three-month block." That was because it felt strange to explicitly support indefinite blocking when Pigman, who opened the thread, called it too strong a remedy. But I've changed my mind: I, too, support an indefinite block. I don't believe Rosencomet wants to change, either. I believe he's gaming our good faith. -- Bishonen | talk 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

• Has Bishzilla hacked your account again? My point is that this whole thread seems to be dominated by one editor and his dogged pursuit of a certain accomplishment - in this case, getting Rosen banned. It reminds me of the Gordon Watts days of old. I'm not informed enough to make a "vote", but this leaves a slightly odd taste in my mouth. Maybe Pigman should take a break and let other editors catch up on this. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bishzilla admin, wienie 'shonen not admin. Little beaver have point in referring to Zilla? bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Pigman, you are coming off as rather aggressive in this matter. I think it would be good of you to take a step back from leading the charge. This thread does not need to be pushed along by the person who initiated it -- whatever your intentions (and I am willing to extend you a thousand times good faith on this), it gives a very inappropriate appearance. - Revolving Bugbear 12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to rush a decision or stifle discussion. If I seem aggressive, my sincere apologies. I did not think summarizing opinions was a call to end discussion or take action, only a helpful recap of discussion to this point. And, yes, I was including Davidkevin in my summary. I did neglect to note that Davidkevin and Revolving Bugbear both seem to be against a topic ban as well as being for mentoring. Now I'll take Revolving Bugbear's sensible suggestion and step back from this discussion. Pigman☿ 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not against a topic ban -- I think it may be an alternative to a block, but am not committed to the idea. - Revolving Bugbear 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone particularly wants to hear my non-admin opinion on this, but here goes anyway. With Rosencomet's tenure on Misplaced Pages, many editors would have had time to gain admin or even bureaucrat status, yet this one still doesn't seem to understand that canvassing is bad. My good faith interpretation, after reading the discussion above, is that educating this editor as to how Misplaced Pages works is taking too long, since it is apparently necessary to run through every rule in the book, explicitly telling them "do not do this", and even then the lesson does not always sink in the first time. Stating my bad faith interpretation at this point would be doubly redundant, since you can guess what it is, and since I believe that the good faith disruption by this editor is causing more trouble than their contributions are worth. Whether that justifies a ban or a block is for the admins to decide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet denies knowing that this is against policy- obviously anyone with common sense might think it is, plus Rosencomet has been here years so can't claim to be ignorant of policy, and has been advised about canvassing before. This is WP:MEAT and he will have heard of meatpuppetry before. I would suggest at least a ban on editing articles about which he has a WP:COI, we will then see if Rosencomet has it in him to be a keen editor on other articles. Or maybe then Rosencomet will suddenly be less interested in wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support immediate ban on editing all articles where Rosencomet has a COI in addition to mandatory mentorship. If the mentor feels Rosencomet should edit talk pages per WP:SCOIC, then this should be allowed but watched carefully. And, if after three months, Rosencomet has shown a significant improvement in his editing and understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, then he should be allowed to appeal the ban in order to edit articles based on the "non-controversial edits" clause in WP:COI, but only after an editor review subject to discussion by the community. But, if Rosencomet engages in any bad behavior outside of his mentorship, then an indefinite block should be on the table. If Rosencomet cannot agree to these simple, fair, and equitable terms, then I support a three month block. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I think that either a ban or a block is necessary, to prevent further disruption, and it doesn't matter if the user is acting in good faith or not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete lack of evidence

I've reviewed all the recent posts under this thread by Pigman, and I find absolutely no documentation of recent "aggressive editing" by Rosencomet. I find a lot of vague references to activity dating from 2007, but that is almost six months ago. Where is a list of diffs showing "aggressive editing" since, say, the beginning of May? Precisely how many "aggressive edits" have been made recently? We simply don't know, b/c Pigman hasn't provided any documentation.

And if there was an arbitration case with a clearly defined warning against "aggressive editing", why is this issue being brought up here? Why isn't the alleged "aggressive editing" being documented for the arbitrators to review? It seems that the correct venue and process would be to go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests to clarify whether Rosencomet's recent editing behaviour crosses the boundary set by the arbitrators, and/or to go to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement to request enforcement of the prior decision, wouldn't it? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're giving us a red herring. This incident report is concerned with canvassing and COI. Please address those two issues. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken on canvassing. COI was dealt with in arbitration and was not considered to be as serious as Pigman makes out to be. Rosencomet was simply cautioned not to edit aggressively. Speaking of red herrings, if the issue is canvassing, then most of Pigman's posts about past behaviour, etc. are also red herrings. Since blocking is not punitive, and Rosencomet seems simply to have misunderstood, why not simply ask if he will refrain from canvassing in the future? Since that is really the only current issue here? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the arbcom "caution". My understanding is that Rosencomet has been asked several times not to canvass, and the block hinges on this fact, as he continues to do it. Are you implying he has not been warned about canvassing in the past? Kathryn NicDhàna has provided diffs above showing at least three prior warnings. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here is the only decision in the case. With respect to canvassing, I think it is being blown out of proportion due to a third-party forwarding the email to the several lists. A lot of requests for help are made by admins and others through back-channel emails. If he emailed a half-dozen or less people who did not respond, then no disruption was caused by him. All the disruption was from people who received the forwarded email on several mailing list, which cannot be laid at Rosencomet's feet. I don't see why anything more than a "do you understand now and will you refrain" should be required. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the links Kathryn provided to "warnings" are misleading. It was one warning and then the following discussion with respect to a single incident of on-wiki canvassing. WP:CANVASS does say "Wikipedians" which should be changed. Whether Rosencomet is "wikilawyering" or had a misuderstanding is certainly an arguable issue, but I see that no one has bothered to clarify the policy page itself.... 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Fred Bauder clarified the Arbcom decision here, saying to Rosencomet, "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge." 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's a bit disingenuous to delete the evidence of Rosencomet's canvassing from this discussion and continue to comment about it, so I've provided a link to the evidence in the page history here. There is a big difference between requesting help and telling people how to vote and this type of canvassing and vote stacking has not stopped after Rosencomet was given at least three previous warnings. Like I said above, I support a temporary ban on Rosencomet's editing to articles where he has a COI (subject to review after three months of good editing) and mandatory mentorship. Do you think it too much to ask that Rosencomet actually work on Misplaced Pages articles unrelated to him or his organization for three months? People with a COI shouldn't even be editing these articles in the first place. As the arbcom warning suggests, when problems arise Rosencomet should confine himself to the talk page and refrain from editing articles where he may have a COI; And, we have a problem. Blaming others for this problem isn't helping your case. The best thing Rosencomet can do right now is put a wikibreak template on his user page and voluntarily leave the project for at least a month. The more you keep talking about this, the worse it's going to get. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no conflict involving the editing of articles has arisen. The conflict only involved AfDs. So why should canvassing involving AfDs affect the ability to edit articles which has been repeatedly affirmed as appropriate as long as that editing itself is not aggressive and relies on reliable sources? Has any evidence been presented of recent aggressive editing or addition of unsourced material? And the copyvio should be referred to the oversight committee, not linked to.... You are aiding and abetting a copyright violation which should never have been acceptable. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While e-mail is technically copyright-protected, the claim of copyright violation in this case is a red herring. Copyright law is about protecting the commercial interests of authors, it's not about trying to hide information. Ordinary e-mail has no commercial value, nor is ordinary e-mail a "secret". Thus it can be cited freely, as long as attribution is provided and the work is not claimed to be someone else's. Baseball Bugs 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, add me to the list of people who support a three-month block. I've had enough of this. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is against the rules, and if the editor in question has continued to canvas despite repeated warnings against it, then some kind of sanction would seem to be in order. Baseball Bugs 14:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not saying he shouldn't be blocked. I'm saying it should be referred to the arbitration committee rather than a gangrape by admins some of whom are violating the user's copyright, privacy, and intensionally misrepresenting the facts. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, your argument about copyright violation is bogus. Baseball Bugs 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There has to be commercial value to collect damages, but an author still has complete control over the republication of their work, regardless of its value. I'll take it to the copyright page where perhaps there will be less ignorance of copyright law. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. An ordinary e-mail's contents are fair game as long as they are properly cited. And the vital part of the author's identity was hidden, so his privacy was protected, which is possibly more than he deserves. Canvassing is against the rules. Hiding behind a bogus copyright claim, in order to hide the evidence of rule violations, is a good candidate for Joke of the Day. Baseball Bugs 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) Thanks for reverting Please strike out this astonishing statement of bad faith, but even when worded politely your comments are serving only to obfuscate the issues. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:70.243.80.195 is a User:Ekajati sockpuppet

Checkuser has determined that 70.243.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Pigman☿ 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question now has a 6-month block. The "copyright" discussion could probably be struck as irrelevant, if that's appropriate. Baseball Bugs 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The banned User:Ekajati had awarded User:Rosencomet a couple of barnstars for projects they worked on together which could account for the IP address being so defensive or protective of Rosencoment's interests. Baseball Bugs 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally reluctant to strike it because I think, despite the source, the argument isn't entirely specious. I think the argument is very weak though, particularly since the original email was apparently sent to a handful of people, hardly a private communication. I do think it muddies the waters a bit. Pigman☿ 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As loathe as I am to pass up help from any quarter, if this can really be called help, I must state that I have no knowledge of User:70.243.80.195's identity, nor have I ever had any contact with User:Ekajati outside of what can be viewed on Misplaced Pages. I never "worked on projects together with him" except in the sense that he saw what I was going through with Mattisse's massive tagging when I first started to edit here and both advised me and defended my work, and weighed in on mediations and such. The posts User:70.243.80.195's made on this case were not solicited by me, nor do I have any knowledge of any connection between the two users. Also, I have no real understanding of the Copyvio issue, if there is one, and would not have made such an arguement myself. (However, an email sent directly to a few friends is certainly still a private communication. I never posted it to a Yahoo group or anywhere for public viewing, and it never should have been forwarded to such a group.) The awarding of those particular Barnstars was, anyone can see, ironic more than anything else. (And I didn't bring the Starwood Festival to Misplaced Pages in the first place. Someone posted it more than a year before my first edit.)Rosencomet (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is Rosencomet three times faster than a regular user? Jtrainor (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: how "fast" is the average user? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke only a Gundam fan would get. Look up Char Aznable. =p Jtrainor (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Andreasegde

This user seems to hold personal grudges. He began attacking me early this month. Told to calm down but continued, calling me a vandal for apparently believing McCartney is dead.

I was new to such a long article and misguided by the size tag seen while editing. He and another user corrected me about this two months back. But now Andre is trying to claim the article as seen in the above diffs. He just abuses though I make lots of useful edits. He later called me very clever, by seeming to be a concerned editor, and does not reply to accusations (not replying in any way at all) but continues to slowly destroy what a lot of people have worked on. It's a clever strategy, albeit very destructive. It's a new form of vandal. I was on vacation when all this happened. User:Betty kerner said that I should be reported here but there are no signs of me trying to damage the article. I was just unaware on how to edit it.

This is not only on the Talk but on Paul McCartney too. This was where I expanded a sec using its main article. It was perfectly neutral writing with proper sources But he summarised the sec by an edit summary that I expand on Paul is dead, so I am a vandal. He's also attacked on my talk as I don't expect a reply from a vandal (who is registered, and gives himself so many awards). He then tried to provoke another user by calling me a self-elected vandal, who likes awards, albeit given to himself. What a high-fallutin' dipstick. (About awards, I have actually received all four and can show the diffs; the badges and ribbons are self-awards.) I am now just too intimidated to contact Andreasegde by sending him warning templates. Ultra! 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Andreasegde (talk · contribs) is a long time contributor to various subjects relating to The Beatles, including the four principle members, their manager, some of the earlier members, and other individuals associated with the band ( see this count. He has amassed over 3,000 edits to Paul McCartney alone) some of which he has got through GA - and truthfully it was largely his efforts in both supplying references and text and cajoling other editors to contribute - who has an intolerant attitude toward "poor" edits. Frankly, if you happen to believe that Macca is dead it was extremely unwise to attempt to insert it into the article, since it is extremely unlikely that the standard of source would be sufficient to satisfy Andreasedge (or indeed any hamster who could read). This editor does not profess to WP:OWN any Beatle related article, but poorly or non sourced content is often swiftly reverted and the contributors held in poor regard - it is unfortunate, but true, that Andreasegde has not the best bedside manner in such discussions. However, Andreasegde is a good contributor. I trust his judgement.

nb. I have let him know of this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The user is a vandal (but only against Paul McCartney). Look at the history pages.--andreasegde (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His judgment in editing may be fine, but leaving comments such as " You know where Mummy's apron strings are when you want to complain, do you not? But you know how to be merciless when editing. Who took the ball away when you were young?" on another editor's talk page, regardless of any provocation, is conduct to warrant a block to prevent more of the same. LHVU, any better ideas how to deal with this? He was prev. blocked 24hrs for this sort of thing in April. 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May I add, I too made some edits to Paul McCartney and got a nasty note from User:Andreasegde. See for details. He acted like a bully on issues of content, whether he was right or wrong. And he was not always right. I don't think that User:Ultraviolet scissor flame actually believes Paul McCartney is dead, and attacks on his/her and my character are not helpful in building consensus and making articles better. maxsch (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By way of rejoinder, I, myself, User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling, has a pending debate with maxsch, since almost daily, all my edits are are edited or reverted by this user. But my own human nature and patience compelled me to observe Wiki rules, and I never attacked, but just ignored this user, by correcting the bad or wrong edits, if any, and asking opinions from other editors. User:Andreasegde had and has great contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I myself is dwarfed by Andreas' tireless efforts here. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What Maxsch points out is clearly uncivil, breach of WP:AGF and biting newcomers on the article. I guess this is his way of making 3000 edits to McCartney. Ultra! 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that without Andreasegde's tireless efforts, a whole host of Beatles-related articles would be paltry shadows of what they are or would simply not exist. That's not ownership - he is generous and welcoming to people new to articles that he works on, if they are constructive and not damaging to the hard work that many people have put in. He has worked long and hard with a group of editors to develop balanced, interesting, comprehensive, well-referenced pieces not only about the four principals, but also about many related people and subjects, making the Beatles portfolio of articles quite thorough and impressive. Along the way there have been countless vandals and tendentious editors who have sometimes made it impossible to continue editing there - I have personally experienced some of this. Yet Andreasegde has always called them out and come back to put more work in, to preserve the integrity of the articles. He does it with his own brand of humor and expression which some may not immediately grasp, but in my experience it is indeed done with humor and while I might agree that occasionally he could be more diplomatic - can we not say that about most of us? - my observation is that he's usually spot on in identifying problematic edits and editors whose contributions harm the project, and has been a force for collaboration and cooperation among editors who work to improve it. I haven't looked into the specific circumstances that led to this AN/I comment yet, but, like Less, I trust Andreasegde's judgment and suggest some lightening up here. Tvoz/talk 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nail/head/hit --Crestville (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who asked Andreasegde to calm down, after he posted this call to WP:ABF (in Andreasegde's favour, he has not followed through on this threat). He does appear to be a good editor, but he doesnt seem to understand the difference between vandalism and a content dispute, or want to follow any dispute resolution process , seems to think that the Beatles project owns the McCartney page , and continues to write abusive - not humourous - comments and edit summaries . He must realise that this is not helpful?

To justify his behaviour, he mentions some history to this dispute: apparently User:Vera, Chuck & Dave left the Beatles project because of Ultra's "vandalism". I looked into this a bit, the final straw seems to be this: , (Vera's last McCartney edit) and I can't see the vandalism being reverted there at all - it's just a content dispute.

Ultra, for his part, has been uncommunicative throughout (going back to the dispute with Vera). He claims above to have been on holiday, but kept editing for a day after I asked him to try to defuse this situation by explaining his edits . If he'd just discuss his changes on Talk:Paul McCartney, this wouldn't have gone so far. I left the dispute alone after my first couple of comments in the hope that, since McCartney is peripheral to Ultra's interests, the editors would spend some time apart anyway.

To sum up: a content dispute has become drama because two otherwise-productive editors won't talk about the article instead of about each other. I don't think blocks are warranted, yet, but a WP:TROUT might be in order. Bazzargh (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose I'm allowed to throw my hat in the ring, so I will.

• User Ultra! has changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Paaerduag to Ultraviolet scissor flame, and has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker. See the Paul McCartney talk page for more. The evidence seems to suggest that this user has multiple accounts.
• Ultraviolet scissor flame (same user) cut the McCartney article down when it had been laid out to concentrate on various aspects of McCartney's life. Not once did he leave a note on the talk page detailing what or why he had done something. That is not working collectively, it is downright rude and arrogant.
• He put a photo of a McCartney impersonator in the "Business" section, and when I deleted it, he reverted it. This is a new kind of positive vandalism, IMO. (User Tvoz later reverted this, thankfully.)
• He moved whole sections to Paul McCartney (solo) but left it in a mess, with repeated sentences (a cut and paste job) did not put one category on it, and didn't even bother to put The Beatles' template on the talk page. A lot that is now on the solo page is still on the main McCartney page. This act was sloppy and reckless.
• He stated that the McCartney article was too long, but put a lot more into the "Paul is Dead" section. This led me to think that this user was up to no good.
• The user only works on McCartney's article and no other Beatle-related articles, which makes me think he is singling McCartney out for special attention.
• When asked for clarification, the user left no reply on any page, (not even his own).
• The user claimed to be on holiday, but an editor above saw that was untrue. This should be taken into account.
• A recent edit shows this: ref name="MPL"/> it reunited McCartney with George Martin, who both produced the song and arranged the orchestral break. before their second 1973 album shows that the editor does not know the first thing about editing, or did it deliberately.

It is true that I have worked a lot on Beatles' articles, and I consider myself to be friendly and helpful. I have been blocked once in the past for complaining that an editor was a sock puppet, and was not in the least interested (in his own words, no less) in taking the Brian Epstein article to GA, but actively tried to confuse the issue. I have been here long enough to know when someone is not doing their best, and when that person starts to alter a page with no thought for the reactions of others, then my hackles will be raised.

By starting this discussion, Ultraviolet scissor flame has taken the lead, and of course it seems to be on myself to disprove the hinted allegation that I am a wife-beater. :)) I will let my work here speak for itself, but I can say that Ultraviolet scissor flame also has allegations to answer. If the user would stop messing about with McCartney's page as if it were a sandpit, then I would have absolutely no problem with that.

