Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramdrake (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 22 July 2008 (→User Zero g keeps reverting a merge that had consensus and with which he disagrees). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:JimBobUSA

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold:
• Japanese war crimes:

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Misplaced Pages and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here ] ] ] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : ]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached Wikiquette in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why its being discussed here again. Moondyne 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Moondyne.

You made mention of the “numerous warnings given” and then referred to my talk page. I would like to point out that all of those warnings are from the same person, Grant65 (starter of this complaint).

I would also like to point out, that the material I removed, and was warned for numerous times by Grant65 is still vacant from the article. Reason being is that novels (fiction) and books that do not contain reference to the article at all make for poor references. Yes, you read that correctly. The frivolous warnings were for removing false references. Hence, that is why I titled them “frivolous warnings” on my user talk page.

This is also noteworthy on the opening of this complaint, where Grant65 states: “This user has been warned before…”. What Grant65 fails to mention, is that he is the one who has done all of the warnings. Dubious in anyone’s book.

In closing, the creditable/reliable reference given for the Japanese war crimes article (the reason for this complaint) notes this about the source being used, the Seagraves novel (I will copy/paste my text from that talk page):

I would also like to point out, that the reference cited for the Looting sub-section makes note that the Seagraves (the sole source for the Looting sub-section) states that the Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate, are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese.

Chalmers Johnston’s book review (reference given) also points out that the book is full of errors and one of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity. Johnston goes on to point out that, the Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have taken the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book. Buy the book, and then buy the documentation afterwards? Jim (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make a brief exception to my rule about dealing directly with User:JimBobUSA to make three key points: (1) I believe that he is wrong about the CDs supporting Gold Warriors. My information is that they were never sold separately and were an "extra" with a limited number of copies of the book. (2) He misrepresents Johnson's view of the Seagraves, by citing the only passages of Johnson's very long article that are critical of the Seagraves. Johnson is not generally critical of Gold Warriors — far from it. (3) For the benefit of JimBobUSA and others who may be under similar misapprehensions, the main "incident" in question here is his attempt to delete citation of Johnson's article from Japanese war crimes, with edit summaries describing it as a "novel"(!) It plainly is not. Neither is the book it is reviewing. User:JimBobUSA either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (i) novels, (ii) scholarly books and (iii) book reviews. Grant | Talk 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unusual action by admin FCYTravis

Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed with the specific admonition from the closer that Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.

I made an attempt to comply with that admonition by stripping out those entries which were, in my opinion, inadequately sourced and speculative.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me.

I made a second attempt.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me, again.

It is obvious, by his own actions, that Jeffpw is not interested in complying with the terms of the AfD closure, either. So why should I agree to be bound by it?

The article in question was full of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative arguments about purported sexual relationships between people. It does not belong on the encyclopedia in its current form. The above user has thwarted two attempts at ensuring that it complies with our content policies. If he does not want the article in a form which complies with policy, then we cannot have an article at all. FCYTravis (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just remove (sourced) info) that might have conflicted with WP:BLP. You gutted the article, even though there were good faith efforts being made to source it all. This was out of process, and, in my mind, malicious and vindictive. Unfortunately, as you have deleted it, I can show no diffs to back up my assertions. So goes the power imbalance on Misplaced Pages. Jeffpw (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made no attempt to discuss, with me or on the article talk page, the sections which were being removed. You simply blindly reverted me twice. You could have copied the removed sections to the article talk page and questioned why I removed them - and I would be happy to explain. FCYTravis (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And you could have questioned on the talk page the issues which concerned you. The article had a "rescue' tag on it, and was being worked on by multiple editors. your offer of restoring it (on my talk page) if I agree to your reversions is nothing less than extoption. Jeffpw (talk)

Excuse me. Did you not read the AfD closure? It says quite clearly, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt at doing that. You blindly reverted, in violation of the AfD closer's admonition. FCYTravis (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the actions by FCYTravis, we should not have unsourced or poorly sourced articles which deal with such sensitive and delicate information, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. It shocks and amazes me how frequently people fail to grasp this concept. Its a matter of common decency. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can we provide proper sources for material that's been deleted? I see a lot wasn't sourced as we would normally expect to see it, but giving no chance to fix the sources seems a touch WP:POINTy to me. I see no need to delete the article in toto until a reasonable chance has been given to address those issues. --Rodhullandemu 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the AfD closer said, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt to do that. I was blindly reverted, twice. I have made an offer to the user to undelete should he agree to not blindly revert. He has, as yet, not answered. FCYTravis (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

and where is the policy that states that a closing admin can bind the hands of editors in this fashion? --Rodhullandemu 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says unsourced/poorly sourced/flat-out speculative material about people's sexual activities belongs on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First impression is that deleting the article flat within a couple of hours after this AFD closed as a no-consensus is a pretty bad idea. We don't delete articles for maintenance now, do we? Because that's essentially what is being stated here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned, as a second thought, that FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was closed under the clear condition that speculative and poorly sourced material be summarily removed. I attempted to do so. I was blindly reverted, twice. If the above user is actively thwarting my efforts to make the article content comply with the AfD closure, then the AfD closure is invalid. FCYTravis (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had my own share of disputes with Travis, he tends to be particularly arbitrary and inflexible (in my opinion) over BLP issues. (And I though I was hardcore in that area.) But he will often relent if you produce evidence to back up your position. I recommend talking to him. Kelly 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous behaviour. Imagine if any admin who believed an article was not compliant with policy deleted it until all those who disagreed with him agreed to give way. This a recipe for chaos on the wiki - administrators do not have any special editorial authority. This is clearly not a WP:BLP. I have no opinion on the merits of the article, but if FCYTravis believes the AfD was wrongly closed, WP:DRV is the place to go. Deleting an articles hours after it survived a deletion discussion where he argued for it's deletion is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools. It would be poor conduct were he completely uninvolved - given his involvement in the deletion discussion, it is unacceptable. I realise he strongly believes this article to be problematic and respect that, but this is exactly why he should not be making admin decisions involving it. WJBscribe (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. The AfD closure was made with the specific admonition that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material be summarily removed. I made two attempts at doing so, and was blindly reverted each time. What tool should I use to enforce the idea that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material about people's sexual activities does not belong on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This admonition is no more than that. There is no policy to enforce its application or not. It's no higher than guidance, if I understand deletion policy correctly, and it's probably ultra vires the closing admin anyway. --Rodhullandemu 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, consensus? I believe that is how things are done. If you thought Jeff's conduct was disruptive you could have asked an uninvolved admin to look into the matter and take appropriate action. But deleting the article was not a legitimate response to the problem. WJBscribe (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't wait for "uninvolved" people when we're talking about an article that called Bernard Montgomery a pederast, for God's sake. FCYTravis (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been dead for 30 years so this is hardly a WP:BLP situation. The fact that this distresses you is all the more reason why you should not be taking admin actions in relation to this matter. You really need to restore the article and engage in dialogue with other editors to work towards a version that everyone agrees complies Misplaced Pages policies. WJBscribe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer has been made and stands - I will agree to undelete if editors will agree not to blindly revert to a version full of unsourced and speculative material. FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your offer to undelete to a version which satisfies you is nothing less than extortion and an abuse of your admin privileges. I find your behavior appalling, considering your responsibilities here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to use your admin tools in an appropriate manner, you need to reconsider continuing to have them. Nothing justifies deleting an article because others object to your preferred version. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to impose conditions, just undelete and admit you were wrong. RMHED (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm going to undelete an article which contains unsourced/poorly sourced/speculative material as historical fact. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a deal. You can't seek sources for absent material. No. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can - it's called the article talk page. The material can be discussed on the article talk page. I have no objection to that. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is quite disconcerting. I participated in this AfD discussion, as did FCYTravis. Another admin closed it, and it appears FCYTravis did not like the decision. Why participate in the discussion in the first place, or hold a discussion at all if this is the outcome? I freely admit the article has issues, but so does every article that is less than FA (and even some of those). In fact, I gave suggestions on the talk page of the article to assist the main editor who has added the majority of information to the article, Haiduc, about how to avoid these issues in the future. I offered to assist him in improving the article clarity and structure. I wish I could show them to you, but you know...the page was deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I supported deletion in the recently-closed discussion (I think that categorizing someone as a "pederast" is inescapably POV), but I agree this unapproved deletion was out of line. If an admin is simply frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of a particular editor, he has many tools for dealing with that editor -- summary deletion of the article they are both trying to edit is a clear abuse of privilege.