P.S. User maxsch had a bee in his bonnet about one sentence mentioning football in the McCartney article, so his opinion is biased here. For all his complaints, McCartney's page now has a whole section with 10 references about football. I wish you all the best. --andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to those editors concerned who know I mean them no offence, I find this debate somewhat tiresome as Ultra is a sock-puppeteer (such wonderful jargon) in connection with Paderugg (). His nomination of such a fine and respected user is purely an attempt to disturb and annoy us and should be disregarded. He has clearly disrupted (at best) the McCartney page and my own previous dealings with this user have shown him to be disruptive, awkward, argumentative, and - even with good faith assumed - prone to vandalism. Consequently I feel this "incident" should be utterly disregarded and any further such reports not entertained. While Andreasegde may not have the greatest "bedside manner", many of the slights on his character here appear to be born solely out of sour grapes. He consistently and conscientiously does the right thing and this, not bullying, nit picking, or domineering, are the cause of his massive, pulsating edit count for the McCartney article, and the reason the Beatles wikiproject remains in such joyfully rude health. This is, to my eyes, an open and shut case. I love you, let's be friends. --Crestville (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with "LessHeard vanU" & "Tvoz" word for word. Andreasegde is highly regarded, he has a sense of humour that people are too quick to jump on as incivility. Infact i can say that from personal experinence with Andreasedge, he means no harm and disruptive editers are too quick jumping on the incivility bandwagon. Can we have good faith and move on please. If Infra is indeed also Paeerduag i think that might speak for itself. Paeerduag is well known as a pov pusher, incivil, disruptive editer. Blocked multiple times, maybe even more than me lol. Realist (Come Speak To Me) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats 3 claims in a row that Paaerduag is a sockpuppet, but that's been seen AN/I before and the evidence didn't stand up: . I think thats worth clearing up since Paaerduag's involvement in all this seems completely involuntary. BTW, Realist2, this thread will expire of its own accord in 24h if left alone. Bazzargh (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting: "this thread will expire of its own accord in 24h if left alone.--andreasegde (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Theres nothing interesting about it (or this thread). Realist2 asks if we can move on, the best way to do that is just to move on. Threads here that don't pick up admin interest are archived after 24 hours, posting messages asking for the thread to end actually keep it active. As I said in my first post here, I don't think admin action is necessary. Bazzargh (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How can one "move on" when one has been accused? This is a stain on my character, while Ultra! (or whatever his user name is) can quote this page as some kind of proof that I behaved badly. This debate should have a conclusion/postscript. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug is well known to the Misplaced Pages Admins who patrol these pages. He has a habit of running to WP:ANI every time. Just a few weeks ago, he picked on me and dragged me here, his "case" was dismissed Not only that, he perfidiously contacts Admins to try and influence them . I believe he has done it this time as well in his "case" against Andreaedge. It should be dismissed straightaway and instead Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug should be investigated. Misplaced Pages blocked him twice for being a page blanking vandal. In fact, this brings up a weakness in Misplaced Pages software because by changing his name, he has been able to "lose" the block logs so any unsuspecting Misplaced Pages editor would not know that he has been blocked twice. This needs to be remedied. As for Andreasedge, he deserves the praise of every honest Wikipedian. He is passionate about Paul McCartney and when you see the damage that Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug has caused to Paul McCartney you have to side with him. Vonita (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested protection

In the aftermath of the incident discussed just above, with one overeager editor blocked for 96h for 10RR (yes... 10RR), we are now in disagreement over whether this article should be protected or not. User:Gamaliel, also involved in the discussion and editing, has just protected it. I believe that the protection is unnecessary, now that the user who was revert warring has been blocked, particularly as to my knowledge not a single revert war was carried out which did not concern reverts by or reverting of the user who is now blocked. I think we should now let the interested editors edit the article - I do not think there is any likelihood of a new edit war, the remaining editors seem to be willing to discuss the issue at talk and not to overstep WP:BRD too much. Alas, User:Gamaliel has overturned my unprotection and criticized me for it (even through he himself is also involved in editing of the article). Thus I'd like to ask for a review of the situation: with the reverting user blocked, I see no need for protection (protection is necessary when many users revert without breaking 3RR thus destabilizing the article; here we have a simple case of 10RR violator who was primarily responsible for the destabilization).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I visited this article after a post on the BLP noticeboard. What I found was a group of editors whose nationalist fervor appeared to override their judgment. Both sides were uncivil and combative, and I've been making attempts to get everyone to use the talk page and discuss the issues involved. Other new editors have arrived from the BLP noticeboard as well as the RfC I encouraged one editor to open. However, the edit war is still flaring, as witnessed by multiple blocks for 3RR violations. After two editors were so blocked today, I decided to lock the article and encourage the parties to discuss their differences. It was immediately unlocked by Piotrus. This action was only the latest improper action he has taken in regards to this article. He has taken clear sides in the editing dispute, which is fine if he is not acting in an administrative capacity,. but he is trying to wear both hats. He has been repeatedly uncivil to an opposing editor, and while that editor is far from innocent and blameless, my attempts to get Piotrus and other editors to be civil to him (and vice versa) were met with accusations by him that I was "endors a combination of censorship and personal attacks". Prior to my involvement, Piotrus threatened this editor with a block for removing a blatant BLP violation in the form of an appalling attack on a living individual on the talk page. Piotrus' response to this is only that the editor he threatened is a mean instigator of trouble. After I locked the article today, he immediately unlocked it, an improper action given his deep involvement in the article and his animosity towards the other editor who was blocked today. (My involvement in the article editing has been limited to tinkering with the refs and adding a small quailifier ("he claims") to a appallingly POV sentence.) Overall, Piotrus has been an obstacle to restoring civil collaborative editing on this article and has repeatedly used his administrative position inappropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Translations:

1) "multiple blocks for 3RR violations": Translation: "two blocks". Well, "three", including the same user (Boodlesthecat) twice.

2) "has taken clear sides in the editing dispute". Translation: has criticized an editor (Boodlesthecat) who was revert warring and highly incivil (ex. accusing them of "Jew bashing trolling") that if he does not stop violating our policies (WP:3RR, WP:NPA, etc.). That editor was defended by Gamaliel.

3) "has been repeatedly uncivil to an opposing editor" (no diffs provided, presumably Boodlesthecat?). Translation: ] has repeatedly told the editor who was edit warring and harassing those who disagree with him he will be blocked if he continues his behavior (and lo, he was. Twice. Not by Piotrus...).

Overall, I find Gamaliel activity not the best example of admin's behavior: incivil, revert warring editors should be warned, not appeased and encouraged, whether one agrees with their POV or not. And protecting the article after the principal revert warring editor was blocked, in his version, and wheel warring over it, is hardly showing a proper admin judgment, either.

PS. In any case, I don't want want this to turn to discussing of Gamaliel's actions (everyone can make mistakes and I have not heard anything bad about his judgment before), but the article should be unprotected so that we can benefit from the recent influx of BLP/RfC editors who may want to edit mainspace, particularly as there is no indication any edit warring will resume (at least, not for the next 3 days, until the user blocked for edit warring block expires).

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Encouraging all parties to be civil to one another is not encouraging or appeasing anything, and Boodles' wrongs don't give you license to threaten him, restore BLP violations, or generally act as you have.

As you should know, a page should be protected regardless of whether or not the "right" version is the one protected, barring blatant violations of core policies like BLP of course. See "The Wrong Version". Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The page should not be however protected by an admin who was involved with editing it. It looks pretty bad when you protect the version of the blocked editor whom you refused to moderate, whom you defended in discussion and whose POV you appeared to support with your talk comments and edits.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't refuse to moderate anyone. Please show where I refused to do so. I have been counseling him to act differently, to file an RfC (which he listened to) and to stop edit warring (which he did not listen to). I have advising you to act differently as well, advise you have totally ignored. Asking editors to be civil to him is not defending him personally or taking his side, it is following policy. Asking editors to explain their reverts of his edits when they don't use an edit summary is not defending him personally or taking his side, it is an attempt to encourage collaborative editing. Your stubborn insistence to see every step I take as a defense of Boodsy is one of the things that is preventing you and your supporters from becoming more civil and working with other editors on this matter. And you know full well my editing was limited to tinkering with refs, which hardly disqualifies me from acting in an administrative capacity, and hardly excuses your repeated violations of administrative policy and propriety. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My followers? I see where it is going and I am disappointed with your attitude. In any case, I have said all I wanted to say with regards to this article and your judgment (if you had tried to moderate Boodsy, good but I told you you should have been more stern - his 10RR is proof that he took your light moderation as encouragement as I predicted he would). Assuming the article is unprotected, I expect the interested editors involved in it will be able peacefully and produce a good version soon - assuming that no more edit warring occurs. I also hope there will be little need for my further input (as without Boodsy there is hardly anybody left to moderate). If however the article is left under protection, BLP/RfC people lose interest and Boodsy returns in a week resuming where he left off, we will be back to square one and see 3RR and ANI soon again.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the lock, which should have been done earlier. Also, I've made a suggestion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Edit_restrictions_following_edit_war_suggested to put at least three of the involved editors on the edit restriction list at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator.". While Boodlesthecat is a newcomer (to me) who overdid it by far, both Poeticbent and Piotrus are very experienced editors and no strangers to controversial Eastern European matters. They should have known better, and should join the two dozen editors already under edit restriction. Also, Piotrus mentions WP:CABAL once again, knowing very well about the concerns in this regard. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel and Matthead. The editing environment for the article is very over heated, and the article needs to remain locked. Aside from the editors who were blocked, there are still editors involved with the article who have a very strong POV about the book, and they are exactly the ones most anxious to have the article unlocked. Unlocking the article now would only result in further harm to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried on this one too. I support Gamaliel's approach. I would support restricting several editors from various position from continuing on it or closely related topics dealing with antisemitism in Poland generally. I consider Piotrus one of the very fairest-minded editors on Eastern European topics, and I suggest he would best protect his excellent reputation by staying away from this particular controversy. DGG (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC).

I think Matthead has it right here. That talkpage is a disgrace. Relata refero (disp.) 21:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about me - the editors with strong feelings, because I have supported ublocking the protection to this article, I must disappoint you. I NEVER TOOK SIDES while editing mainspace or talk page in this article. I only introduced two references from educational websites, the only ones I could find, one from Wellesley, the other from Princeton. One was negative, the other positive. They were both removed by warring editors. And what we got now? Twenty two references from commercial websites, mostly newspapers - a pissing contest, that's how I see it, including statements by political activists involved directly in this Polish-Jewish match like Thane Rosenbaum (besides, I introduced Mr Rosenbaum into this article but not as a hero, but as a Los Angeles Times editor representing media policy and nothing else). My Princeton package also covered four newspapers - all positive reviews and to the point. You have once written on that talk page- keep it short and to the point. My edit was just like that. And now on the top of this mess the page has been blocked, but from who? Even User Boodlesthecat, who called me anti-semitic at least ten times before, once saw the light and asked me: "Why are you so adamant to keep that (positive) link?". Now I tell you why, because I'm neither pro-Jewish nor pro anybody, I'm pro Misplaced Pages standards and I want to see this miserable excuse for an article unblock so someone may fix it. greg park avenue (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote at length on this article talk page (see section: Logical fallacy) about the inflammatory nature of a single, carefully selected quote loaded with anti-Polish sentiment and causing edit wars. I’d like to ask only one question of you and that is, why is this article, about a controversial book, being kept locked with messages meant to produce an emotional rather than rational response? If you are not a Polonophobe, please step back and take a deep breath. The article can easily survive without that sort of thing. --Poeticbent talk 02:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

the book is controversial,and its nature best indicated by a quote from it. WP does not judge the truth of the author's accusations, but in an article about the book, it's appropriate to make clear what they are, & the quote does it best. DGG (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock notice: 86.29.0.0/16 (Tesco UK)

Over the last two days, I've noticed the same vandal posting giant HTML tables that render Goatse into widely used templates

• Special:Contributions/86.29.129.68
• Special:Contributions/86.29.142.126

and I wouldn't be surprised if there's more IPs out there I haven't seen him on yet. So I've range-blocked the entire 86.29.0.0/16 (NTL/Tesco UK) block for 1 week.

It's a bit drastic, but the impression I get from this guy's unblock requests is that he wasn't planning to stop anytime soon. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Limiting_HTML_table_sizes. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Him or a wannabe. Thanks for the heads-up; I'm thankful I have a gaming mouse. -Jéské 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The range is likely to be 86.29.128.0/20, blocked for two weeks on 11 April. At least three different IP addresses in the 86.29.128.0/20 range posted similar vandalism between 8-10 April. At least one of them was confirmed to be Bsrboy (talk · contribs) who was indef blocked as a result. --Snigbrook 01:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(Maybe not exactly the same, but it was goatse in large HTML tables.) --Snigbrook 01:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

EDITOR FEUD

I don't know what the procedure is for this but there seems to be an editor feud going on between User talk:MKil and a banned user that goes by the name boxing wear. It seems that the latter account was banned from wikipedia but has continued to assert their claims as being right and that the other user MKIL is wrong. I recommend that someone talk to both of these users.--Kumioko (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Did we not have a LTA page about this guy someplace with suggestions on how to handle his attacks? He seems to be editing from a mix of Bahrain IPs and open proxies in this flurry... could probably use a checkuser on NewBlock (talk · contribs) to see if there's a sock drawer out there, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though this user has several drawers in several dressers in several rooms, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed several months back that someone had been deleting old LTA reports without checking with the original filers whether the problem had ended or not. I'm not sure how aggressive they were about doing this in other cases, but in the instance I was following up on that was very counterproductive. Fortunately I knew the case well enough to proceed anyway; the follow-up led to two significant arbitration decisions: a desysopping at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar and a desysopping plus siteban at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. LTA exists to preserve our institutional memory; it's important to double check before removing old reports. Durova 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, good info but not sure if its in the right place. Maybe this should be a seperate issue? I see how it relates but its kindof a tangent.--Kumioko (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They were deleted by Jimbo. The history of the case is here. Read it. Read it all. I'm leaving town in a couple minutes so can't follow up on this thread until I have internet access again. It's a banned user named "Boxingwear" or "The George Reeves Person" -- his previous identities are in the deleted history of that page, he's quite obsessed about not being referred to by his previous identities, which are of course entirely bloody obvious to anyone who looks at the edits, interests, and IPs. WARNING: This person will come after you in real life if you get involved in this. He's quite skilled at forging e-mail headers, and he sends copies of "death threats" that YOU allegedly sent to HIM, to YOUR ISP, so do NOT e-mail him from any service that includes your IP in the header. This person is quite insane, and probably the most hateful person with whom I have collided in my entire time on the project. He edits on ED as "Wikitruthguy". Antandrus (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I received an email about this for some reason...all I did was inform the user this pertained to about this topic. Anyways the contents are below. Email withdrawn

"I am trying to help somebody, if u go on mkil's talk page, he is putting name which is privacy violation, he has/had many problems in the past, can you block him, he had been doing this since forever, and has long term admin friends like antandrus, reply only to my email, will give u all evidence he needs, dont allow him to do, u posted something about conflict on his page, but cant u see he reverts names, nothing else, as administrator i am amazed u dont follow privacy policies!Reply asap cuz of him many innocent r blocked."

I corrected him about not being admin by the way. It went on for a good 3 or 4 emails. I thought I would let you guys know about this...as I am utterly confused as to what is going on (do not want to know). Rgoodermote  22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Received a weird email, have no idea what it means something about antandrus reply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/193.188.105.230 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatsupdoggy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have recieved EMAIL's on this and I forgot to mention that this boxingwear user has sent me EMAIL's before. I usually just delete them they are so poorly written. I don't want to post it here but if you want me to I can or else I can put it in some other way. It sounds similar to the EMAIL that RGOODERMOTE got.--Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have recieved EMAIL's on this and I forgot to mention that this boxingwear user has sent me EMAIL's before. I usually just delete them they are so poorly written. I don't want to post it here but if you want me to I can or else I can put it in some other way. It sounds similar to the EMAIL that RGOODERMOTE got.--Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hate to bother you all but I received some emails as well; Strange conversation but he was not hostile, he said he will buy me a drink when he visits me in Canada, Montreal. (I never invited him)

This problem goes a long way and if you look under boxingwear's deleted talk page, grp approached boxingwear first, requesting help with some articles. It turned out both users edited from same IP range, probably CPL. He claims he is not wikitruthguy on ED, he claims he is in touch with the editor who contributes there and supports everything he writes. Antandrus' numerous provocations caused the creation of antandrus article, something antandrus can not stand. Boxingwear said he did not send any death threats or forget IP headers, they are impossible to do and could be easily traced.

I will not reveal my user name, I do not want to be connected in any way with these people or have my account suspended. I have been following arguments between mkil, antandrus and boxingwear, I believe the problem is provocation. If you check history of boxingwear, contributions there is no vandalism; the only problem is serious mkil arguments, all edits seem to be correct, good-will contributions as well. Those two users cause all the problems, I did not see problems with other users. Suspended user's problem seems to proper communication channel, he gets stressed when replying to things he may not be able to fix or revert himself and almost nobody wants to assist him (predetermination phobia complex). Here's his explanation to everything everybody said about him on wiki, to all sorts of wiki problems, it was reverted again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive416&diff=213082183&oldid=212819935

He claims antandrus blocked cpl range and can not reply, so this is his temp talk page:

en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:64.107.1.28&action=history

Hope my explanation will resolve something.

And, of course, the person who wrote the comments immediately above is none other than BoxingWear/Projects/Indywisdom/et al. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, he enjoys posing as multiple people to give the appearance of support for his positions. The writing style gives it away, though.

As far as their being a "feud" involving me, the only problems I have is when this banned edior repeatedly sends me threatening e-mails and reverts my attempts to remove commentary and poorly written insertions into articles. The person has been banned numerous times here. As anyone who has encountered him knows, he's a few cards short of a full deck.MKil (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)MKil

Agreed. He has been ranting about a name I supposedly posted above and threatening to get my next RfA to fail for a couple hours now. Who is it. I read some of the above but a brief summary of this would be nice. Rgoodermote  19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NO, the above has not been posted by boxingwear. I simply followed up on the case.

I do not want to get mixed up into this nor do I care what you have to say nor will I argue with mkil or anybody, so you guys can deal with the great ongoing silly unresolved problems yourselves. Good luck.

Sheesh, an anon from an IP address is refactoring this thread; I hope it still reresembles the actual exchange. (The IP appears to be a static address located in Canada.) Anyway, in response to Rgoodermote, I recommend that you don't worry about this threat. Amongst some Wikipedians, having your own dedicated troublemaker is proof that you deserve the Admin bit. -- llywrch (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I tossed a speedbump in front of this anon editor in order to permit someone else to clean up the mess this thread is becoming. (Hints for the future: respond directly to the comments, do not edit them, & remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes -- the ~~~~ trick.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to just archive this? I see a banned user who is just trying to stir up trouble through email and most likely was that IP. O also, wasn't all that nervous...starting to get annoyed. Rgoodermote  20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided to open this up as an editor has expressed concern that it is not resolved. I will not be getting involved. Rgoodermote  02:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Comments have been tampered with by an IP. It is far too late to recover the original text. Rgoodermote  02:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Another new sock active: see 64.107.220.174 (talk · contribs). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotI

I've blocked this bot because it was tagging images for deletion for not having fair-use rationales when in fact they did have rationales.

I brought this to the bot owner's attention and his response was to call me stupid . Is it my imagination or are bot owners more surley than average ;) After finding some more examples , the general reply from the bot owner was that the rationales were not sufficient.

People may judge the value of a fair use rationale, bots may not. This bot simply missed the fair-use rationales and the bot owner refused to admit it, wandering off on a tangent and criticizing the quality of the rationales instead.

So we have two problems. 1) The bot is broken; it tags images for deletion for not having a rationale, when in fact they do have a rationale. 2) The bot owner is broken; when there is a problem with his bot he spits venom at the messenger instead of acknowledging the problem and fixing it.

Actually there is a third problem; another admin came by, unblocked the bot and demonstrated on my talk page that he didn't bother to read about and understand the problem . This is wheel waring on his part, under the banner of ignorance.

People may find a fair-use rationale insufficient and tag an image for deletion, I have no problem with that, but a bot is not able to make this judgment. I will continue to block this bot whenever it misses fair use rationales. --Duk 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting on my one-member-of-the-BAG hat, and considering the errors raised and the nonresponsive attitude of ST47, I endorse this block. No comment on the unblock other than what's been said by Duk...in short, Hersfold, don't do that again please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the "problematic taggings" you've identified, and the only one with a fair-use rationale that is even remotely close to adequate is . If you want to block the bot for malfunctioning, make sure it's really malfunctioning first. --Carnildo (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked the bot because it is working just fine. If it isn't able to find what it recognizes as a rationale, it tags it. Bots aren't perfect - even the anti-vandalism bots get false positives occasionally. ClueBot adds a link to a page to report such mistakes in its edit summaries. Bottom line is, bots aren't, and for a very long time won't be, perfect, and will make mistakes regardless of how well they are written. For someone to demand "Revert the edit and fix your bot." and then proceed to block the bot when the operator explains there is nothing to fix is firstly, rude, and secondly an abuse of power. To continue to make a scene by accusing others of abuse and ignorance is making the situation worse. You are perfectly capable of clicking the edit button and expanding your rationale. If you really don't like the bot notices, we have {{bots}} and {{nobots}} for you to place on your talk page. I'm willing to concede the point that ST47's response may not have been the most diplomatic, but considering your initial "complaint" you have no room to talk. Hersfold 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It tagged an image I uploaded which I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with, too. Since this appears to be the level of debate of the creator with anyone raising any issues, I haven't even bothered complaining. — iridescent 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only part of the fair-use criteria your rationale covered at the time of tagging was the name of the article. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Invalid block images in question were not in compliance with our non-free policy β 00:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh look; another member of the 'My bot works fine, you're just an idiot' party. HalfShadow 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent, at the time your image was tagged, your "rationale" simply explained why you thought it was under a CC license - it did not explain why WP could use it under fair use in the event it was copyrighted, which you weren't certain about. There was nothing meeting any of the non-free criteria. I notice also that Betacommand's bot marked it several months previously for the same reason. Hersfold 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've marked it again, as it still doesn't meet policy. The fact that users who don't even understand the policy are attempting to police those who do is quite horrifying. The fact is that the majority of the images duk mentioned in his block notice are in fact valid taggings, and his failure to understand my explanations and the policy and then his blocking of the bot in a case where he had a clear conflict of interest and where he wasn't even remotely correct about most of his facts is an indication of a blatant abuse of the tools. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it had the explanation that I believe but can't confirm that it's free use and hence wasn't moving it to Commons, and a fair use rationale, complete with the article in which it's used, in case it turned out not to be free use. (There is nothing in NFCC 10 to say that "images must include a link to the article".) I note that ST47 has now manually re-tagged it despite this. I am perfectly willing to concede that bots are sometimes wrong and hence don't shout and scream at the creators (you'll note, I hope, that when I removed the tag last time, even Betacommand - the scourge of unfree images - accepted it). — iridescent 00:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's NO RATIONALE. Review WP:NFURG. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NFURG is a guideline. It says at the top of the page that you should treat it with common sense, something that bots can't do. The main issue here is that in cases where there is a rationale, bots such as STBotI are not doing a good job of determining whether the rationale is sufficient. Instead, they are determining whether the rationale contains a link to the article, something which is of course helpful but isn't required by our EDP, and is clearly far from obvious to most Misplaced Pages users. If you equate "contains a link to the article" with "contains a sufficient rationale", then you can define all the bot's edits to be correct, but that equation doesn't make sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The bot tagged my image yesterday Image:Guns of the Timberlands.jpg and for the life of me I couldn't see why, can anyone else? RMHED (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That tagging was completely incorrect and you were right to revert it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the templated rationale you used. It's not easy to write a bot that understands templates. --Carnildo (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld's template is widely used, does that mean all those images are in danger of bot tagging? RMHED (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the bot. Back when I had ImageTaggingBot do lack-of-rationale tagging, the first time it encountered a templated rationale, it would mark the image as "no rationale", and I would have to add the template to the list of known templates. --Carnildo (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent - regardless of whether the bot is working correctly or not, calling other editors "stupid" and "small minded fool" when they question your bot is unacceptable. If you can't respond civily to complaints about your bot ST47 then you shouldn't be running it. Exxolon (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block - the operator was in violation of the bot policy's requirement that operators respond to inquiries cordially. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Gee, it would be nice if the anti-fairuse crowd would stop moving the goalposts... Well, if they want an edit war on that policy, they only need to keep up the incivility. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really about "anti-fairuse" versus "pro-fairuse", and characterizing it like that won't resolve anything. There is so much more to fair use than criterion 10c, and there is so much more to 10c than the "link to the article" test.

There are NFCC criteria which everyone agrees can't be checked by bots. We could arrive at a much more civil situation if we considered 10c to be one of those. Does that mean we can't enforce 10c? Of course not. A bot could use the same rule that STBotI uses and BetacommandBot used to flag potentially problematic cases. Then a person, with common sense, can figure out if there's actually a problem. This doesn't even increase the amount of work greatly, as there's always supposed to be a common sense check before an admin deletes the image anyway (I fear this doesn't always happen, though). The only problem is the assumption that the image bots are always right when it's clearly not the case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: according to guideline, "Misplaced Pages's policies are more restrictive than United States fair use law, in terms of what is and is not allowed"; thus, an image may actually be fair use but still violate Misplaced Pages's fair use policy. The other thing is that Misplaced Pages policy is more cut-and-dry than the law, which involves a 4-part balancing test that admits of shades of grey. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

I've blocked this bot again. Its accuracy is horrible. It tagged the following images for deletion for not having a fair use rationale, when in fact they did have a rationale . The final link could be tagged orphaned fair use however. --Duk

I would say the bot was correct on a technicality. The actual article the fair use is being claimed for is not mentioned anywhere in the description, though the description does state what song it is for, and the musician separately. Combined they make up the article title. I would say the bot did exactly what it was supposed to there, and tagged appropriately. Though one would hope that a deleting admin would read into it enough to adjust the summary rather than unilaterally deleting. Resolute 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying "a fair use rationale for the article about song X by Y" as opposed to Misplaced Pages's name used for technical and style reasons "X (Y song)". The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure proper fair use of non-free images — not to make contributors jump through an endless series of semantic and technical hurdles subject to being rewritten at any point. When the guidelines and policy say "should include the article name" and "the rationale should be written in plain English" a user can be forgiven for thinking that writing the article name in plain English is acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why I said the bot was technically correct. A bot can only search the description for the article title. Unless it is matched precisely or very near, I doubt it will be capable discerning that the FUR is valid. This is not a fault in the bot writer, but a limitation in bots as a whole. This is, of course, why deleting admins should be checking images before deleting.

Perhaps we need to look at a way of flagging images that have been checked by a human/admin to be immune to future bot tagging, such that regular editors do not have to jump through these hoops if their FUR's don't have the precise article title? Resolute 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: when I first approached ST47 it became apparent that STBotI was looking for a particular template(Template:Non-free use rationale) , and ST47 eventually muttered something about foundation level policy requires that the non-free state of images be 'machine-readable as justification for this. The initial image I complained about was in fact machine readable because of its copyright tag.

What ST47 refused to state clearly, because he knew that it was wrong but he wanted anyway, was for fair use images to use this particular template. As our conversation continued it became clear that this particular template is not a requirement for fair use, but that ST47 is just too lazy to fix his bot. So then he moved on to criticize everything else he could think of, except his own laziness. --Duk 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out why it's absolutely necessary for bots to do the actual tagging. Couldn't someone just make a list of specific problems (i.e. a basic "missing a link to the article it is used in") like I had done here and then have the fairuse "crazies" go through (hell, use AWB or something else) but manually review it)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I would like to be the case. Manual review, assisted by a bot, is a sensible way to approach 10c. It's crazy to think that a bot can do it on its own without loads of false positives. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, you (Duk) shouldn't be characterizing ST47 as "lazy". That kind of attack won't help this discussion proceed; it just invites equally nasty responses. And really, if you look at all he does with bots, you'll find it's far from true. The discussion should be about a flaw in ST47's bot, not a flaw in his character. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've written tools like this myself, from scratch. I know what it takes. --Duk 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note 2: The bot Request for Approval specifies WP:NFCC#10c enforcement on new images. Besides the horrible accuracy, this bot appears to be going after images uploaded long ago . Also, if this bot is tagging image pages just for 10c violations, then the edit summary should state that, not This image has no valid rationale, which is just causing confusion. --Duk 05:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/STBotI 3 appears to expand this bots tagging to non-new images. This retro-active rules enforcing coupled with misleading edit summaries and misleading notes on user pages is unacceptable. If an image page is merely lacking a link to the specific article which the specific rationale pertains to, then don't plaster edit summaries that state This image has no valid rationale, please. --Duk 06:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

For images that have a fair use rationale this bot should not:

1. mark for automatic deletion if the rationale varies from bot owners preferred format.
2. make the misleading edit summary This image has no valid rationale.
3. leave a misleading note on the uploader's page that states You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria.
4. have an owner who's first response to someone with a complaint is to call them 'stupid'.

There has to be a separate fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in. If the image is used in only one article, then stop tagging it for deletion when the rationale doesn't contain a link to the article, since it's self evident.

--Duk 07:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tires of Duk's blatant abuse in these matters. Once again, all three of those images, , , and have poor rationales which do not include a link. The rationale would be improved if a link was added, therefore the users should be asked to add a link. Note that the procedure for getting a bot changed is NOT making unilateral blocks against it, it is bringing a REAL problem to the attention of the operator. If you had done so prior to abusing your tools and acting like a fool, then you'd probably have found me more receptive to your concerns. At this point, I've grown tired of hearing from you. Lacking further comments from you that are completely wrong and necessitate correction, I won't be replying to you anymore. If you can reasonably explain your concerns to someone else, who can make a well-reasoned and non-abusive argument, then I'll consider making a modification to the bot. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

" The rationale would be improved if a link was added, therefore the users should be asked to add a link." I agree. So do most people, I imagine. Is it possible to have the bot tag differently in cases where there is the article title but no link? Or, better yet, just add it to a link and have humans (you can, I can, we all can!) go through the list and add links themselves? I imagine this would be all that's required in quite a few cases. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The tag is inappropriate for the situation. It is not appropriate to add this tag simply becuase you feel the rationale could be "improved." The bot, I think, should remain blocked until the problem is corrected. If you feel requests to fix the bot are abusive you are not required to address them, of course. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the bot looking for an actual Wikilink and rejecting use rationales that contain the exact text of the article title if they are not inside the double brackets? If so we've been through this before with Betacommand's bot. The issue was discussed at WP:NFCC and the link requirement was rejected. If that's what the bot is doing it is enforcing something that is not policy, and that was rejected as policy. Bots are supposed to enforce policy, not make it by fiat of the bot owner. It would also be easy to fix - just look anywhere on the image page for the text of the articles the image is linked to. In any event ST47's attitude is unacceptable, obviously. Wikidemo (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that blocking a bot you have concerns about is never abuse of one's tools. They should be blocked first and then discussed, if there is any reasonable reason to believe it is malfunctioning, because of the enormous harm they can do. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Anyone who gets upset over their bot being blocked at the first sign of trouble is not fit to run a bot. Friday (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion tag

The tag used on these pages (e.g. here) puts the article in a category for speedy deletion, even though in some cases it should not be speedy deleted at all acoording to the text of the tag. If a fair use image is used in different articles but the fair use rationale is only provided for some but not all of these, the image will ge tagged with this NFCC#10C tag. But such an image should never be speedy deleted, only removed from the pages where it is used without a fair use tag. Image without any fair use rationale may be speedy deleted, but when they have a fair use rationale for even one article it is used in, they may no longer be speedy deleted (at least not for this reason). Fram (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the tag says "deleted or removed from some uses" (emphasis added) so it's technically correct. One hopes that people patrolling image speedies get the difference and have agreed to take on the particular task of removing images from articles with all appropriate notices and edit summaries (and more importantly, fixing the obvious cases). However, the tag is a little misleading and no doubt it bites, or at least confuses, the newbies. How hard can it be to program this one to leave a deletion tag where there is no match between rationales and articles, and a different tag where the problem is that not all image uses have rationales? Wikidemo (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing with you when I say that being "technically correct" isn't enough. Bots cannot risk biting newbies, nor do I much like the idea of giving mis-leading tags to images and risking operator error on the part of those patrolling image speedies. This needs to be fixed before the bot is unblocked. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dejavu

• I hope ST47 realises his error when he passed off all objections at this bot's approval as me having something personal against beta, and speedy approved it as there being no issue with the bot. I didn't have an issue with beta in the case of NFCC tagging (although it was convenient for him and others to claim it so they could ignore my highlighting of all the issues re-occuring above). As I always stated, I have issues with the way this bot operates (i.e. coded - no coincidence this is the copy of betas code), and the way any NFCC bot operator incivilly treats people who encounter it due to its complex nature (you could swap beta's name for ST47 in all those diffs and you wouldn't notice any difference). Well here it is, a complete case of de ja vu for the community, just with ST47 not Beta. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue

In their (obviously important) technical and policy-based discussions about the work of the bot and its relation to the NFCC, people seem to have overlooked the instance(s) of incivility that occurred here. I feel that bot-owners having issues pointed out with their bots should remain polite even if they consider the question beneath contempt; by definition, they are more familiar with their bots' operation(s) and thus may omit to provide satisfactory explanations for others. I suggest that ST47 is censured for his rudeness. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censured. :-) But seriously, calling someone stupid is not a good sign. and neither is your sig... goodness, it's taking up about 5 lines of coding here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Great pun - and my sig has been looked at by numerous admins and pronounced clean ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some protective shield that is inherited by anyone who takes on beta's code. Comments by ^demon et al certainly seem to support this. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

hes not using my code. β 15:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How come? That was the situation as far as I knew it at the last BRFA. What changed? MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't "censure" anyone, of course. But if someone is to operate a bot, they must be expected to interact civilly with those with concerns about the bot; the incivility of the response adds weight to the argument for keeping the bot blocked for the time being. Imprecision in a bot of this sort leads to confrontation, and incivility makes such confrontation worse, so we need either more precision from the bot or more civility from the operator—or, ideally, both. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

how about civility from those who dont know policy and are incivil to the operator? β 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• We need civility from everyone; incivility does not justify incivility in response. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• How about 'this isn't a play ground' and 'two wrongs don't make a right'? How about higher standards from those members of the communtiy that supposedly do know what they are talking about? How about you stop rolling out this excuse as, well, some kind of excuse? MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, even if one is the most correct person in the room, acting uncivil will blow any credibility one has. _{1 != 2} 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've lost ST47 for a bit, and we shouldn't expect him to respond to this discussion. From User:ST47: "There are obviously quite a few problems with this project, first and foremost that people who are idiots can gain access to admin tools..." Not exactly the most classy exit. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication

Lack of communication makes things blow up sometimes. ST47 should not call people 'stupid' in his first breath, it doesn't help. Edit summaries should be accurate, they shouldn't say This image has no valid rationale when it's not the case. Someone with a bot that runs the breadth and width of the projects' images should be able to communicate effectively when there are problems.

I made some very clear and straight forward suggestions above - ST47 still hasn't replied to those suggestions. I'm waiting. --Duk 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several people who agree with you above, Duk, including me. If I may make a suggestion, it might diffuse the situation somewhat if you don't treat this like a personal campaign, and leave this issue alone for a bit. I will make it a personal campaign instead, at least in the sense that I have no intention of letting the bot's block be removed until there is consensus here that it isn't problematic. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. --Duk 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reblock the bot

Per - "My participation in this project is suspended for the time being..... If you require assistance with Misplaced Pages matters, I really don't give a damn, so don't contact me". If he's gone now, whether for a day or a month, clearly he needs to apply for an unblock if/when he returns. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot had been reblocked prior to that message. --Onorem♠Dil 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The real problem - unclear error messages

A big problem with the fair-use image tagging 'bots has been poor error messages combined with threats of deletion and too-short deadlines. This induces user panic and anger. The error message should contain sufficient information to clearly explain to a user what's wrong and what they should do to fix the problem.