Dybryd (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged "relationships," I will undelete it. I have had no response. I will not undelete an article that purports to include as historical fact that a number of people were "pederasts" when there is no such historical and biographical consensus. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are required to abide by editorial consensus on an article just like anybody else. I think you need to agree to restore the article unconditionally and to taking part in civil discourse with other contributors to it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quite a while ago"? I posted it at 2.47 and it's 5.04 right now. In the interim I was writing about geologic formations in southern Florida. Now those were formed "quite a while ago". Think you can give a guy a chance to read it on a Saturday? He could be in a different time zone. Gracious. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely shocked that an admin would use deletion/undeletion as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. Dybryd (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I urge FCYTravis to undelete the article. Whether intended as such or not, overriding what was a carefully thought through closure of an AfD is not acceptable. The right response to inappropriate reverts does not include unilateral deletion of the article; instead the matter should be taken up with the user who reverted you, and if necessary, wider within the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Support undeletion and listing at WP:DRV. On closer examination, Travis' action was wrong. Kelly 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The talk page is still there. Unclear why the article as it was when the AfD was closed wouldn't be restored. If there are particular items someone thinks needs to be more fully sourced then there are numerous and less pointy ways to make ones concerns known. Using <!--- these handy mark-ups to temporarily hide content until sourced ---> adding {{fact}} tags and (shock!) actually discussing the issue would all seem to be more considerate and cooperative behavior befit of this project. If any other (non-admin) user was to delete the content as such they would more than likely be on vacation at this point. Banjeboi 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beyond words that people are defending an article which contains random speculation and innuendo in the guise of historical fact. Do what the hell you want. FCYTravis (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Travis, as others have said, you were out of order. What you are taling about is an opinion of what is sourceable and correct, and what is not, and edit/revert thereof. In any terms, that is called an editing dispute, and you abused your admin priveleges to "win" on the issue by deleting the article, because you felt you were right, thus someone (all) else must be wrong. You now quote a selective part of the article... part that was at issue... in defence of your action, but of course, as the article is deleted and nobody can see what was said, nor the nature of other edits, nor indeed information that wasn't removed (which by nature of your not removing it was thus OK to remain... the AfD admonishment wasn't a binding order anyway). As a result, nobody can speak up in favour of the articles content or the ability to put the article straight (over time... a matter of hours is not reasonable), and yet you use article content in your defence. That's highly objectionable. I personally would go as far as to say a disgraceful action... there was no support in policy for the way in which you deleted that article, or indeed, for it to be summarily deleted like that at all.

The article isn't being defended... the article is deleted so how can it possibly be defended. What's being defended is due process and policy on wikipedia, which you have rather inappropriately thrown completely out of the window because of your own personal edit conflict and opinion. What is being said is not that the article was fantastic, but that it had survived a considered discussion, thus was OK by the community (with an admonishment indicating the need for work), and thus your subsequent actions were innapropriate on a number of levels, especially given your involvement in editing the article prior to deletion.Crimsone (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a simple and obvious solution to this; Travis could have protected the article in the version he considered to be BLP-compliant and then made a note here at ANI. Deleting wholesale was at best overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that we are talking as if consensus had been to keep the article -- in fact, the admin found that there was no consensus and preserved the article by default as a matter of policy. Travis has acted inappropriately, that's clear. But he hasn't acted in opposition to editorial consensus, because there wasn't one.

Dybryd (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one get sysoped with such blatant disregard for, or ignorance of, our most basic standards of administrator conduct? You just edit warred with an editor and then used your admin tools to delete the article you were warring over in gross violation of the trust that we place in administrators. It's outrageous. Just because you happen to have admin tools, you do not get to take your ball and go home. Please undo your obvious mistake as many others here have already asked you to. HiDrNick! 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. From looking at the diffs for the deleted article, I see that much of the material FCYTravis deleted was referenced. I see a discussion on the article's talk page about some references but not all of these. I also see discussion started on the talk page about what to do following the AfD discussion to fix the article. Finally, FCYTravis, I see no edits by you to that talk page. Did someone evaluate the references for the disputed entries? What about the material that wasn't deleted by FCYTravis -- why wasn't that retained? Why wasn't this article first discussed at DRV if it should have been deleted?

I have left a courtesy note for the closing admin, Sandstein, informing him of this discussion. --A. B. 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is just to clarify that I don't understand my "admonition" to observe WP:V and WP:BLP by deleting noncompliant material (as cited variously above) to have any particular binding force above and beyond that of the policies themselves. The wholesale deletion of the article by FCYTravis and then its protection in his preferred version cannot be supported by these policies, in my opinion, and amounts to a serious misuse of the administrator tools. Protection may be used to enforce WP:BLP compliance in certain circumstances, but even if this were such a case, it should certainly not be done by an administrator involved in the content dispute at issue.  Sandstein  22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but having being invloved early.... Travis unilaterally deleted an article and then advised he would restore should Jeffpw refrain from editing. There is no policy or guideline at all for this. Travis should ask for his bit to be removed on meta. Rarely do I get this angry, but this a shameful abuse of the admin buttons, and would be best dealt with simply and effectively. Resign your bit off your own back Travis, and run RFA if you want it back. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Travis took this action due to the fact that the article violated at least three important policies: WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages appears to be blazing the trail in a new field of documenting "pederastic couples" (a term which inherently OR, as I think it was Geogre pointed out very well in one of the numerous related AfDs). It is almost as if someone were trying to portray pederasty as somehow mainstream, or desirable, but that would be inappropriate pro-paedophile activism,. so I'm sure nobody would dream of that. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to drag in irrelevant considerations, even by the side door. Pederasty and pedophilia are quite different and conflating the two is unhelpful. Can we stick to the point please. --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has now gone on wikibreak "until the community wises up." And Guy, I and many of the other editors here don't have any dog in the pro-pedophile activism fight, so let's not lump all of the editors commenting here about Travis' inappropriate actions into the same pile, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted his talk and can't be bothered to communicate. I'm sure he's watching this however. Fall on your sword Travis. Go to meta and ask for removal of your bit. You're not fit to be an administrator here I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, that is a distinctly unhelpful contribution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sam, but I'd argue that Travis removing the bit "sans-drama" would be a positive for the whole community, given the actions tonight, and therefore my urge for him to do it is very helpful actually. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater in such a way is conduct unbecoming of one trusted with "the tools". The comment on his userpage is his business and perfectly reasonable. Deleting his talk page too however looks to me like more of a tantrum than anything though. Crimsone (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins make mistakes. Admins are human. A single bad deletion is not a reason to desysop. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, and they are, and it's not. However, A bad deletion such as this, with the conduct of the admin in question that followed, especially in light of being given the reasons why it was a bad deletion clearly and numerous times, as well as restoring the article to his prefered version, and edit protecting it, is at least significant cause for concern. Crimsone (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has acted and is acting like a sulky child who couldn't get their own way. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullhonkus. Wherever there's one admin action in someone's log that stinks, there's always more sure to follow. Just yesterday FCYTravis got into an edit war on Ashley Alexandra Dupré with some IPs over Ms. Dupré's occupation, and semiprotected the page. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. HiDrNick! 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is to be done with Travis when he returns from his "wikibreak"? Is he to be admonished for his rash actions? Will his admin actions be monitored? Or will he be alllowed to continue this admin style unchecked? These questions concern me, and I would hope somebody can come up with an answer. Jeffpw (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that one mistake is not worrisome, the refusal to admit that the action was, in fact, an error in judgment is much more troubling. From what I can tell, FCYTravis has refused to acknowledge that there was anything at all improper with his actions. That's just unacceptable, to me. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Now protected by FCYTravis in his preferred version