All these 'bots are looking for is merely a link back to the article that used the image. But the error message doesn't clearly say that. It says "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed." Even the Internal Revenue Service has better error messages than that. Something like "You need to add a {{Non-free use rationale }} template to the image page, with the blanks filled in and a link back to the article using the image" would be a big help. This is what drives non-expert users nuts. A good rewrite of the error message text would probably bring the acrimony down to an acceptable level. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a large part of why my bots use custom messages and templates: I looked at the standard messages, decided they were not fit for human consumption, and wrote my own. I'm surprised more bot operators haven't done this. --Carnildo (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that ST47 in particular had such a problem with this. He was the impetus behind de-approving BetacommandBot for image tagging because its messages were unfit for human consumption. I agree that better messages are part of the solution. With a combination of better messages and not tagging for deletion without human review of things that need to be human-reviewed (like 10c), we could take most of the anger and drama out of image tagging. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it. The Misplaced Pages mechanism for proper image fair use is painful to use, with those finicky templates to fill in, and we shouldn't blame the users for having trouble with it. This process should be done with forms, not templates. Bot reports need a "click here to fix the problem" link, which takes the user to a form pre-filled with as much information as the 'bot can supply. We have something like that for image upload now, but don't have it for image use. --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked again

By User:MZMcBride. I for one endorse the unblock. If Duk has a problem with the bots operations, he needs to speak to the bots owner or take the issue up elsewhere. The bot wasn't 'malfunctioning', and this block was inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Falsely identifying rationales as invalid is a specific and correctible malfuction. I don't much care if it is blocked or not, but if it continues to make the same errors it will need to be blocked again. I'm disappointed to see MZMcBride wheel warring on this issue, especially given that he apparently either didn't look deeply enough into this discussion to notice this thread, or decided that it wasnt worth commenting here. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a malfunction. If the images were properly tagged with rationales, as policy mandates, the bot wouldn't have tagged the image. Ultimately, the tagging isn't the issue. It would be up to an administrator to delete the image or not. And if the bot is inappropriately blocked again by Duk (or anybody), it will simply be unblocked again. "Wheel warring" is a two-way street buddy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, we are talking about images with rationales that did exactly what the policy mandates. The policy makes clear that links are recommended, not mandated. The tagging is an issue because the tag being added makes a false statement and ST47 knows it to be false, and this behavior needs to stop. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Duk has spoken to the bot's owner. Unfortunately, the bot's owner, like some others in this discussion, doesn't believe there's a problem. There is no "policy mandate" to leave unhelpful messages and tag images for deletion when they don't follow your preferred format on the description page.

I would be willing to reblock the bot if it keeps making inaccurate edits, because bots are not there to "mandate policy"; they are there to automate repetitive and uncontroversial tasks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, that's not exactly right. Bots are to automate repetitive tasks, which includes enforcing policy. Maxim_(talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a problem with enforcing policy. Enforcing policy is certainly not a bad thing. The problem is using bots to define a de-facto policy that people wouldn't support if you wrote it down (which is what STBotI has been doing). And establishing immutable de-facto policies is something that bots are unfortunately prone to doing, especially because it's self-evidently futile to revert a bot or to tell it to be more careful. Because bots are so inflexible and have so much power, it's important to block them when they make large numbers of undesirable, unhelpful edits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone give me a reality check, we have unblocked a bot run by a user that has left wikipedia with the parting shot described above (still present). Seriously, what is the point? This is a joke. ST47 is clearly well outside the wiki ethos right now, so please explain why this bot is unblocked? MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just objected to the unblocking of the bot in the strongest terms on the unblocker's talk page. His failure to comment here is especially odd; perhaps the explanation is that he simply wasn't aware of this discussion. I will be watching the bot's edits carefully, and investigating what avenues there might be to request it to be de-authorized given that its operator is unavailable; if there are additional problems, I am certainly willing to re-block it. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Too much time addressing the symptoms

Here's a way to reduce image bot work. Perhaps we should get a widely publicized (The Signpost, VP, etc.) community poll on what people think about the current state of fair use. And by poll, yes in this case a simple !vote is good. Questions should be raised, such as: have the massive deletions been helpful or harmful? If the latter, should the policy be revised to be more lenient? Should bots even be deleting images or should a human take responsibility for each tagging? Should a tagger be made responsible for making a reasonable effort to fix whatever policy problem the image is in violation of, if possible? The resentment, I argue, stems from the fact that they feel these bot operators do nothing but cause widespread disruption and mounds of busywork. They show little, if no respect, for the efforts of the contributor and often can't be bothered to fix even minor issues in the images. These deadlines are arbitrary and capricious. That these problems keep occurring seems to point to a growing consensus that the overly-restrictive rules in our fair use policy are at odds with what the community wants. I can probably best sum up what I have seen written by numerous editors: "Of course free images are wanted and a reasonable amount of effort will be spent to locate or produce one. However, if there are none available, then use a fair use one until such time as one can be obtained." I think most reject the idea that just because an image could be free means that no fair use should be used. That we should have to jump through hoops to find free pictures of famous people is mind-boggling. On top of that, we manage to community block the closest thing Misplaced Pages has to a member of the paparazzi. Anyway, like the common axiom says: "A picture is worth a thousand words." Let us not forget that. I do not think that the majority of the community at all subscribes to the copyright paranoia present on the NFCC policy pages. What we need is common sense. Most people feel that we are plenty free, even with numerous fair use images in individual articles or in sandboxes. Common sense would tell you that the project is seen as corpus to any legal authority and not as particular namespaces, thus the notion that you can't transclude images into non-mainspace is patent absurdity. Fianlly, to the uncivil comments by some bot operators. While you may feel that some administrators are complying with the wrong version of fair use policy, all I've seen is nothing but brilliant common sense on their part. Indeed, it is the fringe "freedom" activists who seem to be the ones without a clue. Come live in the real world and leave the copyright concerns to the EFF and the lawyers. You'll be much happier when you do. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the top right corner of your screen. That says Misplaced Pages, the free encyclopedia. Free, as in libre open source software, freedom to modify content, freedom to reuse content. That's been the purpose of Misplaced Pages since the beginning: to create an encyclopedia people can actually use. I've always been of the opinion that if you need to break that for the purposes of an article, it's fine as long as we have some standards, but for whatever reason people are now ignoring that and acting as though they can take copyrighted material for granted without understanding that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be free. Other projects can get on fine without abusing fair use, why can't we? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing our dual purpose here as an encyclopedia and a source of free content, as far as I can tell, or that bots do a lot of good to make people comply with the image data requirements and detect those images that do not. The specific concern is that the the bot has the added requirement of a back-link. If so, that is not policy - in fact, it has been discussed a number of times and did not get adopted, so a bot enforcing that rule is not aligned with policy. Another complaint is confusing, possibly misleading, and unduly alarming image tags, or at least something wrong with the messages. And a third issue about communication and civility. These three should all be easy to address. Wikidemo (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change our policy on non-free content, you should start at the source. Elections for the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees are coming up; you should campaign for candidates who are willing to repeal the Foundation's commitment to free content. --Carnildo (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's completely the wrong approach on many levels, Dragon695. The non-free content criteria are there for a reason. The issue at hand is whether it's appropriate to enforce them with inaccurate rules on bots, or whether human input is necessary. When you piggyback on this discussion to protest against the criteria themselves, you're turning the issue into a distorted caricature of what it really is. Also: polls don't create consensus, they destroy it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

that's more radical than necessary. the foundation has left a considerable room for each project to do its own interpretations of the details of what is locally permissible. Some have chose not to allow any nonfree content at all, we have within very narrow limits, and the question of whether we should broaden them slightly is up to us. so is the question of how narrowly and rapidly and impersonally we should enforce them, especially against newcomers. We could, for example,delete only when a goodfaith personal effort at getting a proper tag has failed, instead of relying on bots and templates. DGG (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Was that a response to me or Dragon? Because I basically agree with you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think DGG and rspeer have made some good points, some of which I agree with. What I am saying is that peoples' hostility towards the bots, and the siege mentality that is caused in the group of bot owners is a direct result of this discussion not happening on a broader basis. Why are people afraid to find out what the community's answers to those questions are? Also, I continue to ask what is it about fair use that makes the encyclopedia not free? The board has left it up to us to determine what we want to do in this respect, so this has absolutely nothing to do with board elections. I argue that much of the bitterness and bad feelings could be resolved if a highly-publicized discussion was had. Lastly, it is a matter of respect for other editors' time. Are we going to continue to treat it like rubbish, or will we make every reasonable effort to bring editors' contributions in line with policy? Since there is no such thing as true artificial intelligence, no program can be expected to replace the complex decision processes of the human mind. The problem is that CSD backlogs are usually dealt with by just running through and deleting without much care or attention. So it is critical that tags be done accurately and only if it is truly an image which cannot be used. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well since your opening post advacates a position that isn't even legal under US law ("because I want to" isn't a valid fair use defence we checked) it propbably isn't going to go down too well with those who know their stuff. Which is why there is little interest in a "community debate" problem is such a thing is imposible. You either get lot of pointless shouting or voteing by those who don't really understand the issues involved. And copyright is an area where unfortunely you have to understand the issues and doing so is time consumeing. Take your argument for non free images outside the article namespace. This presents a number of problems. First there is the statute law issue Fair use is only allowed "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". Experence tells us that once you move outside the article namespace these requirements tend not to be fufilled. Secondly there is the issue of keeping non free content under control. Since "fair use" is not some magic wand that takes you to the land of do as you please it is useful to have some level of control over it's use. And that means keeping it's use to a minium. We don't need fair use images outside the article space thus it is simplist all round not to have them. But the thing is you should know all this before you start trying to change policy. This issue has been gone over again and again. It's all in the archives.Geni 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked yet again

While reviewing the edits of the bot, I discovered it had made a new error: here it leaves an inaccurate edit summary. The image did, in fact, have licensing information (although I am not so sure it's correct, but that's something other humans can judge better than me or a bot). Since the operator expressed an unwillingness to make changes and has now apparently taken a wiki-break, I do not think it is reasonable to leave it running. Accordingly, per the block policy, I have re-blocked it as malfunctioning. I urge everyone to seek consensus on this page before unblocking again. Many users above have expressed serious concerns about the edit summaries and messages of those bots. I think it's better to err on the side of caution, and stop the bot from making further mistakes while we discuss this issue. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong there. It would have been better for the bot to use {{untagged}}, but "no license" is a pretty good approximation of the state of the image description page. --Carnildo (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The page contained {{Non-free use rationale}} already, and the user made an attempt to fill it out. If it's wrong, the bot should have said that; but saying there's "no license" is simply not correct. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess it's technically correct, but sometimes fair use is appropriate without there being a license, which is why we have {{Non-free use rationale}} in the first place. The bot needs to explain what it is doing, not give true but insufficient facts. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Off topic comment Oh that is just freaky, I was just about to look some stuff up about USBcell when I got side tracked reading this discussion. Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled program... -- Ned Scott 08:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Where I work, if a job is running questionably, it is stopped until all issues are resolved. Of course, that's in a professional environment. Baseball Bugs 09:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To Carnildo. Misplaced Pages:Bot Policy places a very high emphasis on communication, accuracy of edit summaries and accuracy of templates. The edit summary was inaccurate on the example SCZenz gave. This is a very easy and simple thing to fix or improve, and yet the bot owner is unapproachable. (quoting from WP:B)

"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users."

and

"Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general."

So the edit summary is trivial to fix, as are some of the other problems I've mentioned, but they are definitely a violation. The real problem, however, is the bot owner. He doesn't come close to satisfying the requirements of WP:Bot Policy in terms of; "communication", "a high standard of cordiality and information", "prompt and civil help", and the "ability to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately". He should have is bot flag removed.

In fact, at this very moment he's stating on his user page that the biggest problem with wikipedia is that it gives admin tool to idiots like me. Yes, he means me specifically.

Carnildo, can you honestly say that either the bot or its owner is living up to the requirements of WP:B? Is this the type of person we want running a project-wide bot operating on the contentious subject of fair use images? Should the community really have to endure another Betacommandbot, or perhaps a more virulent strain, all over again?

SCZenz asked me if I had any ideas on how to proceed with this problem. First off, I think the bot community should be expected to enforce some standards of behavior among their own. That doesn't seem to be happening here. Carnildo, if you and your bot crowd refuse to recognize any problem here, then I think an RFC is merited, most likely in preparation for an arbitration case. --Duk 14:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to have quieted down. My major concern was the fact that legitimate concerns had been expressed on WP:AN/I, and that some people were willing to unblock the bot rather than discuss or address those concerns. However, that trouble seems to have abated. Perhaps after ST47 has taken some time to away, he will return and be willing to work on making the error messages more helpful and accurate, and this issue will be completely resolved. Until then, I continue to beseech everyone to participate in further discussion; it is my strong opinion that the bot is malfunctioning with its present code and should remain blocked until fixed. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

619 in Ireland

Can someone please remind User:Sarah777 that users cannot remove AFD tags? I think she has removed it 3 times in the last 24 hours and I don't want to be the only one putting it back. Mangostar (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, because that would breach 3RR and you'd get blocked. Don't make a virtue of necessity. Why did you delete 20 articles? Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the header and left the user a note. Hopefully this will be enough to discourage any future disruption.-Andrew c  00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please apologise immediately for characterising my edits as disruption. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing AfD tags is very clearly disruption. I'm surprised that such an experienced contributor thinks it isn't. No-one is ever going to be blocked for replacing it. Black Kite 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you refer me to the Wiki-rule that says that? Haven't come across it. The tag was a "bad faith" tag by an editor who engaged in mass deletion of articles. I happened to be the author of these articles but am aware of WP:OWN so that isn't the basis of my objection. My objection is that this Mango chap seems to be a law unto himself and is now, apparently, supported by Admins in his vigilantism. Not good. Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly stated in the AFD tag itself - "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." And it's pointless anyway, because removing the tag doesn't prevent the actual deletion discussion from continuing. Black Kite 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And the actual procedure is here --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On the opther hand, He's getting lots more support for delete at the AfD now that there's a call for attention there. ThuranX (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And this AfD is where, exactly? Could the members of The Club share that with an interested party? So that I can more widely alert people to its existence. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time. My concern here is that this editor preempted due process which it appears is acceptable to the dominant British Nationalist Wiki-perspective when British pov is being imposed on Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The AfD is linked from the AFD tag on the article (in other words, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/619_in_Ireland). Incidentally, your insistence on blaming everything you don't agree with on some evil Brit conspiracy doesn't do you any favours, you know. Black Kite 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

← Simply put, AfD tags are not to be removed until the AfD is closed. Even in cases of a bad-faith nomination (which this does not appear to be), there is no valid reason to remove the tag from the article until the AfD is closed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement widely alert people is a little concerning. I just want to preemptively remind you of WP:CANVASS. -Andrew c  02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me here THTFY; there is absolutely no need to put things "simply" for me. I understand what is going on here rather better than most. IMHO. Andrew; that apology please. Then perhaps I might address your anxiety to keep this AfD decision within the Club. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything Andrew needs to apologise for - he quite correctly called you on your disruptive editing. Exxolon (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Sarah's removal of an AfD tag on multiple occasions disruptive, but comments like The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time is completely beyond the pale, and should be repudiated. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - for a start off, the article was nominated for AfD not by Mangostar, but by User:Tim!. If you look at his contributions (), he has also been adding a lot of events to "Year X in Ireland" articles. Secondly, he quite correctly informed you of the AfD (). Thirdly, the AfD tag (which you kept removing) directs people to the AfD discussion, which will also be read by those who peruse WP:AFD. Fourthly, you're not going to get an apology out of Andrew because he was in the right. Black Kite 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No apology; no discussion. Mango deleted 20 articles - any of you chappies notice that? No? Why? Corvus; the truth cannot be eliminated by and Wiki-self-delusion or Wiki-political-correctness. My observations are manifestly correct. Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I need to say it again; the 619 in Ireland article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And Mango has not "deleted" anything. He has nominated the articles. The deletions would come following a consensus discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is referring to a merger of some "Year X in Ireland" stubs into a "Century X in Ireland" article by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which makes sense to me, but paranoia is an unhealthy condition. Corvus cornix_talk 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So is denial. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh...no. He deleted them. It is somewhat worrying (though not surprising) that such a collection of esteemed editors can get such a simple thing wrong. Black Kite; pl don't feel you have to repeat what you've already said - no matter how often you repeat it my reaction to nonsense will be the same; the article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar - yeah!! It was deleted by Mango!!! I gotta hand it to you guys ye've got an evil sense of humour! Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) He did not delete them. He merged them. (2) The article 619 in Ireland is not deleted, it is only nominated for deletion, and that nomination was not done by Mangostar. (3) When people are trying to help you understand things that you clearly don't understand, and you tell them they're talking "nonsense", I'd suggest your best plan would be to step away from the keyboard for a while. Black Kite 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to bore me (with all due respect). He deleted 20 articles in the series. You fuzzy rationalisations don't change that; you are talking nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The article contents were NOT deleted. They were simply merged into one longer, more useful article. So nothing's been lost, it's merely the same information in a different format. Exxolon (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's that. Sarah, leave this alone now. The merges are something which is a content dispute and don't require any admin action - you can discuss that with Mango on the talkpages. Meanwhile, you are clearly in the wrong here, both with the disruptive removal of AfD tags and your comments above. I will have no problem at all with blocking you if you carry on, so please don't. I am marking this resolved. Black Kite 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All a tad contradictory, and the info in the stub article was not transfered to another article with the redirect, so it was no merge, but in effect a delete. Sarah777 doesn't seem to be the hardest editor in the world to bait. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No - two different things going on. The 619 in Ireland article was nominated because it was said that the sole event listed actually took place in 618. The merges performed by Mango are a separate issue. Black Kite 07:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to say, Sarah's behaviour has become highly tendentious and is getting out of control. This is probably the central issue here, and this is a shame as she can be an intelligent and fun editor. Appears these days though to be interested in nothing but having a fight. Her editorial choices are dominated by strong ideology and her talk page comments are characterised by confrontation, emotive divisive paranoia , and misrepresentation . Tendentiously edit-wars and shops, while accusing other established users of edit-warring and vandalism (etc). This has been going on for a while, but after carrying her ideology over to the talk page of a Russian football club last week, I unskillfully and unsuccessfully attempted to get her to alter her behaviour without acting as an admin, but all I got for it in the end was aggression and membership of her Anglo-Cabal. Full of bad faith too. After once getting rid of a POV-fork, Sarah did this. Since I first noticed and involved myself, I've remained passive but I have noticed it continuing to get much worse. I'd urge a totally non-involved established and experienced user to try to get Sarah to behave in a reasonable manner. Preferably this user should come from the highlands of Papua New Guinea or the Amazon jungle or another national background that would make it hard to get membership of this club, as paranoia and mistrust are a very big issues with Sarah. But it's got to stop somehow before its influence on other wikipedians escalates the conflict and tension on the articles she edits. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzz.......Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion about an editor who has been blocked 7 times including harassment and civility issues. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee restriction

Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. Those interested in possibly applying a sanction of any kind should consider the above. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A decision which amounts to political censorship, nothing else. Originally decided because I made the (apparently) extraordinary claim that the British Empire was historically worse than Nazi Germany. So certain opinions expressed (note) only on the talkpage in response to attacks from other editors are now banned from Wiki? Is that it? (And btw Daniel - 6 out of those 7 blocks were by Adimins for what they reckoned was incivility towards themselves in consversations outside the mainspace area; one was for an accidental 3RR. Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no apologist for the British Empire but they didn't start a six year war that cost 72 million lives and included the holocaust - it's unsurprising the claim is considered 'extraordinary'. Exxolon (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to nitpick but didn't Britain declare war on Germany? Not in the least; the Irish famine claimed over a million lives and much more while food was exported under protection of British arms; genocide in Tasmania, countless millions in India etc etc (all debated before; all supported by a vast body of reliable sources. What is extraordinary is the limited worldview of those who'd find such common knowledge extraordinary. But it is a pretty extraordinary insight into the prevailing pov at Wiki. That remark is simply defending naked political censorship in the talk pages. Dress it up in any righteous cloak of your choosing. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, because of something that occurred off-wiki in the past, means it is perfectly acceptable to introduce anti-British commentary and clear bias into every imaginable article? Or to produce snide and downright uncivil comments, harassing other users in the process? If that is your sole rationale towards your unapologetic behavior, then I would say a community ban is in order, given that you are not willing to change your editing practices. seicer | talk | contribs 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been great incivility displayed by Sarah777 above and elsewhere, such as at . And the comments left at User talk:Alison#Moving_Article without agreement are not that encouraging, either. There is also edit warring over tags, and/or obvious anti-British bias, such as "adding a photograph" . There was also a lot of reverts and tedious editing at Great Britain and Ireland for a period in mid-May, and the same can be said for List of islands in the British Isles.

Quite frankly, I'd AfD most of the "XXX in Ireland" articles, such as 260 in Ireland and have it redirect to say... 3rd century in Ireland. There is no reason to have blank or nearly empty articles for decades that haven't been filled or completed in months, and it's content that can be applied elsewhere.

Adding in the above, to which there is no real action that can be taken, along with the ArbCom restrictions, I say that Sarah777 has a pretty tight leash. The lack of concern for the comments above ("Zzzzzzzz") and the general disregard for other editors and policies, leads me to believe that additional restrictions are required. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Zzzzzz was a specific response to Deacon and a reference to an earlier debate on my page - and Deacon knows that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it in the same terms as Seicer, Sarah. That you've done it more than once is not an ameliorating factor. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:seicer. Suggest restriction on Ireland-related articles. Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits further and would find it perfectly acceptable to impose a 1RR restriction on articles regarding the XXX in Ireland articles. This is not an isolated incident, and the edit warring at other articles suggests that a revert restriction may be applicable elsewhere. While there have been no 3RR violations, such as at Great Britain and Ireland, the user has been pretty disruptive and has been essentially testing the waters, so to speak. Pretty irritating for other users who have to deal with this. seicer | talk | contribs 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest something about WP:Civil. Snarkyness seems to be the default there. Toddst1 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And "snarkyness" is? Can't find it in Chambers? Is there a Wiki-policy? The picture (one of 1,000 I've contributed to Wiki) was added to an article that is not a dab (see discussion); the rest are selective - usual stuff - for example DGAF was a direct response to an Admin who used the term; never came across it before.

I'm guessing things aren't looking good for Sarah, right now. Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be bad for Wiki because it would mean that charges of "incivility" and now "disruption" are being abused in the cause of blatant, naked political censorship and defence of right-wing Anglosphere pov. Anyway - it's Arbcoms choice if it comes to it. I'll seek a review by Arbcom as any further restrictions re editing Irish related articles is totally unacceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since Arbcom has already sanctioned a ban (if necessary), and Sarah's unwilling to accept a lesser restriction, where does that leave us? I just noticed the next section. Duh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban?

Any reason we're still tolerating this? It sure looks like this disruptiveness is not new. Also, her conduct right here on the noticeboard is.. not constructive. Looks like more of the problem that's apparently been ongoing for some time. Community ban time? Friday (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, lemme get this straight: defending myself openly and honestly against a series of direct charges is...not constructive. (Of course were I to characterise that as pure Orwell 1984 it would simply be added to the chargesheet - out of context, of course). Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just did, and swung me over to support such a ban. I see zero constructive attitude on the part of this editor based on my brief encounter since this thread started and given the history, I think it's about time. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Todd, based on my brief encounter with you I think you were of that mind already. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Toddst1 that Sarah displays no willingness to work cooperatively or constructively. Her insistence that anyone who disagrees with her, pretty much no matter what, is part of a vast anti-Irish circle is baffling. Her refusal to accept any views apart from her incredibly extreme ones as legitimate is very disruptive, and she shows a lack of willingness for self reflection, as evidenced by the above thread. At the very least I support a ban from all Ireland-related articles for at least as long as it takes her to cool down and gain some perspective. I would not oppose a complete ban. And by the way, Sarah, my ancestors were Famine emigrants, so don't even bother with your normal rant at me. - Revolving Bugbear 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So - eh - what 'incredibly extreme' views would those be?!!! And I have denied a dozen times that I think there is any "conspiracy" re Irish articles; I have said that there is embedded cultural BIAS that is out of control and that folk beleive is consistent with WP:NPOV when it clearly isn't. How can I be 'constructive' and 'meet halfway' folks who characterise mainstream views in Ireland as 'incredibly extreme'!! And R Bugbear; regardless of where you ancestors hail from I will argue my point and kindly adhere to WP:CIVIL - I don't "rant". Had I said that of you someone would now have already added that to the charge-sheet. This is almost funny were I not the target. Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Some 'extreme' views that demonstrate your complete lack of appreciation for history:

the British Empire was historically worse than Nazi Germany - Go to Dachau one day. That will give you some perspective. Any oppression is despicable, but the barbarism of inventing an industry centered solely around mass murder for purely ideological means knows hardly a peer in history.

Not meaning to nitpick but didn't Britain declare war on Germany? - Yes, after Germany invaded Poland. So, no, Britain didn't "start a six year war that cost 72 million lives" -- Germany did.

I apologize for my use of the word 'rant'. But your rhetoric here really pushes the bounds of credulity. And statements like these belie your claim that you don't believe there is a conspiracy:

A decision which amounts to political censorship, nothing else.

Could the members of The Club share that with an interested party?

Then perhaps I might address your anxiety to keep this AfD decision within the Club.

That remark is simply defending naked political censorship in the talk pages.

Of course were I to characterise that as pure Orwell 1984 it would simply be added to the chargesheet

It is in your best interests to stop trying to defend this inexcusable behavior and start showing some contrition. You are way over the line, and everybody but you sees that. - Revolving Bugbear 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

←Having had no interaction with Sarah777 before (that I'm aware of), I'm somewhat dismayed with the behavior shown (with regard to the AfD's, POV issues, and general tendentiousness). I'd Endorse Friday's proposal, or a topic ban. (Although given her contribution history/interests, I think a topic ban would amount to a de facto general community ban). --Bfigura 21:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, if there were enough reasons not to nuke sockpupeteer Betacommand, based on his promises to behave, there's no reason to nuke Sarah. Apply the same standards to her. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, my experience with her has been on List of events named massacres and predecessors, and she has been a consistently disruptive force there. (e.g., this recent return to the talk page simply to insult an editor and make spurious insinuations of Holocaust denial.) - Merzbow (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sarah has a right to argue her views, but no-one has ever challenged this right and the community has a right to protect the encyclopedia from disruption and its good editors from tendentious editing and wasted time. Not all ArbCom decisions should be ignored (sigh), and the Arbcom ruling was issued only after things had previously gotten like this and many editors had already wasted so much time ... i.e. it was made for a good reason, and any admin here would be acting very reasonably to enforce it. However, it would also be good if Sarah took a wikibreak of her own accord to pre-empt this. If she hasn't already perhaps the time would make her gain better realization of what exactly the community is not prepared to tolerate. If not, some restrictions should be enforced, both for the encyclopedia and its other editors, but also, because of Sarah's mentality and attitude to editing, to protect Sarah. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sarah has a right to argue her views, but a) she has to do so reasonably and civilly, and b) the community has a right to call her out of what she's arguing is offensive. She has not done so reasonably and civilly, and I think the comparison of the British Empire to Nazi Germany is patently offensive. - Revolving Bugbear 23:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is an extremely good provider of content regarding Irish geography, culture and history. These subjects are inevitably intertwined with Britain, and often lead to conflict. Therefore it would be a huge loss to our coverage of those areas if a topic ban restricted he contributions. I think we should think very carefully about whether this can be resolved in another way.

I don't agree with Sarah on a lot of issues, but have discussed her concerns about Misplaced Pages a length. She is largely correct in her assertions that Misplaced Pages has cultural and Anglo-American (or perhaps, more correctly, Anglophone) biases. I agree with her on that. The problem is that those biases are inherent to our core policies, particularly those that govern verifiability, common usage, reliable sources and minority opinion. Unless we change our policies (and lets be honest, that is not going to happen anytime soon) those biases will remain part of the Wiki-process. So, we are left with three choices: We accept that is how Misplaced Pages is and live with it. We work to change those policies to counter said biases. Or we rally against each working example where we feel one of these biases are reflected, taking on the "Anglo-American POV" one article at a time. Sadly Sarah has chosen the latter course of action. I'm not sure Sarah will change change her opinions, and neither should we ask her to. But is there a way we can harness Sarah's knowledge and enthusiasm while minimizing the scope for nationalist driven conflict? I don't know, but I would urge we consider other creative solutions before jumping to premature topic bans. Rockpocket 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Rockpocket, I'm surprised to see you adopting Sarah's classifications like that, and I think it is unhelpful. But anyways, in the last while (and I am understating here), Sarah's positive contributions are dwarved by the amount of time she causes to be wasted by her tendentious editing; if she can't stop that, the rest doesn't matter. In fairness there are a number of editors at the opposite end of the scale who are ideologically just as or almost as extreme, and it would be slightly bothersome if their editing patterns were not also checked, but it shouldn't take several arbcom decisions, 7 + blocks, and months of wasted editing hours from so many users to sort out every single hardline tendentious editor who decides to spend their hours on wikipedia. Though not directly related, the Four Principles of the Eastern European arbcom case are worth bearing in mind for these editing matters, and if they are adhered to on all sides (fat chance I guess), such differences of geographically-based ideology, where they exist, can be resolved ... mostly. Such differences are not however a pretext for ignoring large-scale disruption. A creative solution, if creative enough, would be great of course, I agree; but ArbCom isn't there so that any time its resolutions have to be enforced the community designs ways to get around them. The onus I'm afraid is on Sarah now, she will at least to need to show some good will first. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of endorsing a 1RR restriction, but after seeing her block log, I say it's time to close the door. Endorse community ban. Blueboy96 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful to whom exactly? I think someone needed to point out the great big hulking elephant in the room. Organizations, like ours, that work within a framework like to perpetuate the myth that the framework itself is value neutral. That is clearly not the case. There are lots of little quirks in our policies, or at least the general interpretation of them, that means we value establishment, Western, English-language sources more than non-establishment, non-English language sources. Does that justify disruption? No. Does it mean those people who follow our policies are pushing POV or guilty of perpetuating bias? No. But lets not kid ourselves, Misplaced Pages is no more immune from systemic bias, than any other Western, white, male dominated institution. I'm trying to explain Sarah's motivations here, not excuse them, and I'm sorry if that hinders the process of throwing an establish content contributor under the bus. Rockpocket 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As above. I know as well as anyone wiki has inevitable "bias"; the way knowledge and information is presented is always and will always be a function of power to some extent (as will where allegations of "bias" emerge), but as above ... this cannot be used as the excuse for every tendentious editor, or to prevent enforcement of basic wikipedia policy. Sarah as a content-editor, not exceptional, and again, as above. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems we are in agreement over the problem, just not the best solution. Perhaps my reticence is borne from sensitivity to the potential for a shitstorm that comes from upsetting the delicate Irish/British balance with ill-thought out action. Particularly when it is against one edit-warrior, when there are others who are engaging in similar behaviour from the opposite perspective. Sarah does need to learn to tone down the rhetoric, but a community ban seems ridiculously punitive. Before going down that road, can't we at least engage with her and make it absolutely clear that the anti-Britishness and edit-warring has to stop henceforth or else the ArbCom conditions will be strictly enforced? Rockpocket 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only thing I've suggested is that either she impose a wikibreak on herself or some restrictions be placed. I think this is fairly moderate. The community's patience has its limits, so is the amount of time we should be expected to spend on every user like this. You say "Before going down that road, ...", but she has already had 7 blocks and is subject to a set of ArbCom rulings ... it's not like this is her first time. And after everything, she has spent this morning, despite this long discussion, casting aspersions against myself and leveling tendentious accusations of incivility against the other folk here. Where do you think this can go now, given that she ignored the counsel I gave her last week, and the counsel you have been giving her more lately? I despair of hope here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban, and support a 1RR restriction for all articles. And dole out a block for any continuing uncivil/anti-social behavior. I am also endorsing a community ban if it comes down to that. Given the track record of Sarah, and her reluctance to engage in any constructive discourse ("Zzzzzzzz" and etc.), any discussion that continues here without any action will only result in continued edit warring, a strong-POV warrior and a diluted 'pedia. The derogatory comments and general harassment, with the multitude of warnings and notices, means that it is time to put the hammer down. And no more "conditional" pleas to refactor a block down. seicer | talk | contribs 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support This user is an absolute POV nightmare, completely unsaveable, best off finding wiki that suits her views. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm about two clicks away from banning Sarah777 from ANI. Per arbcom, Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Log of blocks and bans. ANI is a page; Sarah777 has disrupted it; the disruption includes anti-British remarks. If anyone other than Sarah777 prefers that I hold off, speak up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be a little over the top. Of course, I'm not an admin, so... HalfShadow 03:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, sure thing. But this is an ANI thread about her, so I'm a little hesitant to do it myself. Not that there have been any useful contributions from Sarah on the ANI front, though... seicer | talk | contribs 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're going to post about her, she sort of has the right to respond. If she digs herself a deeper hole doing so, that's her problem, but you can't say you weren't fair about it. HalfShadow 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say - enforce the ban in this instance, but not as a general ban to AN/I; there may well be instances where Sarah777 wishes to report disruption, or bring issues to the wider community which are legitimate and necessary. As such, let's call this thread over as 'nothing for admins to do', thus effectively ending this thread. If Sarah777 continues here after archive boxing is done, give her a block for persisting disruption, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks folks, I'll hold fire for now. I'm not in favor of closing the thread because there's an active community ban discussion that should play out. I don't know about everyone else but I've had a gutfull of these nationalistic squabbles, whether it's the English v Irish, Polish v Germans, or whatever. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow my example: Hate everyone equally. It saves time. HalfShadow 03:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously a flippant wiseguy who isn't taking this seriously. I admire that in a person. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation as such has pretty much wound itself down, except for deciding exactly how hard to smack her. Perfect time for a dose of humor. HalfShadow 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Especially her continuous removal of AfD tag is clear disruption. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Based off what I'm reading and looking through everything, I'd also support a ban. We don't need users like this. Wizardman 03:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I was under the impression that I was supposed to respond here. Is that not the case? (Ref the remarks about the Zzzzzzz...; it was suggested I wasn't addressing the charges being made). Could someone please clarify whether I am or am not supposed to reply to the issues raised here? Sarah777 (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