I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that ::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that deleted much sourced material regarding pre-modern Asia and the 15\th and 16th centuries. And then protected it. This is clearly another abuse of his admin tools. This is not resolved by a longshot. Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Request immediate unprotection from any sane admin. HiDrNick! 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now you discuss things on the talk page and see what other editors thing and what is or is not a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous and absurd, Joshua. Pre-modern Asia and 15th and 16th century individuals clearly do not fall under BLP. Stop wiki-lawyering. Jeffpw (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So if that's the case, put the material explicitly on the talk page that you want on and we'll confirm that it is only about those time periods. Once there is a serious BLP issue it is best to procede slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing statement referred both to WP:BLP and WP:V; verifiability applies across the ages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ands that's exactly the point: Travis removed SOURCED material from pre-Asia and the 15th and 16th centuries (see my diff above). If the BLP violations were so serious, they should have been taken up at theBPL discussion page, or addressed immediately in the AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with protected, discuss it on the talk page. If you have consensus and policy backed edits to make use the editprotect tag for now. Beam 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeffpw, but agree this needs to stay protected just for a while (multi multi ec). Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I disagree quite strongly. WP:BLP does not apply to the information in the article about ancient Asia and the Middle East because quite simply, those people are not living. To be fair, all articles that have no sources then should be protected and any improvements should be approved by an admin. It was my point in the RfD that the "ick" factor of this article compels editors to fail spectacularly at being creative in finding solutions to the article's problems. Treating the uncited claims in this article by locking it is as absurd as my suggestion to lock all articles that lack sufficient citations. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that BLP doesn't directly require this, but discussing the individual sections and readding them after discussion will minimize drama. This is a very controversial topic and it is best to proceed slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As a result of this thread the article is likely to become more high profile. A short protection should help to work out editing issues (one hopes!) and minimise any more drama. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it would. Indeed, this very discussion demonstrates that it isn't minimising drama. In fact, it's causing it. What drama was there prior to the restoration? I mean beside's Travis's poor actions? Prior to this lot, it was just a case of improving an article, as with any other article fresh out of AfD Crimsone (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was being worked on by many editors to improve it, and the sections Travis gutted wholely had sources. For an admin to lock his preferred version without any arguments to back up the removal of sourced material is egregious behavior, to sayu the least. I ask that an impartial admin take a look at the diffs, remove any blatant BLP violations, and restore the rest of the article. To do anything less amounts to gross abuse of admin privilege and censorship based on personal considerations. I am shocked that this has occurred at all, and also shocked at the waffling I see on the part of many admins in this discussion. All I see is appeasement of FCY's ego, and trying to let him save face when he fell so badly on it.Jeffpw (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the content that FCYTravis objected to. I know we're big believers in protecting the wrong version and all but as an involved admin FCYTravis should hopefully see that allowing another admin to do the protecting and doing so on the version that have survived AfD would at least seem a bit less problematic. As I, and Haiduc, stated in the AfD, sources were on the article but because the items weren't individually sourced, as is common in older articles, those who wished to delete assumed no sourcing existed. Although undeleting the article was the right first step, let's now complete the restoration so those interested in getting the sourcing documented on each item can do so. Banjeboi 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, i count about 16 sources deleted with that content. Banjeboi 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be unprotected. Let's pretend Travis didn't delete the article out of process, then undelete and protect to his version (three actions, by the way, of which two are clearly bad ideas). Had he gone to WP:RFPP and requested protection, it would have been outright declined. Clearly, no protection is warranted in this case. Sure, the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, but there are many disputes that should be discussed on the talk page that don't get the added push of protection (especially from someone involved in the dispute itself). FCY's action shouldn't get preferential treatment simply because it has been done already (especially since it was done improperly). -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is to determine what consists of a sufficient citation and reliable sourcing if it not its editors? I must suggest then, since I am clearly unable to participate in the editing of the article, it should be an admin with more content experience than I have. Please find an admin with more than 9 FAs to do the job. I do not trust an admin with primarily non-content related experience to be able to ascertain what should be done any more than the admins who are protecting this article trust me to determine what content should be in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a really odd definition of "sourced". Try goodling on "pederastic couple" - I get a whopping 57 unique hits. Misplaced Pages is not supposed ot blaze a trail, and that is very much what seem to be happening here. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  You know as well as anyone that the number of google hits for a given phrase is not the measure of the legitimacy of an article, nor is it the measure of the verifiability or suitability of given sources within it. A google search for "pederastic relationship" has a hit count of 3,270 if we really must have numbers exchanged though... and no, as with another that felt the need to say so, I don't support abusive and dangerous philias, especially involving children, and it would be useful not to bring in issues not significantly related to the issue being spoken of. Crimsone (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from article Historical pederastic couples talk page):I wrote an article titled Indigenous people of the Everglades region. That has a single entry on Google that matches the words in the title, here on Misplaced Pages. Is our creativity and capacity for language that limited? If the major objection is the title, then let's come up with a different title. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of protection for a while, especially if it brings more eyes on this terribly troublesome article (which, in my opinion, should have been deleted at AFD, but that's a separate issue.) My claim all along has been not that this article contains problematic material, but that since collecting the list under this named topic itself is original research and synthesis, it must contain problematic material. The defense against this was "Oh, well, we can just remove the offending material." The blind reverting that Travis' attempts to fix the article met with, I think, give the lie to this claim. I myself wouldn't have protected the article given that I was involved in the deletion discussion, but the outcome is, in my opinion, better for the encyclopedia. Nandesuka (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Well so much for "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". As soon as I joined this outfit, I realised that that would cause problems, and it sure does. However, in the current context, the Afd had no consensus for deletion, and per deletion policy, the default is not to delete. It's complicated by the closing admin giving advice as to the future conduct of the article which strictly I don't think is enforceable. That's not what an Afd is meant to do. However, that advice seems to have been taken literally and as carte blanche. The deletion guidelines should make it quite clear that closing admins should not engage in content-based analysis. It's regrettable that Travis took this as licence to gut the article, even to the extent of removing sourced, if not beautifully-sourced, material; it's difficult not to see an agenda here, because I've never seen this kind of behaviour before. Even WP:TRIVIA suggests moving material to the talk page of an article for discussion; I see nothing in any policy to suggest unilateral deletion of an article merely because parts of it may be unsourced. WP:BLP is largely a smokescreen here, since very much of the deleted material, even before the total deletion, was not relevant. WP:V is much more to the point. Some material was unsourced directly. Some was poorly sourced. But it could have been fixed or deleted as appropriate. There is no need to continue protection of the article, because while it's fully protected, you rely on {{editprotected}} and thus on an admin agreeing that your edit satisfies policy. Having seen this evening's shenanigans, I'm no long sure that I even trust myself to make on objective decision on that. However, I may have a different view tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:FCYTravis

I see Travis has deleted his user talk page - under what circumstances are admins allowed to do this? Kelly 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowed? When they feel like it. Just like any other user. --CBD 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is different from deleting. I'm not aware of deleting being accepted outside of right to vanish cases. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to undelete, and then courtesy blank? The people who might need to see some old posts can get around it easily enough, but this is (another) out of process action by this account. I would hate there to be a wheelwar and a desysop RfAR, so I should think we need to do this mindful of the consequences. For what its worth, I think that there are no special circumstances and the content should be undeleted and then blanked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As far as I can tell, the deletion of the user talk page was done completely outside the deletion policy. There was no AfD, no speedy tag (and no CSD criterion would apply here anyway), so the page needs to be undeleted and the content restored. Courtesy blanking it afterwards is fine, but people should be able to look at the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should say, short of WP:RTV this shouldn't have happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that everyone have a nice cup of WP:TEA and re-cage the hounds. Yes, using the delete button to delete one's own talk page generally isn't "allowed by the deletion policy", but in the present case I don't see any pressing harm being done, and it seems to me that building a federal case over this is going to escalate tempers rather than calm things down. In the absence of some urgent need to see his talk page, this doesn't have to get resolved today. Nandesuka (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been done recently by another admin, who also deleted his user page. I'm only one editor, but I don't know that it's a big deal. (I see there's more above about unusual activity by the editor in question; I am not making any comment on that as I haven't read through it. I am commenting only on the page deletion.)  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a cup of tea, but it did not change my opinion in the matter. In fact, in view of Frank's comment, I see a very good reason to undelete the talk page now. Allowing such an obvious violation of the process to stand would set a really bad precedent and send the wrong message to others who might be enclined to do something similar in the future. This is especially the case since, as you say, there was another recent example of a similar action. We do not want to set a trend of admins deleting their talk pages when they feel like it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When there's no good reason to do something other than "to set an example" is the best possible time to take a deep breath and not take any hasty action. There is absolutely no emergency here, and it would behoove us to take steps to avoid drama, rather than to create it. Nandesuka (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of emergency but of setting and reinforcing a really bad precedent. When there is a clear violation of deletion policy, such as this one was, it should not be allowed to stand, not because there is an emergency but as a matter of principle, in order not to encourage others to do the same. Nsk92 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What drama? Kelly 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this especially should not be done by admins with problematic conduct. I'm not upset about it or anything, but we don't delete these pages unless users want to vanish. If Travis would like to vanish, he should probably turn in his tools on the way out - he can get them back if/when he returns. Kelly 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has been an admin in good standing for at least 3 years, has never been blocked for anything, and to the best of my knowledge is a valued and respected contributor. I don't see any reason here to do anything other than sleep on the issue for a while. Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not by any means the first time FCYTravis has used the admin tools questionably. For a long time, FCYTravis kept his talk page permanently semi-protected, and kept hundreds of edits in its history deleted. Following a couple of discussions on this noticeboard, FCYTravis was required to restore the history and remove protection. Just days later, FCYTravis again indefinitely semiprotected his talk page against policy and consensus (and it has remained semi-protected since February). It may be time for FCYTravis to step down. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CBD. It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page. To revert his deletion seems like a personal move instead of a move to benefit the project or a move to fix a "wrong" against policy. Just let it be, imho. Beam 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, excuse me? Whatever do you mean, "It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page"? The deletion policy is very specific on how a deletion process can occur: either through a prod, a CSD tag or through an AfD debate. None of these happened here, and the only one which might allow for a quick deletion, namely CSD, is not applicable here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're excused. The talkpage is not a normal article. Beam 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, given some problems I've seen in the past, I'm thinking that a Request for Comment might be a good idea, so when Travis returns he can see how the community feels. However, that's pretty hard to judge, or to present any evidence of trying to resolve the problems, when the user talk page has been deleted. Regards - Kelly 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the above I wondered to myself, 'when was WP:CSD#U1 repealed?'. So I checked... and it hasn't been. So I wondered, 'when did the user talk page stop being a user page?'. So I checked... and it hasn't either. So... any user can request deletion of their user talk page at any time and it is customarily granted as a U1 speedy deletion except for "rare cases" where it is necessary to maintain the page, usually for evidentiary purposes. Or at least that's what the policies actually say... and a practice I've seen carried out in the past. An admin deleting a CSD page without first inserting the tag isn't at all unusual either. --CBD 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of our policy regarding user pages. See Misplaced Pages:User page, which states "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish)". In other words, it says the opposite of what you claim. Taking a Wikibreak is not a "good reason". - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should post a proposed change to that at WP:USER, as there seems to be consensus here that people may delete their talk pages. Another recent example I can think of is Spartaz (talk · contribs), who also deleted his user talk page but is still editing. Kelly 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such consensus. Deleting user pages in which the user was the sole editor is diffent from deleting a talk page in which the contributions usually come from other users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor have I seen any consensus for this. Waiting to see what FCYTravis will do is one thing, changing the policy is very much something else. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis deleting his talk page isn't anything new, I had to have a talk with him before about his problematic deletions of the page, which he finally did undelete. I haven't checked the history, the primary reason he did that was because of trolls commenting there, which if those revisions are the ones he is deleting, I wouldn't care, but prior experience with him was that he was deleting good intentioned revisions, and unless he is leaving Misplaced Pages, that shouldn't be tolerated. — Moe ε 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm

(ec)I have only just stepped into this mess. Noone is blocked - so can we slow down, get a hold of our tempers and sort this out in a rational manner. I understand people are upset by these actions, but nothing is gained by screaming at each other. Viridae 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted I've only been reading this discussion for the last 10-15 mintues, I must say it seems like a fairly calm discussion at this point. I think everyone has already moved beyond the initial shock/bewilderment of FCYTravis's action, and are now discussing how to move forward. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see anyone screaming at each other. Just trying to figure out the best way to resolve this. Kelly 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I have not seen anyone screaming at each other here (and hopefully we can avoid it). Nsk92 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading Viridae? This conversation is actually very civil and especially when one looks at the recent convos at this page. Shoot, this is like a party compared to other "discussions" of late. I'm pretty happy with the civility and levelheadedness displayed towards each other here~ Beam 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone screaming either. Anyway here's the policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly wht I'm talking about (screaming wasn't the best choice of words) there is no paticular hurry to get his talk page back, against policy or not FYC is obviously stressed at this point - so slapping him with a "you shouldn't have deleted your talk page because of XYZ is not helping things resolve" Viridae 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be undeleted, I said, "Here's the policy." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I think an RfC would be a good idea, but that is pretty much impossible with the talk page deleted. (I'm uninvolved in whatever disputes are going on here, by the way - I've had differences with Travis before, but we have always been able to work it out amicably.) Kelly 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait to hear what his reason was. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not find Viridae's arguments persuasive. Yes, FYC is upset (and for the record, I had absolutely no prior interactions with him). But, in my opinion, trying to soothe him is too high a price to pay for allowing such an obvious violation of the deletion policy to stand and to possibly encourage others to folllow his example (especially in view of Frank's comment above). Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is being hurt by having it remain deleted for a little wile while he gets his breath back? Viridae 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see your reasoning, or any valid reason to revert his delete. Unless you have a personal gripe with FYC there is no reason. I don't buy the "encourage others" idea, and I definitely think you're wrong about it being "such an obvious violation." As I describe below it's not an obvious violation at all. Beam 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know this isn't a first step towards RTV? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his userpage just says he's on wikibreak. Kelly 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy does NOT say you can't delete your talk page. It says it's rare, and gives some valid reasons (right to vanish etc) but it does not say you can't delete your talk page. This isn't an article, this wasn't someone elses talk page, this wasn't the main page, this was his own talk page. Let him delete it. It can only hurt him to take such an action. It is NOT a good idea to revert his deletion. There is no "right now" reason to do so, and it can only make the guy feel even worse about this whole situation. Anyone who does revert it, would seem to be acting against FYC, and not for anything. Beam 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I heard from Travis - he plans to undelete his talk page if he returns. Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied with that. Kelly 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You speak for me as well. :) Beam 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Same. This appears to be a mountain out of a molehill situation. Orderinchaos 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Summary

Side A: If I have a problem with one single individual regarding an article, making it unavailable to everybody is an acceptable response.

Side B: You have got to be shitting me.

Tell me, which side sounds saner here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

False characterisation. In this case side A is saying that an article violates three important policies and the editors of the article obdurately refuse to conform to said policies. I have checked the entries which are backed by online sources, not one of them use the term "pederastic couple" and several did not use any version of pederasty at all. An agenda is being promoted, as it has been promoted numerous times before, and that stinks. The article is a festering pile of crap at the moment and deletion improves the encyclopaedia, but an acceptable resolution would be ro testrict all past editors to the talk page and have people check every source, remove those not supported by cast-iron references and rewrite so we are nto blazing the trail. It is no secret that Misplaced Pages is regarded as the number one most important place to get your agenda promoted, and that is what I think is happening here. It needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible that the refs are there, but simply in book form? Haiduc has added several book refs to the article, but did not supply the page numbers or ISBNs. Perhaps we should AGF of him here? Jeffpw (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm speaking of "false characterisation" you have now accused "editors of the article" of "obdurately refuse to conform to said policies" and pushing agendas. This is patently false. There has been nothing but a willingness of editors to address concerns raised at the AfD, which just closed when this incident occurred, to ensure policies are upheld. Your continuing to insinuate otherwise, here and elsewhere, and leaping of bad faith that all those editors are promoting an agenda as well is quite alarming. Further throwing around how the editors should now be restricted to talk page use only as well? Misplaced Pages isn't served by punishing the very people who are working to correct problems. Just because the exact phrases pederastic couple or a version of pederasty isn't splashed around doesn't mean the more clinical or scientific terminology is false. It's simply referred to in different ways by different cultures throughout history. The footnotes should expand to include this so these sweeping accusations can be more readily dismissed. Banjeboi 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's the actions of only one particular individual that are mentioned as being the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this and I agree that it was a serious abuse of the tools. The deletion itself was bad enough, and it was followed by an attempt to use the deletion to impose conditions on editors with whom Travis was in dispute, along with the inappropriate deletion of his user talk page in the midst of a controversy. This kind of behavior gives me serious doubts about whether Travis should remain an admin. Everyking (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody directly involved in this dispute with Travis, I will not make a comment as to what should happen to his admin status. But as I stated above, I would like a clear explanation from Admins or Bureaucrats about how they plan to proceed if and when Travis returns. Jeffpw (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"FCYTravis is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages when the community wises up." At least that is what it says on his user page template. Is this the kind of attitude that the community wants to endorse ? I sincerely hope not. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, I endorse it. One, the article's a mess. Two, When things got to the point where Travis might flip his shit, he took a break. That's EXACTLY what we want when we talk about people needing to take Wiki-Breaks. Good on him! He needs to KEEP his mop and bucket bits, and talk of him surrendering them is absurd. ThuranX (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, he "flipped his shit" before the wikibreak, and there's a definite suggestion in this lot somewhere (I forget where or by who) that it's not his only questionable action either. Crimsone (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a serious problem and the community needs to take a very hard look at it. Some people are far too willing to give admins a pass if they abuse their power. There seem to be 2 clear cases of abusing his admin powers to win an editing dispute. The moment an admin edits an article and gets in to a dispute he needs to put his tools away and ask other admins to perform administrative actions.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Update - relisted at DRV

I have relisted it at DRV here - 24 editors out of 000s is not enough. I can't see how this article is compatible with WP sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

FCYTravis is elsewhere on the internet

This person is elsewhere on the internet and not, in my opinion, making Misplaced Pages look good (but not quite BLP'ing WP if you consider WP to be a living thing). The discussion is on flyertalk.com but only established users can see his comments. In flyertalk, established users mean half a year of editing, not just 4 days as is required in Misplaced Pages. Presumptive (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible you could be just a tad more cryptic? This is utterly petty if it's what I think I'm reading...that he's criticizing Misplaced Pages outside Misplaced Pages and you are wanting to take action on him for it. --Smashville 13:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to external sites have been considered bad for wikipedia for much the same reasons. Badmouthing wikipedia off wiki is either acceptable or it's not... concensus seems to be that it's not... especially from admins apparently, if my memory serves. You can be sure that if any admin were found to be an active editor of, say, wikitruth for one example out of many possible, it would be frowned on greatly. There's nothing I hate more than double standards. Crimsone (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BADSITES is a soundly rejected policy. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's also throw out that I'm fairly certain participating on a travel forum is not grounds for anything. --Smashville 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, horrors! Somebody has the absolute unmitigated gall to participate in other sites and forums other than Misplaced Pages, and even sometimes talk about Misplaced Pages on them! And the stuff they're saying isn't always highly favorable! How unspeakably evil! Get out the banhammer now! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...you want to really make the news...start banning people for things they say outside of Misplaced Pages. I don't remember filling out a confidentiality agreement with my account. --Smashville 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 on Obama page again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned from a one-week block for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again and provoke yet more dissent and rancor. I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the one month old case on him at WP:SSP (and if Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy). - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. Orderinchaos 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like Gaming the system and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I endorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--CrohnieGal 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy", and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before, and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination. He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. Wikidemo (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --Floridianed (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now. That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc. Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing? Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash. At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc. He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc. If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article. Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me. Wikidemo (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor is continuing, so at this point I have deleted part of his comment and asked him to stop. I don't know what else to do. Wikidemo (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Time out

I would like the opinion of uninvolved admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is a single-purpose agenda account, one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has been blocked 4 times in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is a strong suspicion that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue at Talk:Barack Obama - note 227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything. MastCell  17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD on Bill Ayers election controversy describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies as George W. Bush (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") and Tony Blair (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors and their single purpose and their agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invoke WP:BOLD and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Misplaced Pages, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism of John McCain in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not a coatrack for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Misplaced Pages article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm. Agenda-driven single purpose accounts are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, further uninvolved commentary is invited. MastCell  21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, if you can't find any criticism at John McCain, try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable in Barack Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue this here, but the Keating Five were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only "Obama campaign volunteers" are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors? MastCell  22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look at Hillary Clinton. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinsky scandal" (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and other investigations" (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version of George W. Bush. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here. MastCell  23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC) All due apologies. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicit more uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MastCell  23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention the article devoted to this controversy briefly in the body of Obama's article, with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be. II | (t - c) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved commentary

(placing comment here as involved party, to respect MastCell's request)

(ecX2) in respose to ThuranX's commentary, yes, thanks for taking a look. I notice ThuranX is not an admin, and certainly hope "tough shit" is not the official response here. If we can't enforce civility on one of the most important articles on Misplaced Pages, we're truly a free-for-all. Obama's biography page has plenty of derogatory information - Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Obama being a closet Muslim, coverage of controversial positions (with which some may or may not agree), turning down public campaign finance, a less than enthusiastic review of his latest book, controversy over race, criticism that he's more of an opportunist than a real reformer as advertised, and something he stirred up in Kenya that seemed to be important over there. Among these are the biggest negative factors for Obama in the current election, things that are discussed in much more detail in various child articles where they belong. Adding derogatory fodder from the blogosphere just because there supposedly is not enough already, as this editor is doing, is an inherently POV step. But we are not here to talk about content. This is behavior. The "approved and encouraged means" do not include edit warring, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, assuming bad faith, accusing people of lying or of being "Obama fanboys" and "obama campaign volunteers", attacking people as "whiners" for participating in discussions, blaming his misbehavior and others on people supposedly baiting and provoking him, etc. No doubt I'm forgetting a few - the record is very long. The supposed "warning" was coordinating with a sometimes meatpuppet who he has teamed with before to badmouth other editors. He's treating the talk page as a battleground and, in so doing, shutting down productive conversation on that page. True, we should take the edit war off the main page. But if you shut down the talk page with gameplaying and incivility there's no way to make any progress at all on the article. If this editor wanted to contribute by advocating his position the door has always been open to him as much as to anyone else. It would have been easy to do it without being uncivil - the incivility is utterly gratuitous. But after eight or ten AN/I reports, repeated warnings, two or more sockpuppet reports, and four blocks he just isn't getting it. Wikidemo (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a huge logjam of lies, half-truths and distortions. I've never used sockpuppets or meatpuppets; otherwise, this individual would have seen to it that I was blocked for it. I've never called anyone here a "whiner." I'm not required to assume good faith when bad faith, in the form of baiting and provocation (confirmed by observations of a veteran, trusted, well-established, non-SPA editor) is clearly and continuously displayed.