'Reply', yes. 'Be a dick', no. HalfShadow 03:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Breach of WP:CIVIL noted. Your link didn't really relate to anything that I've posted here so I must ask what the point of it is? It was a simple question I asked; a simple 'yes' or 'no' was all that was required. No incivility necessary. For the second time on this thread I wish to note that had I said that to you it would immediately have been added to the list of 'dispuptive/incivil" I'm charged with. Sarah777 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the one swirling the drain here, not me. Given your track record so far, calling someone else out for incivility is ironic at best. HalfShadow 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what exactly am I supposed to say? There are so many comments, charges, diffs, opinions and indeed expressions of political pov that some guidance would be helpful. Please. I wish to be careful because already my attempts to reply to direct charges have been deemed incivil and in one instance contrary to the Arbcom Ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Reading this, I was astonished to see an experienced user say, "Which Wiki rule says AFD tags cannot be removed?" - but then I read all this censorship/racist/conspiracy drivel. We don't need this. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. I'm usually reluctant to support such measures applied to users without long-term blocks, but Sarah's behaviour here was astonishingly unconstructive, so I don't think that longer blocks will help. MaxSem 07:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question Are we talking about a topical ban or a total ban? -- Ned Scott 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, Support civility parole and 1RR on all Ireland related articles, with a clear statement that any more crossing of that line will be subject to rapidly increasing blocks. Black Kite 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like some people are advocating a total ban, which seems like a terribly punitive reaction. If we think there is a problem here, then lets decide what the problem is and inform Sarah that it needs to be solved, rather than dish out bans. If Sarah is willing to address her concerns about bias in a more constructive manner, then we may not need to ban her from anything. Sarah is a reasonable individual and does take guidance, surely at this stage she deserves an opportunity to demonstrate that under the threat of further action? Rockpocket 08:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an Admin however looking at the ban log I feel that a total ban would be wrong since the editor has only been blocked about 4 times (Not counting the blocks which have been undone). A ban for a week or a topic ban should be the way to go if she has been uncivil, disruptive and hasn't maintained good faith with other editors. Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose an outright ban. Sarah can be infuriating and has a massive POV when it comes to certain Irish political and geographical articles. But she has also done an awesome amount of work, especially on Irish historical and geographic articles. By all means, implement a topic ban, a la Vintagekits and make sure it's unambiguous. But an outright ban? Noooo. I've been dealing with her for years here now and I still don't think she's beyond redemption here. She deserves a chance - Alison 09:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban or 1RR. The only problem with Sarah is her tendency to come in all guns blazing forcing her own version of NPOV. MilkFloat 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support We should seize any opportunity to get rid of a nationalist POV-pusher like this, instead of mollycoddling them. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban. (I'm not actually sure whether I'm allowed to comment here, not being an admin.) Sarah does a lot of good work editing Irish geographic articles, and I would be loathe for Misplaced Pages to loose that. Much of the time it seems like she is only person working on Irish geography. A topic ban would be tantamount to a full ban, and so I'm not in favour of that either. However, something clearly needs to be done, as her abrasive incivility and constant harping on about some Anglo-American conspiracy is disruptive to the extreme. (Like Rockpocket, I have quiet a bit of sympathy with the idea that there is a systematic Anglophonic bias in Misplaced Pages, but Sarah's approach to resolving this is far too hotheaded, and simply polarises people against her.) I don't think 1RR will make a jot of difference, though I don't oppose it being tried. A lot of Sarah's disruption is her talk page comments, not in reverts, and 1RR is still plenty to edit war with were she to want to. I think a better approach would be to take a very harsh view on talk page incivility, and I would support a policy where she routinely got a shortish-term block (say 24 or 48 hours) for incivility. A block can always be lifted if she acknowledges the incivility and shows some contrition: two things she generally fails to do. I believe that after a while with such a policy, there is a reasonable chance that she can curb her incivility. Due to quantity of her very good contributions, like Rockpocket, I do believe that we should be looking for a creative solution to this, and not being too trigger-happy with community bans. — ras52 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (I indicated my support for a topic ban above): Sarah is demonstrating that she still doesn't even understand why people are upset with her and refuses to let go of the assertion that there's something political going on here: "I think the record will show that the main cause of the current dispute is the manner in which one editor took it upon himself to delete twenty articles from the 7th Century"; "(Misplaced Pages) gives vast power to hordes of Admins imbued with Anglo-American POV to enforce their worldview". I'm not sure how some of these creative proposals will help her get it -- 1RR won't stop her from being uncivil, and civility parole, as we've seen with other ArbCom'ees, is very easy to weasel one's way out of. Sarah needs to stay away from areas where she's going to be disruptive until she understands the complaints against her. - Revolving Bugbear 12:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - A clarification; those attacking me and even some supporting me keep referring to my claim of a "conspiracy". How many times do I have to state that I have NEVER claimed there is any conspiracy but rather that Anglo-American pov is endemic in Wiki due to the cultural background of the editors. So please stop referring to "conspiracy drivel" etc; it is simply untrue. Rockpocket explained the problem up above rather well and it would be educational to carefully read his comments. Also the irony that "nationalist editors" are a terrible thing on Wiki (as per some of the above) strikes many Irish folk who have to cope with endless British and American Nationalist perspective here on Wiki as absurdly ironic. Surreal really. I admit removing the AfD tag was wrong but it was done in the context of seeing 20 articles I had worked on deleted without any discussion at all (nothing to do with any Irish/British dispute); that was of course wrong. Beyond that you must carry out your deliberations in the knowledge that while I'll stick to civility rules reasonably administered; stick to rules about templates, edit warring etc and a specific list of named articles for 1RR - I will not accept accept generalised 1RR or any exceptional civility requirements and most especially I will not accept any curtailment if discussion of Irish matters comes up in talkpages. If you reckon that comparing one Empire to another is intrinsically offensive but that stating that many Irish people, victims of the offended Empire, cannot say being referred to as "British" is offensive; then that is a problem for Wiki's credibility more than for me. I am making this comment so that both my supporters and detractors are clear about the parameters around what I will and will not accept. My other point in closing is that I've made 25,000 edits over two years; uploaded 1,000 photos, creating 300 articles (excluding the "years in" stubs) and the vast majority of my edits, 99% plus; are in areas that have absolutely noting to do with the Irish/British dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, what you will and "will nit " will not accept is irrelevant. If the community decides that someone who asks for which rule bans the removal of AfD tags, and claims that a conspiracy of administrators is pushing an anti-Irish POV, should be banned or restricted, that is their - very commendable - decision. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will treat that remark as a calculated provocation both in tone (nit (sic)) and content (repetition of the conspiracy charge). Ciao. Sarah777 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First, you do realize that conflating the British perspective on Ireland and the American perspective on Ireland is ridiculous, right? Remember that war we had against them? And that other one? And remember the enormous emigration of the Irish to America? Remember the trend sympathizers in America in the 70's and 80's who thought the IRA was cool? In many places in America, including where I come from, the dominant POV is far more sympathetic to the Irish than to the English. Your conflation of the American perspective with the British perspective, in addition to flatly defying academic and historical trend, serves only to obfuscate the fact that your own views are fringe. Furthermore, the fact that there is, in fact, a systemic bias on Misplaced Pages does not make your own views necessarily correct.

Second, call it a "conspiracy" or not, as I demonstrated above and as you have clearly demonstrated both inside and outside of this thread, your actions demonstrate a belief that there is a deliberate push to censor your views. This is just untrue -- you are welcome to express your views as long as you do so in a reasonable, civil, and non-disruptive manner. You have failed to do so, repeatedly, and that is why the community is tired of you. - Revolving Bugbear 14:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with Sarah about indicating there is a systemic bias which stems from contributors' demographic groups, which includes a pro-American and pro-British POV, is completely different from saying there is a conspiracy. However, given the arbcom ruling, she could be more tactful in making this observation. While I understand and respect Friday's position, I think Sarah should be given another chance. I think the approach outlined by Ras52 of short blocks for talk page incivility, which would include hot-headed remarks, is worth pursuing. PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Short blocks? She's had seven, and hasn't indicated that she's learned anything from any of them. And, as I said above, we've seen repeatedly that incivility blocks are easy for the user to weasel their way out of, no matter how explicitly the remedy is worded. (See the pseudoscience debacle for examples.) Do you really believe this approach will change her behavior? - Revolving Bugbear 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Seven bans? I only see four since three out of the seven bans were lifted. Bidgee (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seven blocks. One or two were brought to an early end on promises of good behaviour, but seven clear blocks nonetheless. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - qualified...

To sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock

In a blue-screen prison with a life-long lock

Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock

From the cheap and chippy chopper of a permanent block.

A lengthy cooling-off block I could see. Not a ban. Not yet. Baseball Bugs 15:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How long should the block be? A month? PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite all these supposed problems, the longest previous block was only 2 days, so maybe a week, at first. I'm going by the User:Tecmobowl standard. He refused to discuss anything, engaged in constant edit-wars, posted spam, used sockpuppetry, displayed constant hypocrisy about the rules, and still it took moving heaven and earth to get him banned. Incivility, by itself, really doesn't matter. It's against the rules, but it's nothing compared to the other stuff. Who cares what somebody calls you? Editing disruption is what matters. A cooling-off period and hopefully some discussion - and maybe some civil treatment by a select few neutral observers toward an editor who, I gather, feels like she's being ganged up on. A life sentence is way over the line, at this point, and even a month is questionable - so far. P.S. I'm one of those Anglo-Americans, but also 1/4 Irish. Baseball Bugs 16:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a 1 week block now, and then longer blocks if the problems continue? PhilKnight (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, an established editor shouldn't be community banned, for calling others Anglo-American PoV pushers; nor for disrupting an AfD. To the best of my knowledge, Sarah hasn't been sockpuppeting, nor has she threatened anyone with legal action or bodily harm. Heck, she can call me a British PoV pusher whenever she wants, or a Donald Duck nationalist. It's not as though she's an 'out of controal' vandal. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, she can't -- it's against the rules. What is your suggestion for getting her to see that? Because she has so far refused. - Revolving Bugbear 16:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah has done a lot of things, but to my knowledge, has never indulged in sock-puppetry, abusive or no. Just for the record - Alison 16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody here is accusing her of sockpuppetry. - Revolving Bugbear 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out, that's a positive for her. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no way, I can persuade Sarah to stop hollering British PoV pushers etc, everytime things don't go her way. I've already tried at her talk-page (for her own sake), but (regretfully) I was unsuccessful. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - She has to know (in fact, she probably does know) that her bad behaviour winds a lot of people up. It appears to me as if she relishes venting her anti-British opinions on anybody who crosses her. Yes there are British, American and a whole lot other nationalistic POV pushers but Sarah doesn't recognise her own Irish POV pushing. However, I wouldn't like to see her banned 'cause anyone can see she does contribute to main-space very well but this continuous harangue against everybody who is agin her view of the world is getting pretty tiresome. -Bill Reid | Talk 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sarah doesn't recognise her own Irish POV pushing. - is part of the problem. She isn't pushing an "Irish PoV". She's pushing a radical minority "anti-Brit" PoV that's shared by no more than about 8% of the Irish population (judging by Sinn Féin's electoral success) - yet constantly writes as if she's speaking for all of Ireland. If there's an anti-Irish bias on WP, I haven't come across it - except when Sarah uses her wind-up tactics and pisses off other editors as a result, who themselves become more intransigent. Even if you're Irish and hold fairly mainstream views, but disagree with her, you get characterised as a British apologist. All that said - and I don't know if I'm allowed vote here as I'm not an admin - a community ban seems too harsh at this stage. Bastun 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the community won't see sense, let's just block her liberally for further disruptiveness, for increasing periods. I think it's painfully obvious that her behavior is not compatible with a collaborative project, but if "ban" is a dirty word, let's just do it a little bit as a time instead. Friday (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is but one example of a problem we often face: how to handle a disruptive and abusive editor who also makes some positive contributions. Our track record in handling such editors is not good. I can see no indication that Sarah777 has made any effort at all to modify her behavior in line with the arbcom case. Let me note in particular that the fact that there are other ethnic/nationalist POV pushers in no way excuses her own conduct. The only solution I see is escalating blocks in response to specific incidents. I think each successive block should double in length: the first would be for a day, the second for two days, the third for four days, and so on. This would allow her plenty of chances and the successive lengthening of the block wold recognize that it's persistent misbehavior that is the problem. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Let's wait I know it seems absurd to give another chance, but I think it at least possible that the unmistakable clarity with which the community has been expressing its view here may have some influence of the editor's behavior. (put a little more bluntly, the threats of permanent ban may have made an impression). I'm willing to give her another opportunity to edit, with the clear understanding that at the first personal attack or expression of generalized ethnic resentment, Raymond's suggestion just above goes into effect. DGG (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm making one more plea to Sarah, to try and resolve things (see her page). One more attempt. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hanau

doesn't seem like there's much more here that needs admin attention. Calling it resolved, meaning sent to the talkpages....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

So I closed a very contentous AfD yestarday. I thought it was close, but someone needed to make a decision and I closed it as a keep. I think I have explained my rational both on the AfD page and elsewhere. I am now getting complaints about conduct on the page. I'm already involved and not entirely enthusiastic about policing the page. Could someone else have a look at the content dispute and any personal attacks there? --Selket 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a formerly neutral party on this issue, I got involved and had previously blocked the author/subject of the article (known per this and this) for personal attacks and later sockpuppetry. It appears that I'm now a partisan, so I've stopped my administrative involvement. There is an open 3RR report related to this here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I typically see admins who are unsure of their own close open a DRV. You should get good responses there. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning the closure at this point. My question was answered directly.

However, there is plenty of behavior here that I do agree needs to be examined further, specifically, persistent personal attacks: 1, 2, 3 followed by inappropriate UW-4 warnings for vandalism 4, 5, ownership of the autobiography, sockpuppetry and at least one SPA editor not listed at the sockpuppet report:

• RetroS1mone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It seems that this is a long-standing off-wiki dispute, somehow related to a dispute around AIDS denialism and some of it is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Hanau. I hope this summary helps. Fresh eyes are definitely needed.

My opinion: There are two parties here with a long standing dispute:

• Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Aimulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

but Aimulti is quite a bit clumsier in navigating wikipedia, apparently loses his temper from time-to-time, and desperately wants an article listing all his accomplishments (which are many, but apparently extremely poorly documented). Because of these, he repeatedly runs afoul of the rules. Several editors commented in the AFD that Aimulti probably shouldn't edit Mark Hanau further. At this point, I think a restriction should be put on him in that direction.

I don't know what is going on at AIDS denialism; I haven't cracked that open and hope not to. I hope this opinion helps. Toddst1 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For Aimulti's own sake, a restriction on Mark Hanau seems like a very good idea. He doesn't seem to understand the cultural norms of Misplaced Pages (for a lack of better words), and he's going to get himself in more and more trouble before he can learn them, assuming it's possible. -- Ned Scott 08:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all of you that you looked at this. The changes I made on Mark Hanau are for bad sourcing, I checked his other sources some of them do not verify either. But now I don't know is it bad for me to edit again or not. Your right there is a long standing dispute between Mark Hanau and AIDS activists, now he been saying he will change Wikipedias AIDS information. But that's totally seperate from the bad sources at the biography. RetroS1mone talk 11:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried. Aimulti apparently believes that I am a specific person he knows and has confronted in the past (as Toddst1 linked, off-wiki dispute). I am not that person; in fact, I don't even know who that person is. I have stated several times that I have never encountered Hanau before: I became involved because of the quite frankly shocking discussion at AIDS denialism and Mark's announcing of plans to "radically alter" Misplaced Pages. Aimulti's recent language ("what I am about to do," "before I go insane," etc.) intensifies my concern that the individual Aimulti identifies with me, someone who, as far as I know, is not involved in this dispute, could become involved in some way off-Misplaced Pages. Contrary to Aimulti's assertions, I supported his notability on picture discs and band management, and I withheld a Keep vote in the AFD only because of my involvement in the editing disputes. To help defuse the tension here, I propose the following: let Mark have his article and do with it as he wants; give him a concession and block me from editing his page. Would this be acceptable? Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the situation and I think your intentions are good, but that is not at all a good idea for wikipedia and am strongly opposed to him "doing with it what he wants." Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I admit that my idea wasn't the best. Would there be any harm in blocking me (and other involved editors, temporarily or otherwise) from editing his biography, though, just to help calm things down? I find this whole situation increasingly worrisome. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can just leave a polite note on his talk page to the effect that you will not be editing his biography, and effectively block yourself - just don't edit it. Self-restraint is often the best approach to these things as long as you're willing. I've been around the AIDS denialism article for a long time, and Aimulti is like many editors who passionately subscribe to the fringe viewpoint - he mostly vents about censorship, the evil AIDS establishment, idiosyncratic ideas about electron micrography and the non-existence of HIV, etc, but there are (for now) enough editors on the page that he's pretty harmless. Anyhow, avoidance is probably the way to go; no comment on the Mark Hanau article as I've not looked at it. MastCell  18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'll do. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist removing parts of others' comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

Background On TheNautilus' RfA, Ncmvocalist posted a section saying that anything that had anything to do with content, e.g. POV-pushing, misuse of sources, and so on, could not be discussed. (last edit before my comment)

I therefore put up a competing view, pointing out that WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V were core policies, and, while we need to be careful to assume good faith, consistent patterns might demonstrate problems that need dealt with, and that it was nonsense to claim that core policies could not be discussed in relation to users.

Ncmvocalist removed it

On Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/TheNautilus#Reply_to_Ncmvocalist, many people say that his interpretation is dogmatic and wrong. Ncmvocalist claims that Arbcom does not allow administrators to look at content in any way, and is fairly rude in the process:

I shrug, and post a new view, giving more evidence, and showing specifically that arbcom has said that administrators can look into content. (this diff is me fixing having put it in the wrong place). User:TimVickers and User:Ronz support it.

Ncmvocalist nonetheless removes the new one as well.

I restore it, accidentally removing Ncmvocalist's last edit to his comment.

And post a fairly polite message to his talk page asking him to stop.

Harrassment begins Ncmvocalist repeatedly posts on my talk page, accusing me of misrepresentation of policy

Threatens me with sanctions, because I undid his deletion of me once (accidentally removing some edits of his section in the process), and repeating the claim that I was misrepresenting policy.

(I restored his changes to his section when it was pointed out, by the way)

And, basically, kept threatening me with sanctions, over and over, ignoring my comments on his talk page.

And, basically, continually misrepresents what I said.

Here threatens me again.

In v iolation of our harrassment policy, when I try to remove the discussion he restores it and adds in a statement that he's referring my conduct - which, remember, consists solely of stating my opinion on a request for comment - "direct to the committee"

He then does this again removal restoration, with personal attack ("You seem to have a disregard for due procedure and norms." added.

This is WAY out of line, this is bullying, harassment, and I'll be blunt: I want him blocked for this. He is threatening to pull in the Arbitration committee in order to allow him to censor other users. That is not on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No opinion (yet) on the larger situation, but can this problem be solved in the short term by you two ignoring each other? Don't post to each other's talk pages, and, if the other does, simply ignore it. Would this work? Friday (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rate it as blockable conduct to remove the signature of an editor in good standing from an RFC. Anyone ready to step in with the tools? Durova 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To friday: Ncmvocalist specifically said he was contacting the arbitration committee, because he disliked me saying my opinion on an RfC, and me getting upset when he tried to remove it. He went for the "nuclear option" simply because I said we should enforce repeated and consistent violations WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. That has gone way beyond simply agreeing to ignore each other, because if he's going to leap from "I disagree with your view" to "I'm contacting arbcom because you dare to say your view", with added personal attacks, then there is no doubt in my mind that he'd do this again to others to censor views. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Orangemike beat me to it, but I would have gone for a longer block for conduct such as:

And for edit warring at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday of all places. seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving town for a few days; if you feel he needs a longer block, then go ahead. Right now he's shrieking that I don't know what I'm doing and he should be unblocked right away. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If I could remove any view that I disagreed with from this RfC, the page would be a great deal shorter! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm. I'd asked Ncmvocalist to stop, not realizing that this train had already sailed. I think he means well, but there's a mild clue deficiency here. It was a bit surreal to see him lecture Tim Vickers, me, and now Orangemike on what admins do and don't do with such absolute certainty. Regardless, he should clearly know better than to edit-war to restore comments to another user's talk page, and likewise with repeatedly removing another editor's view from an RfC. I don't oppose the block, though it's a bit unfortunate that it was phrased as a cooldown block. Given the propensity of this particular party to take a highly legalistic approach to everything, I'll expect an ArbCom hearing request in the next day or two asking that we all be desysopped. MastCell  18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Anyway, the drama is over for now. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, your advice to this editor on his talk page seems very reasonable and hopefully able to help him understand the error of his ways. Like you, I'm greatly concerned by the phrasing as a "cool-down block", but his behavior left something to be desired. --B (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has agreed to stop removing other people's comments from this RfC and has been unblocked. I think this is a good call and hopefully this will aid calm and productive discussion on the subject of the RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Welll... Okay, but should he attempt to harass any other user, or threaten them with sanctions simply because he dislikes their views of policy, I think a long block is in order. Because there was some very nasty vitriol being spouted on my talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will happen again. It was made very clear by several people that those kind of actions are not acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeat personal attacks

- Puppetmaster and socks have been banned

• Cumulus Clouds‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Making some accusation that I am same user as others. I see he has filed a case, I have no problem with it. But he didn’t leave me alone, and wait for the case to resolve. Instead he followed all the edits of mine and other people he is accusing, and sabotaged them all. here here here

Xbox999 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The RFCU on this user came back as likely for a sockpuppet of User:Foxhunt99. There is now a pending sockpuppet case here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cumulus Clouds followed my editing in some articles, claim I was a sock puppet, however, in the case he opened, admin has proved I was unrelated to foxhunt99 or xbox999. His action is damaging and needs to be controlled. Even if xbox999 and foxhunt99 are the same, yet, it has nothing to do with what they are editing now, I don't see they are editing the same page, except the Tibet articles, which we all opposed your view. By posting xbox999 is sock puppet on other page, you are assuming it is truth without knowing for sure. It should be innocent until proven guilty. I hope an admin stop his harmful actions. Easymem (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are almost certainly a sockpuppet as well. Your perennial involvement in these discussions is evidence of far greater knowledge and participation in the events than that of an innocent bystander. That you arrived here less than 40 minutes after this comment was posted lends great evidence to the argument that you are all controlled by a single party. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cumulus Clouds did it again here andhere

. How can he assume I am guilty before final decision is made about the case. Xbox999 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to say why then that you defended a revert of an account that you are supposedly not a sock of? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Xbox999, Guox0032 and Foxhunt99 are all one party. They all originate in and around Nashville, edit the same pages and use the same poor english. Easymem also matches the editing pattern, but his IP address came up as unrelated at RFCU. I'm guessing this is because that account was formed after the RFCU was opened, when Foxhunt99 first learned that such information could be used to detect sockpuppets. He is probably using TOR or some other proxy to hide his IP, but it is very clearly the same person. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• who are you talking about Wildthing61476, and which instance? There are too many people involved in this, you need to be more clear. Easymem (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• if those parties are guilty like what you say, it still makes no excuse for you to go rv their edits just so you can have your revenge on Tibet articles. You have absolutely no interest in those articles foxhunt99 and xbox999 and I are editing, you simply did it to defame us. Until you can further provide more evidence, I suggest you stop your vandalism. Plus you claim I found out this page too early, it is really easy to track your moves by looking at your history. Easymem (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is very unusual that a user with less than 2 days of experience on the encyclopedia would be able to so aptly navigate those channels to come here. You have obviously been here for much longer than you claim to and this is most likely because you are a sockpuppet of Foxhunt99.

• My intention is not to take revenge on anyone. I have seen the similarities between all four accounts in attempting to insert the same POV into a number of related articles about the status of Tibet. This means they are all probably sockpuppets controlled by one person. This has since been confirmed, to some extent, by checkuser. This means that there is evidence now of this user abusing the process and rules of this encyclopedia. Which means their edits, in general, cannot be trusted because they themselves cannot be trusted to represent themselves honestly in constructing articles. I have therefore reverted these edits as malacious, dishonest or counterproductive. Once you and your socks are blocked, I will go back through your edits and ensure those articles conform to NPOV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• How about let admin decide if there is any sockpuppet, instead taking the law into your own hands?Easymem (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Believe me, they will. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys edit war

Both Wikiscribe (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Pompertown (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have been reverting each other however I've warned them with the 3RR template even though it's way over 3 reverts. Main reason I'm putting this here is incase the edit war starts again (I'm about to head off for some shut eye since it's 3am in the morning). Bidgee (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

i ceased the edit war after warning but pomperton has once again reverted the page --Wikiscribe (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre = Pop vs. Teen pop? On the Backstreet Boys? WP:LAME anyone? — Edokter • Talk • 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

so since its just lame i guess it is okay for me to change it back and let the edit war continue because i just shown you i stoped afetr geting a warning but the other person continued--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, defenitely not. You both have already broken like 20RR? Don't make it worse. — Edokter • Talk • 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you should take it to the talk page. Misplaced Pages isn't a battleground... And please don't make me watchlist Backstreet Boys... x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

i have tried to take it directly to the only person who has had a problem with the genre issue and keeps removing a relevent genre(Pompertown),also this person is unwilling to be a reasonable person as you can see on his talk page he seems to be a very disruptive editor to this particular article if an administrator would take the time to vistis pompertown talk page he or she would see,and though i know we both broke the 3 revert rule after i have recived the warning i got upwised and stoped though the other party continued to change it,which should lead to him or she geting blocked--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe blocked for 24 hours (I see from the history of your talkpage that you've been warned about 3RR previously). Pompertown blocked for a week due to previous blocks - this will be his 6th 3RR block. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Beamathan

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

Dear community, I am here to ask for a review of a topic ban which was implemented within the rules laid about in the Macedonian (Balkan) Arbitration case on Beamathan (talk · contribs). I initially topic banned Beamathan from all Kosovo related articles (in particular, Talk:Kosovo) on May 5th, as part of a uninvolved administrator review which was a case brought to my attention, by Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I lifted that formal sanction on May 10th and proposed for it to end on the 12th May, where I explained: the importance of being a member of the community and the functions and role which accompany that, the current situation on Balkan articles, and commented on the fact that there had been some evidence that Beamathan worked particularly well before, with both the assistance of two other editors (Dbachmann and BalkanFever) who both reassured me that Beamathan was working with the policies set and worked well within that frame. Husond respected my decision and commented that after a informal restriction I placed on Husond's talk page that all Beamathan contributions there were to be productive/civil, he would be okay with reporting any further incidents of name calling etc. I don't believe this particular restriction was ever violated, yet a 48-hour block was implemented in response to this. I feel this block was necessary, but the duration may have been slightly off-put. Husond and Beamathan have shared differing, and more often than not, opposite views of article inclusion etc. and this has led to increasingly strenuous relations between the two, perhaps a factor to consider in the culmination to recent edits. I do strongly believe that Husond should have discussed this matter with me, or at least asked here at ANI for another uninvolved administrator to evaluate the situation and produce and effective, or at least in part, solution. I do understand that Beamathan has now been placed on "a topic ban from all Kosovo-related articles for 15 days, and placed on indefinite civility supervision". And, although this sanction may be sufficient or justifiable enough, I believe strongly that this more recent implementation of a topic ban should have been initiated by another admin, possibly me, considering my experience in this particular situation. With both Beamathan askin for a review of his case, and Husond wanting honest feedback, I bring forward this thread as information in the hope of further progress in this particular case. Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a rather bad move to me. I haven't been following the more recent context too closely, but last time I looked, Husond was himself heavily involved in the Kosovo article debates and as such certainly not an "uninvolved admin" to make ARBMAC sanctions, for actions directly related to that article and for alleged incivility against himself. Moreover, the second of the two diffs given in justification of the ban (), directed against Husond himself, was not in the slightest bit objectionable. Annoyed, yes, angry, yes, but certainly not a personal attack. The first, against User:Mike Babic, telling him to "stay away", is certainly unfriendly, but I wouldn't call it an actionable personal attack either. If I am convinced another editor has been engaging in persistent disruptive editing against consensus – and that seems to be Beam's case against Mike – then expressing my conviction that it would be better if he just stayed away from the article falls under "calling a spade a spade", in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's my feedback on this situation. Rudget is right that I vowed to report further uncivil behavior from Beamathan. However, Rudget was on a wikibreak when I noticed that Beamathan was being aggressive towards another user in edit summaries at Kosovo . So I just advised Beamathan that such behavior was the kind that would bring back his topic ban . Instead of acknowledging the angry way he addressed another user and vow to calm down, Beamathan understood my notice as a hateful threat and launched a series of uncivil attacks and threats against me both at his talk page and mine, also demanding a surreal apology for the advice I had left on his talk page . For his clear inability to understand WP:CIVIL, I restored his temporary topic ban and put him on permanent civility supervision. And following his response , I blocked him for continued incivility. I should note that this is not the first time I've blocked Beamathan for the same reason. I think that my interaction with him started with that other block and since then Beamathan claims that I hate him and have a personal bias against him. I don't think that an admin should be branded as biased against a user simply because that admin has a history of having performed sanctions against him. If the sanctions were justified, then Beamathan has no grounds for accusing anyone. For me, Beamathan is just a user who cannot comprehend WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would've acted no differently with any other user behaving the same way. I should also note, from Future Perfect's comment, that virtually all of my involvement with the Kosovo article has been admin monitoring, not editing the article itself. I have provided some feedback in a few discussions occurring there, but most of my work is to ensure that users at the talk page communicate with each other civilly and constructively at a time when a lot of anger is bursting there because of the declaration of independence. Any other admin can try doing the job, if that would be enough to prove that soon that admin who's just supervising will be considered biased against users, simply for ensuring the strict implementation of Misplaced Pages's policies of user conduct. Happened to me, and I would gladly be replaced by someone else in that task to put up with Beamathan and other admin bashers. Húsönd 02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the difficulties sometimes involved in balancing one's content involvement and one's admin actions in borderline cases of "involvedness", but still, my recollection is you were far too heavily involved in content disputes with Beam on this very article for me to feel comfortable with you doing blocks in this matter. Second, your summary of events seems misleading. After your first warning, Beam did in fact react positively, as he rightly argues on his talkpage; he posted a polite and reasonable explanation and an apology on Mike's talk . That leaves the aggressive response to you as your only complaint. Now, apart from the fact that an admin should be particularly careful about blocking in cases of offenses against themselves – sorry for being blunt, but if you feel this is evidence that Beamathan, "cannot comprehend WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA", then the person who doesn't comprehend WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You may say that I have much less leniency towards incivility than you, but for me that diff was clearly uncivil. If you would take it with a smile should that comment been addressed to you, then I guess you're impervious to the tone users address you with, which is certainly a good quality of yours but it doesn't mean that my incivility claim is far-fetched. Especially if you compare Beamathan's response with my first notice on his talk page. Húsönd 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Users have the right to express anger. And users have the right to be angry when faced with admin actions they consider unjust. They may of course be wrong in considering them unjust, but even then, anger is natural and should not be held against them as yet another offense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But there's many ways to express anger without mixing it with incivility. In my view, by replying this aggressively to a simple notice about previous incivility (a notice I believe you consider adequate), demonstrates that this user cannot comprehend civility. Recurringly. Húsönd 14:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: this is not incivil. If you think it is, you are wrong. If you think it's a personal attack, you are even more wrong. And if you think "incivility" or "personal attacks" are both equally grounds for blocking, you are also wrong about policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I view it as uncivil. But certainly not a personal attack, that came later. Húsönd 16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves us with the issue that mere instances of minor incivility are not grounds for blocking, according to our blocking policy. Especially not when the incivility is (at best) borderline, the admin makes that judgment about an alleged act of incivility against themselves, and the admin is also involved in a related content dispute. I strongly recommend lifting the sanctions and apologising for the unjust block; they were most certainly inappropriate and contrary to the rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm perplexed. First, instances of incivility (minor or major) can always constitute grounds for blocking, especially when recurrent (and "recurrent" in this particular case is an understatement). Secondly, I'm not involved in any content dispute with Beamathan. And thirdly, I thank but recuse your recommendations. I neither find my block unjust, nor against any rules. And I will definitely not apologize to an uncivil user who merited a block for incivility. I am disturbed by your level of leniency towards incivility and your surreal request for an apology. It's as if I strongly recommended that you apologize to me now for having a different opinion on the issue. Very uncharacteristic and disturbing indeed. Húsönd 16:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there may be a difference in opinion here on what constitutes as a merited block on Beamathan or not. I do not think that a block should have been implemented in this most recent case in question, but past skirmishes with admins before (characterised by his block log, I might add) does show that Beamathan is not entirely innocent in this situation, whilst not completely blameful either. Rudget (Help?) 17:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That I can easily accept. But when this happened, a block seemed like the best message to send Beamathan. And, since the block has expired he seems calmer, so it probably worked. Húsönd 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait for his opinion (I should think it will be predictable), but nevertheless, having a second side to the story never hurts. Rudget (Help?) 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Predictable it is. But sure, second sides are always welcome. Húsönd 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have worked in co-operation with Husond before, in which could be called a 'successful' observation of who is disrupting pages like this, and who isn't. I feel that this incident was more likely than not, a step too far, but only because of circumstances which I believe Husond is involved in otherwise. I trust a block on Beamathan from Husond is out of the question for now. I respect his judgement, and I would like to express my thanks at his work there, but believe before making any formal sanctions such as blocks, that the idea should be at least discussed with another admin beforehand, but seeing as I was on a Wikibreak, I do see where he was coming from. Hopefully, both users will now "leave it at that" so to speak, so there can be some time to reflect and repent on what has happened. Rudget (Help?) 10:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond, can you explain to me how the following is not you being involved in content disputes with Beamathan?

• Talk:Kosovo/Archive_19#POV shift (2 - 3 April)
• Talk:Kosovo/Archive_19#Republic of Kosovo redirect (23 - 24 April)
• Talk:Kosovo/Archive_19#Template of how over 150 countries see Kosovo (27 - 28 April)

You blocked Beamathan first on 7 April, directly during both his and your most heavy involvement in the Kosovo article. You gave a negative administrative opinion on Beamathan's topic ban on 9 May, just ten days after your last content clash (here. Then you blocked him again on 19 May; by that time, as Rudget notes, the relation between you and him was heavily burdened by his sense of being persecuted by you.

This is bad, very bad. I'm seriously thinking I'll have to escalate this. The guy is still under a topic ban, imposed by you, from exactly the article you kept clashing over. For an act of "incivility" that wasn't one in the first place. This is completely unacceptable.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to escalate. Húsönd 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will now formally lift the topic ban against Beamathan. I feel that I have fulfilled the conditions for admins to "familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard". Given that Rudget has expressed serious doubts about the appropriateness of the sanctions, I can safely say there is no consensus for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have fulfilled anything, but I will not oppose lifting the sanctions. I believe their purpose was met. Húsönd 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts and fake new message bars

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.

Okay. Thats enough here. Please take this policy discussion to the relevant page, WT:UP. Talking about this here isn't going to help anything really. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some fake new message bars from user pages per WP:USER and Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to revert my changes against what the user page guidelines state. He is also assuming bad faith and reverting changes as vandalism. Nakon 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please God, don't let this happen again. -- Codeine (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly makes them against guidelines? They've been around forever and while I don't particularly like them I've never heard that users can't have them? gren グレン 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in WP:USER under "simulated mediawiki interfaces" Nakon 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is more of a joke than the actual message in question. Nakon, please read Misplaced Pages:LAME#User_pages. Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If anything, warn/block for false accusations of vandalism (call it WP:NPA/WP:TROLL/WP:AGF violation); I say also protect the page if s/he persists, those banners are irritating, disruptive and pointless, and it seems that the user in question is the same. Let them know in no uncertain terms that unless they are here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia then they oughtn't to be around. </rant> —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I view removing page content from a userpage, while vaguley citing some policy, as vandalism hence the reverts. Lugnuts (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't vandalism, read WP:USER several times. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have, and I'll stick to my original conclusion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Further to my comment, I've warned for personal attacks (false accusations of vandalism, "get a life", "stop being retarded") and suggest protection and/or blocking if persisted. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG Drahmaz! Seriously, it's a message bar. If the users want them there, keep them there. No need to edit war over it. The Misplaced Pages community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes. Should. Not must, or get blocked. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'm concerned about the personal attacks that sprung from it; clearly the bar is causing disruption and it's not that essential to developing an encyclopedia. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is one message bar really going to make someone stop contributing to the encyclopedia? Seems like an unreasonable comment there. Rudget (Help?) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not WP:POINT at all. That bar has been around for ages and most user pages are not overy constructive to writing an encyclopedia. They're jokes, quotes, pictures, interests, etc. We allow them because they are community building and a few pages to entertain editors who spend hours upon hours expanding Misplaced Pages is considered a good investment. I want you to show me exactly where on User Page it says they are not allowed and then justify how it's worth edit warring instead of just telling the user this. As of this second Lugnuts has exactly 45000 edits. I think we can cut him some slack if he wants to mess around on his user page. gren グレン 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's 61,785 edits, as that counter times out at 45k ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Absolutely. But not if he wants to insult other editors over it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I did inform the user of the guidelines and then he went and reverted every one of the user pages I removed it from citing my edits as vandalism. Nakon 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is he didn't really disregard guidelines... he did something which you interpret as against them--not a clear cut case--and something that anyone who has been around for a long time knows has generally been accepted except for when it creates drama. If he attacked you that's a problem but all that will happen is we tell him not to. If you want to create a page about those message bars and their removal from Misplaced Pages, do, but I recommend you stop removing them from user pages. gren グレン 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP is a guideline, not a policy. It is not illegal to have the bar, but more generally frowned upon. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely removal isn't mandatory? Rudget (Help?) 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Once Lugnuts reverted, Nakon should have left a message regarding its perceived disruption on talk and went away. Edit warring over it makes little sense. Now that Lugnuts has gone and reverted the prior changes Nakon made to other user pages, calling them vandalism, a strong warning is in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It must be a slow newsday if this is the biggest issue we're facing at Misplaced Pages. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, Nakon is referring to his recent contributions in which he reverted near every edit by Nakon. Rudget (Help?) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted them, as Nakon didn't give a reason to why he'd mass-deleted the text in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "removing per WP:USER" Nakon 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, missed that part. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may not have been wise... but when a user goes on a crusade to remove generally accepted user page content then revert that is not completely out of order. Although, edit wars should be avoided. gren グレン 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I say the user should remove it, if it causes this much conflict there is no need for it on a userpage. Userpages are Misplaced Pages property and as such should not have anything on them that may bring the community into disagreement. Lets just remove it, and move on. Tiptoety 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It says on WP:USER "The Misplaced Pages community generally frowns upon". I'm not sure where you got "generally accepted" from. Nakon 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Yes, WP:UP is a guideline, but it should still be adhered to within reason. People don't like the bar, it is semi-disruptive when people see it, and it certainly doesn't help improve the encyclopedia, so remove it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't feel it should be removed. It is just that some people might blow things out of proportions. I did add one to mine, as I had one a long time before. And I'd prefer anybody not to remove it.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's clearly a WP:POINT violation and I've removed it. Nakon 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a POINT violation. That's if you disrupt an article... it's not talking about adding something completely separate on your user page. You read policy far too broadly and legalistically--which it isn't. gren グレン 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. The bar isn't disruptive, but if this is the succeeding action then it should be removed by the request of the user who's page is being edited. Rudget (Help?) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is disruptive, Rudget. Look what happens when people have them on their page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be right but the place to deal with that is not here. We should get this resolved and then we can have a discussion about that if people feel it's warranted. gren グレン 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(2xec to Rudg) You don't think the bar is disruptive, Rudget? It might not be against policy, but I don't see how it's not disruptive. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is. Just not to the point where it stops people contributing to the project. Rudget (Help?) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x half a dozen) Neither generally accepted nor generally frowns upon constitutes a solid enough grounds for strict enforcement. If the link provided in the bar does not lead to any external links that are malicious or unacceptable by some other WP standards, I don't see any reason to vehemently insist that it be removed. If one requests the bar to be removed and the request is denied by the user sporting the non-malicious bar, leave it be or take it up at policy level. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why has my userpage been locked? Lugnuts (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 7)This is completely ridiculous . It is a userpage, and should not be causing this much disruption. If it is causing and issue than remove it. I have removed it and protected that page for a while, now lets move on to writing some articles. Tiptoety 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't disrupting anyone before this! I've had that on my page for months. You've cleary overstepped your authority. Lugnuts (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can this be moved to a separate (sub)page? This may take a while. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't be taking a while. This needs to be discussed at WT:USERPAGE probably. -Rjd0060 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now laughing at Codeine's initial response at the top of this thread. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Call me Nostradamus, but I saw this coming. ;) -- Codeine (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So we're going to edit a user page that belongs to a contributor who's broken the edit counter and then protect it in our prefered version. That's some fine police work there, Lou. ➪HiDrNick! 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shapiros10 - request to unblock