I've already paid, in the form of 12 days of blocks, for past behavior. (I don't think that was fair, but nobody can give me those 12 days back so I won't argue the point.) Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at the Talk:Barack Obama page and tell me what actual grounds this individual currently has for his 10th ANI thread? WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There you have it - the problem. Apparently I am a liar, baiter, and provoker, and acting in bad faith. Who else is around today to abuse? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters I see. Part of the "Obama Whitewash Brigade", an "Obama campaign volunteer", and who knows what else? Sockpuppeting is likely. I didn't file 10 administrative reports - they were filed by 6-8 editors if you include the 3RR, SSP, and RfCUs. One loses track of all the insults and how many people he's insulted. When I devote several hours to a methodical answer of the content question and offer a "firm 'no'" based on my research as a position regarding adding the derogatory content, he dismisses the position as "baiting and provocation" and - after waging war for more than a month and a half to get the material onto the page(a few represenative edits: ) - accuses me of trying to shut the discussion down after 16 hours. The early post-block behavior is listed in my initial report above, and is ongoing. What tipped this over to an AN/I report for me was WorkerBee74's threat that I "had another thing coming" if I thought the discussion of adding the Bill Ayers material to the article was resolved, that my objection to his disruption was part of a "disagree/ provoke/ report" tactic (he picked that up from meatpuppeting with User:Die4Dixie and has been repeating it a lot lately as a taunt), and so on. - but he's done far worse since. There is simply no collaboration possible with this editor. Anything we do gets turned into an uncivil attack.Wikidemo (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is true the WorkerBee74 has primarily edited the Obama talk page rather than the main article, the manner in which he does so is aimed solely at creating conflict and disruption. Nearly every edit he makes violates WP:CIVIL, and he games the system by, for example, proposing a "poll" on edit decisions, then voting with multiple socks. Those edits he does make to article space are essentially uniformly contentious additions of material rejected by other editors; these are sometimes accompanied by talk page comments that he has decided his arguments won on the talk page (not sure if putting something on the talk page for a contentions and WP:BLP-violating edit makes it better or worse). We have been through so many rounds of dealing with the disruption, then having it resume as soon as the latest block is over. I simply don't see that it is possible for discussion on the Obama talk page to function in a cooperative fashion while WorkerBee74 is permitted to edit there, a topic ban is long overdue. LotLE×talk 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If only you had some proof that these "multiple socks" were mine. But true to form, you substitute false accusation for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's just about others to have to proof it w/o doubt while you're sitting there, knowing that it will hard if not impossible to do so, yet, my impression is that you somehow don't feel at all really offended by those allegations. I just can speak for myself when I'm saying, I would be extremely offended by such accusations and would do whatever it takes to proof my innocents. You seem to think different. --Floridianed (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FE, in fact this constant stream of false accusations is deeply offensive to me, particularly since they're being used as a substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits, and an excuse to dismiss the proposed edit, but what can I do about it? Even if I announce to the Misplaced Pages world my real name, my home address, my IP address and my place of employment, what good would it do? These people would just find a way to recycle and rationalize their false sockpuppet accusations, and present them anew.

The alleged sockpuppet activity from IP addresses that could be even remotely linked to me (because we happen to share an ISP) was more than a month ago. Whomever was doing it has (thankfully) not repeated it. All the other alleged sock accounts were proven to be unrelated. If I were to say what I'm thinking, I'd be blocked for a month for incivility. But I am convinced that if Obama wins, and if we're all still editing this article when he retires on January 20, 2017, Wikidemo, SCJ and LotLE (and perhaps even you) will still be pointing fingers at me and shrieking, "Sockpuppet! Sockpuppet!" WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The mainspace edits WorkerBee74 does make are often controversial, non-neutral, and sourced unreliably. Consider, for example, this edit, made at 2:03am UT this morning, to Barack Obama. It was such an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS that (at the risk of committing a cardinal sin) I am beginning to regard the edit as a deliberate act of antagonism. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial? Controversy was the lifeblood of Tony Blair the day it achieved Featured Article status. Sourcing and neutrality challenges? Well, let's discuss it on the Talk page and clean it up if a consensus believes it necessary. As I said at Talk:Barack Obama, since you have Nexis just like me, you can see that I could prove the same thing using five or six unquestionably reliable sources, or use the one source which you claim is unreliable. I think that since all the components of the story check out, it's reliable. What do you think? Let's talk about it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about any content dispute. This is about your conduct. Your combative nature, inflammatory agenda-based editing, veiled threats, meat puppetry, bad faith and lack of civility toward fellow Wikipedians is what is at issue here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User Zero g keeps reverting a merge that had consensus and with which he disagrees

User:Zero g keeps undoing a merge with which he disagrees: As per talk page at Richard Lynn (where the article was merged), a straw poll was taken to get the opinions of editors. Zero g is the only one who actually disagreed. When the straw poll had become inactive for over a week, it was closed with a 5-1-1 verdict in favor of the merge. Zero g so strongly disagrees with the merge that he keeps up a slow edit war by reverting Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations to the pre-merge version, even if the other editors continue to object to it. Can an admin take a look at the situation and take whatever actions may be necessary? I will candidly admit that I am the one who keeps reverting Zero g's reverts, based on the belief that one cannot single-handedly undo a consensus decision relatively as important as a merge, so I am not by any means an uninvolved party, but I would like someone with more experience to advise on what to do in such a situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you've been around since 2005, I'm probably less experienced than you, but have you requested page protection? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As has already been advised, since there is significant opposition to the merge, I recommend that the book article be sent to AfD to get more opinions, and that will put the matter to rest. If there is genuine consensus for the merge, it will show up at the AfD. Either way, please stop edit-warring about it. --Elonka 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Elonka could provide diffs to support her case, particularly for the first sentence. "As has already been advised, there is significant opposition to the merge". There were 5 for, 1 against (Zero g) and 1 abstention (Richard001). This has not changed. As can be seen from User:Zero g's talk page, Elonka is now following his edits and providing him with tips on editing, for reasons best known to herself. Possibly she still regards some of those voting for a merge as a "lynch mob", the words she used when opposing Cailil's recent successful RfA. Her own intervention on the talk page of Richard Lynn came shortly after Zero g's . Without apparently looking at any background, she made an odd suggestion as an ordinary editor and failed to engage in subsequent discussion, thus causing a certain amount of disruption. Could Elonka please be more careful to distinguish between her roles as editor and administrator? Elonka seems also to be misrepresenting User:Wsiegmund, who was responsible for the merge. It would have been appropriate for her to have made her remarks one or two weeks earlier when the merge of this article was suggested and discussed in detail, but certainly not when she actually intervened with such disdain for other "junior editors" by refusing to enter into discussion. (The article on Lynn actually contains far more material on the book than the subsequent fork, which apart from a list of contents, contained a synopsis of the book which as WP:OR would not have survived.) If at the appropriate time, Elonka had herself proposed an AfD for the article on the book, to debate a merge/deletion, that would have been fine; but not how and when she did it. That seems to be the problem/wikidrama she has helped create here. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and the consensus has little value in this case. The way the merge is carried out is mutual to an article deletion, hece the AfD route should be taken. It also appears that Ramdrake's goal isn't as much to improve Misplaced Pages, but to delete and erase anything he does not like (from what appears to be an extreme liberal pov), whether it is properly sourced or not. Just a brief glance at Ramdrake's contributions shows his main activities on Misplaced Pages appear to be reverting, minor edits (often mentioning a certain somebody has been called "racist" by some liberal source), endless talk page discussions with the opposition, and wiki-stalking. --Zero g (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Misplaced Pages is based on consensus editing. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policy which requires an AfD to be produced every time a merge is proposed; that would be pure and simple red tape. Please don't confuse your non-acceptance of a consensus with the absence of consensus. Unfortunately, the world doesn't revolve around you.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On WP:RPP, Zero g has written

Ramdrake and four other editors (who appear to form a pov cabal coordinating their efforts on hereditary articles displaying an extreme liberal bias) refuse to put the article up for deletion, and instead try to silently burry it by merging it into the Richard Lynn article

Could Zero g please explain how this "pov cabal" functions and how it applies to both reviews of the book presented in Richard Lynn? Could it in fact be the case that these are simply editors who independently happen to disagree with Zero g? As I've said before, I would actually not be against having the very recently created article put on WP:AfD to discuss a merge/delete. So far its notability has not been established by normal academic criteria, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviewers agree that it is a valuable source of data. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The cabal functions by canvassing, another editor of the group will soon show up whenever there is something going on.

They generally don't try to have the same opinion, but share the same deletionist attitude. For example User1 wants an article or chapter gone for reason A, User2 wants it gone for reason B, and user3 wants it gone for reason A and B; though amazingly, favoring alternative C slightly more.

It should go without saying that the stuff they want gone is properly sourced. When there is opposition to the removal of sourced content, they'll make sure they have a reasonable amount of support and have a 'consensus vote'. They always vote in favor of their group, and if they manage to get enough votes in, have one of them start edit warring claiming to have 'majority consensus'.

When this doesn't work, Misplaced Pages after all is not a democracy, they become rude and start wiki-lawyering (you're not AGF! etc), taunting, and having long tedious (soapy) talk page discussions that go in circles and never go anywhere because they don't desire a consensus (they have 'majority consensus' after all). Not before long they'll report the offensive user to Ani, or some 'neutral admin' - who is in fact part of the clique and sympathetic to their viewpoints - though not editing the article in question (but often editing one or more related articles). --Zero g (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I second Mathsci's request that Elonka's statement of a "significant opposition" is pointless, unless she herself now objects, intervening as an editor rather than an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, the "significant" opposition is limited to a single editor who cannot accept a 5-1-1 merge verdict, and if we let this go by, we indeed demonstrate that a single person can significantly derail Misplaced Pages's processes and indeed act as it they owned an article without opposition, and indeed be supported in this disruption. Indeed, I wouldn't have objected to an AfD at all back when the merge was being proposed. However, seven editors expressed an opinion, 5 of those being in favor of the merge, and when no opinion had been registered for a week, the straw poll was closed. Then, after one week without anyone objecting, Zero g (the lone original dissenter) comes back, and starts reverting the merged article (which had been stable as a redirect for a week), even though most other editors have voiced their objections again to undoing the merge. Also, although I won't delve in them, Zero g's contributions also show a pattern of editing which demonstrates a kind of slant not normally accepted at Misplaced Pages. Just the fact that he calls such articles as Dysgenics and Race and Intelligence "hereditary articles" should give people a hint as to his leanings.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to review your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The fact that more people oppose the merge than agree with it does not mean a consensus is reached. If there are valid points being made for both solutions then these need to be addressed. I highly recommend an afd or rfc as suggested above. I also remind you to assume good faith objecting to a merge is not disruptive, but claiming a false consensus and trying to 'railroad' a decision is. --neon white talk 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the link I provided above, the decision was 5-1-1 in favor of a merge, with no overpowering argument against the merge, except one which amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not saying that objecting to a merge is disruptive, but single-handedly, repeatedly undoing a merge which has been in effect for a week because one disagrees with it certainly is disruptive. Also, if you are thinking that more people oppose the merge than agree with it describes the situation either you are mistaken about the situation, or you are privy to information which nobody else has. If the latter is the case, please share with us.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am part of the "cabal" Zero G refers to ... I can only appeal to my fellow editors to judge what follows based on the contents and not my identity. The question is, why do we have an article on a book about population genetics, when the author has no expertise in population genetics and the book is not taken seriously by population genetics? Does the book really need its own article, or can't it be discussed in the article on the author of the book (the author is clearly better-known than the book in question)? Above, Elonka states that there is significant opposition to the merge. She elides two different meanings of "significant." It is true that Zero G is really opposed to the merge. However, it is not true that many editors are opposed to the merge. In fact, this proposal has been discussed extensively and as Ramdrake observes Zero G is the only person who objects. In the context of this discussion - of a discussion of how to resolve conflicts on the article talk page, and how to improve the article, one objection is hardly "significant." Zero G is coming very close to the kind of POV warrioring that Misplaced Pages must strongly and decisively reject.

For those who are not clear on the nature of the dispute, it is this: there is a body of evidence that Blacks on average score lower than Whites on IQ tests, at least in the US. There is considerable debate as to why, and researchers have put forward a range of explanations. Richard Lynn, a psychologist, claims that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites i.e. their inferiority is genetic. Richard Lynn is not a geneticists and has done no genetics research, and his view is considered fringe by all trained professional geneticists. This is not an "extreme liberal POV," it is a "scientific" POV meaning the view of geneticists about genetics. Most of the editors who have argued against Zero G - I will name Ramdrake and Alun - have never argued on political grounds and have only argued on the grounds of identifying notable versus fringe views amond different kinds of scientists.

There is at Misplaced Pages an article on Richard Lynn, and his views are aired here at Misplaced Pages. No one has argued that his views be deleted from Misplaced Pages (so much for some liberal POV!) However, Zero G is systematiclly inserting Lynn's views everywhere he can, including creating new articles to repeat the same views. I view this as straightforward POV-warrioring. Does this make me a liberal? Well, skip what I just said and do what we Wikipedians are supposed to be good at: scholarly research. Look at the literature by trained professional geneticists on this topic, and see how many geneticists support Lynn's views. When it comes to complying with our NPOV and FRINGE policies, this is what matters, and not the enthusiasm with which Zero G pushes his own POV.

This is a set of conflicts that has plagued this article for a long time. you would have thought that a couple of RfCs would have been sufficient to resolve the issue, especially since they all overwhelmingly went in the same direction (the direction Ramdrake, mathsci and others are following). But Elonka and Zero G apparently are not satisfied with the RfC process, so I urge other editors to give this matter serious consideration. Let me close by observing that the race and intelligence topic is highly controversial in the US and I would think the articles on this topic are among the ones many people judge us by. Screw politics: let's focus on NPOV, FRINGE, V and other policies, as well as our responsibility first and foremost to write a high quality encyclopedia that provides readers with an accurate and proportionate account of current leading research on scientific topics. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not Race and intelligence again. Can't we just ban Zero g and any other SPAs in the closet from this set of articles/topic? They're doing no good here, unless you count persistent WP:FRINGE violation as "good". Zero g has been doing this since 2006, so he really should have learnt the rules by now. Looking at this, incidentally, he looks to be of the far-right Dutch type that crop up again now and again. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not worth a lengthy ANI thread. Just file an AfD. If no one is sure how to file one, see WP:AFD, or ask for assistance. If there's a genuine consensus, it'll show up at the AfD, there's no need to insist that a limited conversation on one talkpage "proves" consensus. --Elonka 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Talkpage discussion is how we do merges. AfD is for deletion debates, not merge debates. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I think we may be losing sight of the real issue here: a merge was proposed by the book (i.e., following Misplaced Pages processes). The merge proposal remained open for 2 weeks, during which time it received input from 7 different users. The proposal was closed after 11 days without any activity. The proposal was closed by the book, returning a verdict of 5-1-1 in favor of merging. This is no different than several merge proposals and XfDs which I've seen, which are rarely if ever unanimous. Now, the lone dissenting editor keeps reverting the merge, arguing that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy (nobody says it is) and that either there was no consensus because he didn't agree to it, or that consensus doesn't mean anything (it is a major editing policy of Misplaced Pages, on the contrary). The remainder of this situation is basically wikidrama, and hides a simple, plain fact: one editor is consistently acting disruptively by refusing to accept consensus (or even denying it exists), and reverting a merge that was done in full compliance of Misplaced Pages policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can file an AfD, they don't need to have "consensus" to do so. It appears that Zero g wants an AfD, but he's unsure how to file one. So I recommend that someone who does know how to file one, please do so. An AfD will put this matter to rest, once and for all. --Elonka 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that merge discussions are not supposed to be decided at AfD. That's what the talk page is for. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A merge discussion is also sometimes a deletion discussion, as it involves the deletion of one sub-article that is then merged into the larger article. There is disagreement about whether or not the sub-article should be deleted, so an AfD is appropriate. I think Zero g would have filed the AfD himself, but he's just not sure how.

My own participation in this situation is as an uninvolved admin. I personally don't care if the merge is accomplished or not, but I do care that it's handled properly. From what I see, the merge discussion that is being referred to at the talkpage, was not handled "by the book". It was started by Wsiegmund on June 2, and then closed by the same editor on July 13. It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion. Further, there was no "announcement" of this discussion. No RfC, just a small discussion on one talkpage, with primarily the same editors participating, just as they have in multiple other articles in that topic area. Then once they'd "closed" their own merge discussion, they declared consensus, and proceeded to edit-war to enforce their view, and even went as far as opening this ANI thread to deal with their "opponent", Zero g.

I strongly disagree with this approach. To make it truly fair, there should be an open RfC, or an AfD. An AfD is probably easier, but either method would be acceptable. The point is, that this kind of a decision should not be railroaded by a small group of editors that are already working together in other areas of conflict. The current merge discussion at the talkpage, even though it looks like a formal RfC, is not. So, I still recommend a wider community discussion, or at least the opportunity for one. If there is a genuine consensus, it will show up that way. So, in terms of disruption, we could continue wrangling about this on ANI, or we could just file an AfD, and then there's an organized mechanism to put this issue to rest. So revert this edit, file an AfD, and then we can close this ANI thread and let the normal community discussion process handle the rest. --Elonka 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, there are several inaccuracies in your assessment of the situation:

• A merge proposal does not require anything else than the proper template being placed on the merge-from and merge-to articles' talk pages, with a link to a single discussion space on either talk page (so as to avoid duplication of the discussion). It does not require special listing as for XfDs and RfCs.
• As per WP:MERGE, there is nothing preventing a nominator from closing their own merge discussions, after a reasonable amount of time has passed (I would say several weeks qualifies as a reasonable amount of time). In fact, the very wording of WP:MERGE seems to imply that it is indeed normal for a merge nominator to close and archive their own discussions.
• By allowing the strong objections of a single editor to override a closed merge discussion process, you are in fact allowing him to railroad the intended process. This is not even the case of be(ing) railroaded by a small group of editors, this is the case of a single editor being allowed to railroad the process.
• Your analysis seems to confuse a merge discussion with an RfC discussion. Please be aware that these are not the same process, as per WP:RfC and WP:MERGE.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of WP:MERGE. The nominator is only supposed to close their own merge discussion if there is a "clear consensus" or silence. However, if "the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers." So, was this particular controversial merge listed? Because I did not see it. Was there an RfC? I didn't see that either. If there was some discussion or notification of this merge, outside of the specific article talkpages, I would be happy to review the links, thanks. --Elonka 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: 5 people were in favor of the merge, 1 against and 1 neutral. At the time of closing, the merge discussion had been inactive for 11 days. I do not see any signs of controversy here; there is just one editor opposing the merge, and then letting go of the situation for 11 days. This was not a controversial debate until Zero g started making a fuss about it and reverting the merge repeatedly several days after it had been done. Please note that posting to Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers is not a requirement, just a suggestion. There wasn't either a requirement for an RfC. As per WP:MERGE, the specific requirements for a merge discussion were met, and the merge wasn't a controversial one until Zero g made it so, several days after it was done.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I am wary of misusing AfD. Each time we do that we send out the wrong message about what AfD is for. At bottom AfD is for telling admins when the community thinks they should use their "delete" button. Right? But a merge does not involve deletion. It involves redirection, which is not a matter for administrators to resolve. That's a matter for the community to sort out, on talk pages. I get really cheesed off when someone comes to AfD saying "I want this merged", because a merge is something anyone can do, anyone at all. It does not require admin buttons, and hence AfD is not the right process. Talkpage discussion is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides - Elonka? All this dysgenics/race-and-intelligence-connection material Zero g is pushing is really fringy. And he's been doing it since 2006. Without doing anything else, hardly. I think he's the underlying problem here, not his opponents. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, thanks, and I understand your concerns. And I agree that talkpage discussion is fine, as long as there is adequate participation. It's just that in this case, I am not sure that there was sufficient participation. To fix that, I still think an AfD is easier, but an RfC would be fine too. As for Zero g (talk · contribs), he's been an editor for two years, but also note that he's got fewer than a thousand edits. But even with limited participation, he has still managed to work on a variety of articles, and he has made many valid edits. So I don't think we should just label him as "Fringe" and ignore what he has to say. I'd be more inclined to abide by WP:BITE, meaning that if he wants to challenge the merge, instead of us labeling him a troublemaker, we should patiently explain the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution mechanisms, and show him how he can best participate on Misplaced Pages. Remember, just because someone is proposing a non-mainstream view, doesn't mean we should kick them off of Misplaced Pages. Instead, we should welcome them, if they can participate in a civil and constructive fashion, since their participation helps us to create neutral and well-rounded articles. So I recommend that we work on this from an angle of teaching, not punishing. --Elonka 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in a lengthy merge dispute that was quickly resolved by taking one of the articles to AfD, described in more detail at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Mergers at AfD. The situations may or may not be comparable. Flatscan (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIGERS, Elonka. Unfortunately, no matter how civil they are, there's a limit to the compromises we can have with someone who holds a viewpoint this far out, and who pushes it on Misplaced Pages, which aims to reflect academic consensus. If Zero g refuses to understand that then there will be consequences. There have to be. And his viewpoint is fringe. WP:SPADE. The same holds true for our Hindutva pals or Neo-Nazis or hardcore Afrocentrists or whatever. See also the the quotebox here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block/ban of Zero g in this case is excessive. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I wasn't proposing that. Please check again as to what I did propose :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think Elonka's defense of Zero g is a bit disingenuous. Two years, 1000 edits, and maybe 97 percent of those edits look in some way to be related to Eugenics, even the ones to not-obviously-related articles like social justice. Again, WP:SPADE - that's a single-purpose account, I'm afraid. WP:TIGERS points out very nicely that eugenics articles do not have to be written via endless controversy between editors representing mainstream science - Ramdrake, Slrubenstein - and the hardcore right-wing element of Dutch politics, where I strongly suspect Zero g fits in. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) For the record, I don't oppose moving this to AfD, even though I think it should have been done weeks ago, as it now looks like a violation of WP:PARENT (having been overruled in the merge discussion, Zero g seems to want a change of venue to get a second chance). I do, however, object to Zero g's repeated reversal of the merge, followed by telling the other editors to "start an AfD". If he wants an AfD, he should start one.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through Zero g's contribs, and to my knowledge he has never filed an AfD. It can be a daunting prospect for someone who has never done one, so I'd recommend that one of the more experienced editors do it. Or, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and file it, just for procedure's sake. I truly do not care if the book article exists or not, I just want to make sure that dispute resolution procedures are followed. --Elonka 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, Elonka, you have proven that ZeroG has not petitioned an AfD, as perhaps was his prerogative. Swell. But ou have also said that an alternative would be an RfC - and it has been pointed out to you several times that there was at least one RfC on the matter. Elonka, it is time for you to come clean. The integrity of Misplaced Pages depends on this: What is your motivation in derailing the prope following of the merge-article process? Everyone save Zero G, a single-purpose editor, supports it, and other editors have been following Misplaced Pages policies. Why do you want to derail wikipedia policies? What is your interest in subverting the process here? I honestly do not understand it. AGF insists I take your comments as constructive but please, can you explain to me what constructive suggestion you have forwarded here? All I see is an attempt to derail a pretty standard Misplaced Pages process. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether Elonka might please stop acting as Zero g's alter ego? Her experiment in mentoring his companion editor Jagz was a signal failure. Now she seems determined to continue it with Zero g. If Elonka wants to file an AfD, please could she do it herself? It seems quite improper for Elonka to act as a behind-the-scenes advisor for other editors, suggesting the actions she would take if she were in their shoes. She says there is a dispute to be resolved. However it is in fact a careless disruptive edit of Elonka herself that has created this whole wikidrama. Could she please carefully reconsider her behaviour on WP in the future and when intervening on a page take some time to review what has been going on. That way she will not waste the time of good faith editors as she now is doing. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? This issue of whether to merge a book/author has probably been discussed hundreds of times before, so there should be plenty of good yardsticks lying around, and maybe even guidelines. John Vandenberg 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As per this diff, Zero g is still unmerging the article and asking me to put it up for deletion. Can someone make him understand that if he wants to unmerge the article, this would be solely for AfD purposes, and that the onus is then upon him to put it up for Afd? Otherwise, that becomes just plain and simple POV-warring for the sake of POV-warring, and that's a blockable offense.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That diff is not what I asked for. John Vandenberg 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, indenting error, that never was meant to be the diff in question.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Randrake, Slrubenstein, Mathsci - can I ask why it is we keep seeing the three of you show up in places together and the threads quickly degenerate into snippy comments and personal attacks? "derail wikipedia policies" "integrity of Misplaced Pages depends on this" "wasting the time of good faith editors" -- c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that? You guys need to take a breather and try to come at your editing on race related articles in a much more calm and civil fashion. If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary. Several people suggested actions here, such as requesting protection and community discussion forums - is there any reason not to try that? Why do all of the threads started by this group end up looking like they're out to get another editor? If an editor is that much trouble, there's pretty standard methods of dealing with it through user RfCs and ArbCom; roasting them over ANI isn't really a preferred method (though sometimes tasty). Shell 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why I haven't gone the AfD route myself, primarily because I believe the article is notable so putting it up for deletion would be WP:POINT.

Regarding talk accusations, I guess he isn't well read on the subject matter, Ramdrake and Co have failed to provide notable sources that state that Dysgenics is considered a fringe science. And given there haven't been any public polls that I know of, the 'assumed' public opinion, unfortunately, cannot be added to these articles. The edit conflict actually began when Ramdrake started to remove properly sourced content from the Dysgenics article. I've never tried to push a pov on wikipedia, as an editor I've grown and learned to properly source my edits, and to respect sourced edits of other editors. Ramdrake on the other hand more than once removed sourced content, and has tried to add content that wasn't backed up by the sources he provides. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that he doesn't seem motivated to improve his editing behavior.

I'm also not particularly fond of the 'hey you're a nazi! - lets ban the nazi!' thing. I'm a libertarian and I'm quite aware that many people would vehemently disagree with many of my viewpoints or motivations for my viewpoints, but I wasn't aware that people can get banned on Misplaced Pages for a suspected political belief. --Zero g (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Zero g's request, I have started an AfD, which is available at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. I have also added it to two delsort categories, for "science" and "social science". I now recommen d closing this ANI thread, since the AfD should now be the primary point of discussion. --ElonSpecial:Contributions/Elonka 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Shell (I am on European time). I did not choose to bring this to WP:AN/I. Since my carefully sourced addition of the book reviews precipitated the forked article, it was quite normal that I should participate here. I don't quite understand why you have adopted the tone above. Certainly what you write does not seem particularly accurate (my recent participation here was concerned with now banned users User:Muntuwandi and User:log in, log out). This thread would not have come about if yet another of your friend Elonka's "experiments" hadn't gone wrong. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who brought things here, the three of you seem to have developed a nasty habit of drama building that includes feeling personal attacks are appropriate. I believe you also seem to have a particular penchant for taking swipes at Elonka, which you've been warned for multiple times and you're here doing it yet again. Zero g has made mature and thoughtful posts to this thread, while you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein aren't holding yourselves to quite the same standard. Zero g took it upon himself to try one of the methods suggested to resolve the issue; you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein did not. I know its tough to really take a step back and look at your own actions, but when people keep saying the same things to you in multiple places, please consider that they might really have some merit - and if nothing else, please don't try to deflect concerns about your behavior with attacks on other editors. Shell 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, please step back a moment. I have not been uncivil. I have merely criticized Elonka's tardiness. Moreschi is one of the few people to have recognized the problems with editor Zero g. His contributions have not been "mature" - his reference here to a "pov cabal" was unhelpful. The tone you are adopting is equally unhelpful and your observations, particularly about the belated AfD, do not seem accurate. Elonka suggested and initiated the AfD, not Zero g. Why not, like me, do something constructive and go to the AfD page where I have already expressed my thanks to Elonka for its creation? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Mathsci, I really didn't comment just to get into another long debate with you where you feign ignorance of any of your (and your cohort's) behavior and pretend I'm being somehow rude. Your comments here have clearly not remained civil; you've managed to call Elonka an alter ego to a "bad" contributor, characterize her edits as careless, disruptive and a waste of everyone's time and even accused her of being the one to create drama . You have been asked very politely before to stop commenting on Elonka since you've said that you're unaware that you're making personal attacks in reference to her.

Aside from the "pov cabal" comment you mention by Zero g, I don't see anything of concern during this discussion. I think, give the behavior I've seen during this thread, that Zero g may have a point, even though it could have been more civilly phrased. Perhaps Zero g behaves differently elsewhere, but again there's a proper avenue to handle things if that's a concern. As far as the AfD goes, I'm going to guess that you just overlooked the "Per Zero g's request" part. Thanks for the invite, but I'm not sure I'm quite ready to dive into the issues surrounding the race related articles at this time. Since you appear to be content with handling things there, that should clear up the concerns for this thread then, no? Shell 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I am the one who started this thread at ANI, based on a simple, objective set of facts: Zero g kept reverting (and edit-warring to keep the reversion) a merge which was done fully according to the rules (at WP:MERGE) several days ago. He was also the only one to object to the merge when the merge proposal was active. On top of this, after reverting, (and mostly denying the existence of a consensus even though it did exist) he kept insisting that other editors should file an AfD if they disagreed with his reversion. To me, that's not really acceptable behaviour. This situation got further inflated when Zero g started throwing around accusations of a POV cabal (or whatever) and gradually escalated from there. From what I see, your comment only further inflames the situation, even though I'm pretty sure that's really not what you intended. I would really appreciate if you would let this situation de-escalate. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, you write, "c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that?" Before you accuse me of either being defensive or offensive let me explain because I am not trying to throw out some casual insult. But you have questioned my good faith and you seem to base it on a comment I made here. Do you know that there has been a series of ongoing disputes centered on Race and intelligence and adjunct articles over the past two or three years? If you want to know what kinds of comments I or others "throw out," you need to look at them in the context of the whole conversation. If you look at the talk pages ofr R&I and other articles you will see a great deal of reasonable, constructive discussion by myself, and others you have maligned. In fact, Alun in particular has added hundreds of kilobytes or more to talk pages on these subjects in which he has gone into painful detail about the current state of scientific research, detailing various sources, discussing their notability, and how they could be used in articles. Yes, you should take us very seriously, because of the valuable content we have brought into the articles and into discussions. And you should take us seriously because of our commitment to Misplaced Pages policies. The question you should be asking is, why do several editors who are clearly not single-purpose accounts, who have contributed to a variety of articles, who have clearly done considerable research relating to articles, disagree with an editor who apparently has no expertise in science and whose edits all have in common the pushing of a single point of view? The only way a responsible editor can answer this question is by looking at the contents and the research behind it. Zero G is promoting as mainstram science a scholar who argues that people are poor because they are less intelligent than people who are not poor, and that "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." Do you really believe these views are mainstream science? I have read through a good deal of the mainstream science on intelligence, genetics, and poverty, and I know that Ramdrake and Alun have as well; Matchsci has also demonstrated that he has very well-grounded knowledge of the sciences. This is why you should take us seriously. Now, you want us to take you seriously, I suppose. How much time have you spent researching the mainstream science concerning these topics? Have you done any research at all? Or are you just taking Zero G's side against several editors because ... well, why? Is it just that you agree with the views he is promoting? Or are you opposed to Misplaced Pages's FRINGE policy? Or are you opposed to mainstream science? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to. I honestly wasn't trying to take a "side" and my remarks weren't intended to lend any weight to any kind of content issues that may be underlying the posts here. My comment was only about the behavior of editors in this thread, the language used and the general incivility. You may well have been in this mess for so long that you're very frustrated and its coming out in your posts, for example, asking if I'm just "opposed to mainstream science" is actually pretty offensive - if you genuinely feel that by pointing out that you may need a breather, I'm aligning with fringe somehow, you may want to re-think they way you're handling this area right now. Your response to my comments in general underscores the point I was trying to make - you, and several other editors involved in the dispute, seem to be taking things a bit personally at this time and may not realize that you're coming off in a rather defensive and incivil manner. But hey, its my opinion, not law and didn't come with any "be nice or else" type nastiness, so if you really feel I'm off base, you can just ignore the friendly insights. Shell 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Shell, I appreciate your clarification that you are not trying to take a side. I realize that this is going to sound defensive but the fact is that some people have responded to this report by disparaging my character. The facts: There was a poll taken at talk: Richard Lynn to merge the two artciels. The results were 5-1-1, the one opposid 9the only one opposed) being Zero G. Zero G and those involved in the merge got into a revert war and Ramdrake posted the notice here, which seemed to me to be appropriate. At that point Elonka characterized the opposition to the merge "significant;" on Moreschi's user talk page she characterized the dispute as a small group of editors ganging up on a "newbie" (except he has been active - as a single issue editor - for two years) and calling whatever they believe to be "consensus." Elonka is wrong to assert that there is significant opposition to the merge, and she is wrong to question the good faith of several very well-informed editors who have challenged Zero G's edits on substantive grounds. It is frankly perverse that Elonka says we should disregard WP:FRINGE in this case, and that the view of one single-purpose editor is considered "significant" and the five very well-informed editors who disagree are a cabal who are creating phony consensuses. Let's be very clear about what is going on: the biological basis for social inqualities is a controversial topic, and it is especially important that we comply with NPOV. NPOV requires that we distinguish between significant and fringe theories, and this distinction is especially important to the quality of the encyclopedia, which is the whole point. And this means taking seriously editors who are committed to serious research, and being careful that our editorial choices are well-informed. And that is exactly what happened when, after much well-informed and thoughtful discussion, five people voted for a merge and only one person opposed.

Now, Shell, you cannot step in and basically lump myself, Ramdrake, and Mathsci as some kind of gang of disruptive editors who should not be taken seriously, and then claim to be offended when I question your motives while you also admit that you have not gone over the actual content of the dispute. You write, "If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary" - huh? Please now tell me why I should take you seriously, when all you have to do is read the opening of this thread and you will see that Ramdrake DID document the crap going on factually, and with no drama whatsoever. Or are you now denying that Ramdrake presented the facts, or claiming he did so in an inappropriate way? Are your insights really friendly, and my reaction "taking things personally," when I was responding to your comment which basically was your saying: I do not take Ramdrake, Mathsci and Slrubenstein seriously - especially when it is we who keep asking people to look at the facts, look at the content, look at the substance behind this edit war. No comments for Zero G? Really? Are you sure you are not taking any side? You write, "I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to." Well, it is easy to sit back and pass judgement on your fellow editors when you make it clear that you do not intend to take the time to investigate the situation. You want to know why there are a few people who pay careful attention to race-related articles and take firm positions when science is misrepresented? You will have to open your eyes and learn something about both race and science if you want to know the real answer to your question. As long as you refuse to look at the contents, of course you will misunderstand. I won't take that personally - and I am just offering you some friendly advice Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, Moreschi's identification of Zero g as a single-purpose agenda account was correct. But notice how easily the thread got derailed when Zero g was able to be relatively more polite here than Ramdrake, Mathsci, and Slrubinstein? I can sympathize - anyone dealing with Jagz for that long is bound to get frustrated - but you have to realize that Elonka and Shell are not The Enemy. From my experience in looking in on these articles, I would support Moreschi's idea of a topic ban for Zero g, but I don't think it's going to fly - because any admin looking at this thread without a familiarity with the lengthy history on those pages is going to conclude that you guys are going overboard. MastCell  17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What substance? Your only contributions seem to be to the article talk page discussions, most notably voting in "polls", and reverting. Then there is also the social networking. --Zero g (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HEY! THIS IS LEFT FIELD! The Topic is up there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Kindly shut the hell up and go fight elsewhere, ALL OF YOU. You're embarrassing yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I hope you are not responding to me, because if you are I have been unclear and apologize. i have not called for any block or ban against Zero G. My first comment was a protest against Elonka's inappropriate re3sponse to Ramdrake's AN?I post, and subsequent posts were meant to defend myself and others from outlandish accusations of POV-pushing. I also intended to makie a more general comment that no one can adequately resolve such disoutes without an awareness of the contents itself. That's as far as my comments went.

I asked serious questions of Elonka and Shell, both of whom are dismissive of my views about enforcing WP;FRINGE and my commitment to research. Neither of them have responded yet. But I see no enemies: I see a typically contentious argument over a controversial issue. I am strived to explain my views clearly and do not like being told I will not be taken seriously because I care about race related articles and have given tem serious research. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, one of my own concerns about your style here, is that you tend to make personal attacks at those who disagree with you, and you do this with comments that are extremely repugnant. In my own previous discussions with you, you have accused me of "tolerating trolls", of trying to delete WP:DNFTT, and even of supporting racism, which is simply absurd. You have made your opinion clear that you see my actions as "corrosive" to Misplaced Pages, and that you wonder about my "priorities as an administrator." Here in this thread at ANI, you have continued with these kinds of hyperbolic accusations, implying that "the integrity of Misplaced Pages" depends on my motivation, and accusing me of trying to "derail the merge-article process" as well as other Misplaced Pages policies. You have also effectively accused Shell Kinney of agreeing with extremist views, and being "opposed to mainstream science", which