User Shapiros10 was blocked for sockpuppetry:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Shapiros10.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_sockpuppetry

He admitted his wrongdoing, apologized and tried to request unblocking on unblock-l. Though i have a reason to believe that he is sincere and that there's a good chance that his further contributions will be positive, the request was denied. Sarah suggested trying to bring it up here.

Blocking is supposed to protect, not punish. The trolling of Shapiros10 was obviously wrong, but i am sure that he learned his lesson and that an infinite block is too harsh of a punishment. If he gets back to troublemaking, he can be blocked for good and i shall stand corrected.

Please consider this with good faith. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for User:MBisanz, who placed the most recent block. This editor can also use {{unblock|reason}} on his Talk page, and explain why he wants to be unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I declined the block, and ignored the subsequent personal emails based on the positive CU. I have no objection to an unblock (since I'm ok with any admin overturning any of my actions), but I'd recommend someone ping Dmcdevit as the reporting CU. MBisanz 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose an unblock of his account if the underlying IP remains anon blocked with account creation disabled, which I believe is the case until October, and if he agrees to resume mentorship with Amire. Sarah 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Shapiros has agreed on his talk page to resume mentorship if unblocked, so if there aren't any further concerns it would probably be fair to give him a second chance. Sarah 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to mentor. Full reply at User talk:Shapiros10. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cowboycaleb123456

Is back as blocked sock User:Cowboycaleb1, with the normal technique of harrasing me at my talkpage, see the contribs. D.M.N. (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this, he's been blocked by LAX. If any more spring up, block again as per normal. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A whole big mess I don't know where to put

This issue transfixes so many issues I decided to just bring it here and let all of us sort it out, because I'm beat. I've come upon what seems to be an edit war about POV pushing on a BLP by a fairly new editor and an experienced one. The articles at hand is Lynn Conway (talk), and to a lesser extend Andrea James (talk), by Users MarionTheLibrarian (talk) and Dicklyon (talk). I have not delved into specifics, nor do I want to, but something isn't right. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've protected both pages and warned the editors about edit warring. Dreadstar † 07:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

201.224.142.1

201.224.142.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a habit of removing problem tags or fair use tags from images, fraudulently replacing them with arbitrary authorship information and free licensing tags, and then tagging them to be moved to Commons, among other copyright fraud activities. I've blocked the address for a year at Commons and repeatedly warned them here to no avail. The editing patterns suggest a single person using the address, so there should be little or no collateral damage from a long, healthy block. Diffs: ... I'm sure there's more. Please look through deleted contributions and let me know if you spot things that we should delete from Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked for a year per the above - and request review from fellow admins - but have no knowledge of image related matters, so leave that up to someone else to tackle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Template Error

Template {{db-reason}} works but the warning that you paste onto the creators talk page is not correctly transcluding the 'reason' text onto their page. Can someone fix please? Exxolon (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox removing RfC template

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has thrice removed an RfC template from Talk:Pedophilia for reasons that are not comprehensible to me. When I reverted him, he justified himself as such: "that is not an rfc its a trollfest and the bots dont like trollfests, who invited you anyway." His third reversion accuses me of trolling] and demands I "go away iof all you can do is troll , other suers but you are equally responsdibnl;e wityh lambton fort his 100th case of troolling." O-kay... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed a personal,attack, I suggest you and your buddy refactor the Rfc instead of abusing it to make personal attacks against me or any user. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to a personal attack with a personal attack is never a good idea. Regardless of the merit/wording to the RFC statement labelling another editor a troll in an edit summary isn't going to help. Exxolon (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I accept that. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem--obviously--is that it's not a simple rfc request, it's an attack on Squeakbox. The cited text Jovin Lambton refers to is not "Squeakbox's version" (in fact, it was written entirely by me, and has consensus support). I believe what Squeakbox is hoping to avert is Jovin's grossly inappropriate personalizing of a content dispute which is not personal. No one hapless enough to respond to such a request for comment should be mislead by Jovin's personal attacks on Squeakbox (in fact, no one is likely to offer useful outside input at all the way Jovin is framing it). -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the real problem is the legal threat made by Lambton yesterday. I do not like legal trheats, thery amke me feel insecure (as I have a lot to lose). This is just poisoning the atmosphere for all of us who work at the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how an RfC summary of "I am adamant that SqueakBox's version misrepresents sources and fails to attribute them. He is adamant that my version is biased" can be seen as anything but antagonistic. It should be reworded to focus on the dispute and not the disputers. Tarc (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. An article RFC should be about the article and not about editors of the article. If Lambton has an issue with SqueakBox personally he should pursue dispute resolution and/or open a user conduct RFC instead. Exxolon (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, except any user conduct RFC is likely to be on Jovin--he is continually incivil, as seen here, where he tell us to "smell the biomass":

He also edit wars in tandem with Tor node sockpuppets: . Yesterday he was antagonizing User:Googie man, trying to intimidate him away from editing with a bogus borderline legal threat. There's an endless supply of diffs. User conduct RfCs are so toothless that I think we've all been hoping he will be indeffed any minute now to save us the pointless hassle. There's also a sockpuppet question that should probably be publicly checkusered; maybe that could take care of it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not consider "I am adamant that SqueakBox's version misrepresents sources and fails to attribute them. He is adamant that my version is biased" to be an abusive edit summary-- if anything it seems a fair statment of the differences at issue, and does focus on the issue rather than the personalities. DGG (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is completely inappropriate. Are you really satying that it is fine to abuse Rfc in order to attacj other editors. I had agreed to an rfc request but Lambton, who has got us all freaked out with his legal threats from the day before yesterday anyway, decided to follow one of the earlier banned socks in this abusive misuse of Rfc. You, DGG, should know better than to support this kind of uncivil behaviour in SPAs. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was designed to upset someone, rather than to improve an article/sincerely request outside input. In that sense, Squeak is not wrong that it was probably trolling; that's what trolling is "exploiting weakness in an online community." Note also that Jovin split as soon as he succeeded in upsetting Squeak, and has not rephrased his "rfc" request. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, this is about AnotherSolipsist, correct? Just to clarify the above statement by PetraSchelm. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the statement is about Jovin Lambton. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be one of the fancy-pants official mentors for child sex articles, so I guess it's best I at least try and earn my keep. Squeak, please stop removing the RFC notice... there was a brokered agreement to have an RFC on another of the PPA articles (can't remember which right now), so I really don't see the problem in doing the same here and bringing outside views... AS, please try and depersonalize the dispute; this is about content, not what Squeak may or may not have written... Petra, Jovin's behavior is a topic for another day. Not here, please. east.718 at 11:21, May 24, 2008

Err, when will that be. if you are going to comment please do so in a useful fashion. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing but respect for East, who has been the most dedicated of the topic mentors. But I second Squeak's question--"when will that be?." -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:PaulMoist - Imposter account

Someone has created an account named User:PaulMoist and edited the account on the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The real Paul Moist is the union's president. It's highly unlikely User:PaulMoist is the real Paul Moist since he's been adding links to a website that's critical of the union's leadership. I have no opinion on the website in question or its contents and perhaps it should be included in the article's external links but not by an imposter. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and instructed to contact OTRS to confirm his identity. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack from IP user

This diff shows a personal attack from an IP user, 75.49.224.70, on my user page. The user also has vandalized, and been blocked once for vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 04:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for a week for vandalism and personal attacks/harassment. Dreadstar † 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Bubba73 (talk), 05:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dust1234 (not Dust1235) (Sockpuppet)

This user is likely a sockpuppet (though has no operator). This person has no edits

PROOF (first | last) View (previous 1) (next 1) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) Dust1234 (first | last) View (previous 1) (next 1) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

(Contribs: NONE) 122.54.93.104 (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing what the problem is. I've checked and can see no relation between these two accounts. 1234 was created in January and has made no edits (and probably never will - the majority of our new account creations never come to anything). 1235 was created in April in order to nominate a template for deletion and was never seen again - just one edit. There's no evidence that the two are related. And even if they are, there's no evidence of wrongdoing. It could be argued that the names are too similar, but since they're the names of one SPA and one never-used account, it hardly matters. Nothing to see here. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Other opinions on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Continue discussion? It seems civil enough, and there appears the possibility that you two can work it out between the two of you. Other opinions should only be needed if the discussion stalls (or you both make a howler of a decision between you - which doesn't seem likely...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Grawp and Hagger

• At 21:59 on 23 May 2008 page Anglo-Saxons was subjected to Grawp / Hagger-type move vandalism, by a named user (not an IPA). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Misza13 for great justice and epic lulz. Oh, and for page-move vandalism. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:32, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we get a bit of vandal reverting out of the Grawps now. henrik•talk 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They had to make 10 edits before they could move an article, so they did ten useful edits first. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam problem

See the comment I wrote on his userpage. he told me to tell it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gatoclass#Spam_multi-level_pyramid_found.2C_but_need_more_help Sentriclecub (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post the spamming related accounts, diffs, all the domains on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Health_problems --Hu12 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Eurovisionman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has recently been blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing and breaching 3RR concerning the sole two articles his edits concentrate on since registering - Isis Gee and For Life (Isis Gee song). His block has just expired and he simply started doing that again. Please see his user and talk page, as well as associated pages, their talks and histories. I would appreciate immediate action as it seems he does not quite respond to milder means of communication. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. User also makes unfounded allegiations against others (incl. myself) of e.g. using sockpuppets, which I find quite uncivil.

Blocked for 55 hours and requested to use the talkpage to air concerns, not the article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now editing as anon URL: 62.200.52.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) PrinceGloria (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kooky World Guy

Kooky World Guy (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of MascotGuy, and has been creating several new accounts (6 today, but a total of 17 and the user has only been registered for two weeks). The user has also added a "blocked sockpuppet" tag to who Cool vs. Wild‎ (talk · contribs), an account which is not blocked. It looks like the user is moving from one account to the next, and tagging old accounts as blocked or adding them to a list (is there a reason for keeping that list, or would it be better to delete it and deny recognition?). Some of the older account shave been blocked, I don't know if this user's accounts are still being blocked, as the recent ones have not been, but the user has quite a few unblocked accounts. --Snigbrook 10:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote block 'em all, especially since one of the accounts calls itself 'MascotGuy2009'. Who's with me? Blood Red Sandman 11:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them? I see that User:Ohnoitsjamie, a respected editor, seems familiar with them, so you may wish to pursue that avenue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it here as it suggests on Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/MascotGuy that they should be blocked, but I am not sure if that is still the case as several are already listed as "unblocked" instead of being blocked (does the "instructions" part of the infobox on that page need to be updated?). I don't know much about the user; I mentioned it here as other users may be more familiar with them. --Snigbrook 12:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's really MascotGuy, trying to talk to them does no good, because he never edits Talk pages. Corvus cornix_talk 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User promotes degree mill

I just came across the edits of Theecoguy (talk · contribs). All edits of this user revolve around promoting Anaheim University. See for instance this pre-cleanup version of the article Anaheim University. The article is stuffed with puffwords like pioneering, acclaimed, renowned, esteemed, leading, unique, innovative, highest quality, dedicated. The same goes for Anaheim University Graduate School of Education, Anaheim University Akio Morita School of Business and David Nunan. Theecoguy also claims that Anaheim University is state-approved, although it has been included in the lists of unaccredited degree suppliers in the states of Oregon and Michigan. Aecis 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably nominate it as an article for deletion (AFD) and let that process work. Do it quickly, though, lest it get promoted to Featured Article. Baseball Bugs 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

at AfD, we usually keep articles about significant diploma mills, if that's what it is. I note there do see to be two actually notable people (in a positive sense) associated with the institution so I would be very careful about sourcing and NPOV. So for the main article, just keep editing for neutral presentation. Including the information that it is unaccredited is appropriate content, if you include the source. The solution to the others probably is redirects to the main article. No admin action seems to be needed yet. DGG (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Threat of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. by Bigwolfx

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

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

These two users "Realist2" and "Harout72" are bullying this article , and are constanstly disruptive. They are refusing reliable references and claiming them to be illegible. This incident also includes this admin "Rodhullandemu" who also refuses the references and claims them to be unreliable and illegibe. One user "Katsuya" remained in a civil manner with their responses, but all his/her comments were rejected and called worthless. This is utter nonsesne. I took this matter to the reliable sources board however these users still disregard what has been said on that board. The talk page topic for this incident is located here . I would like very much for multiple admins to please take the time to investigate this matter, as I am confident it should not take long. Harout72 also removed the reference for the artist Hibari Misora under the same circumstances. Thanks 220.253.155.88 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All sources must be in English from what I know. They are in the right to not allow that source to be added. Please find one that is in English. Rgoodermote  17:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been sorted out on the Reliable sources notice board. It's clear that non-English sources are allowable, with certain caveats, per WP:RSUE. This editor should cease forum-shopping, accept that, as s/he has been advised, all parties are acting in good faith, and cease the personal attacks on other editors. He has had an answer, which I accept is correct, and it's time to move on. --Rodhullandemu 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, then I am going to close this. I must say I had no clue that other language sources were allowed. Thanks for that update. Rgoodermote  17:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No this has not been resolved. On the reliable sources notice board, it was declard that those sources were accetable, however on the articles talk page, those editors in question refuse to accept it and deny those references. How has this incident been resolved? This is what this incident report is about. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. Another discussion is open about this some where else. Rgoodermote  18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:LavendarLover

Not sure this is vandalism, COI or both. All edits have been about a minor actress in a TV series. The article is a copyvio, but trying to post a G12 notice resulted in a blacklist notice. I'm assuming this person has posted before and the subject has been deleted before. Lots of SHOUTING in the edit summaries. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• User is now claiming to be this person's publicist. Given his/her spelling, syntax and grammar on the article talk page in comparison to the copyvio, I'm inclined to doubt it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

With that claim I would be inclined to think this account is for advertisements only. Making it a Single Purpose Account. Rgoodermote  18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also add vandal. Rgoodermote  18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me. Off to the AIV board to report it. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The note should say continued addition of Non-notable actress and recreation of a blacklisted page. Also incivility and advertisements. Rgoodermote  18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiStalking and Ender78 (talk · contribs)

I had a content dispute with this editor earlier today atTalk:C. Everett Koop and have since resumed editing in other areas since the dispute was resolved. However, it seems now the user has taken on the initiative to begin stalking me on another user's talk page . I disengaged him there and told him to bring his comments here. He even opened up a disruptive RfC against me based on the simple content issue from earlier that was oddly confirmed by another user who rarely ever edits and in very different articles yet somehow found his/her way into the content dispute - I suspect a sockpuppet. Anyway, please suggest a way to get this guy to back off. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SB/Incivility

Moved from AN. J*Lambton /_C 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am getting fed up of this user (including his false characterisations of other editors - including pedophilia and pro-pedophilia accusations towards editors who have been forced into veiling their language with unnecessary anti-molester rhetoric). He has driven too many good editors off the project, incited the blocking of too many good editors, and now resorts to characterising my friendly reply as "trolling", removing it from the talk page of someone from who he has no permission to behave in such a way - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Googie_man&diff=prev&oldid=214654729.

If any administrator really doesn't know what he has been up to, and is willing to actually do something about it, I will be more than welcome to flood this page with diffs. J*Lambton /_C 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An example from only a while ago - of how this editor is forcing very strongly held POV on the encyclopedia, and characterising the editors who he is supposed to be working with as pedophilia advocates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=214652507 (and the following diffs). J*Lambton /_C 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

E.g. "and/or reform of child pornography legislation, the latter in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life (for instance child porn on the internet compounding an original abuse many millions of times)" J*Lambton /_C 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards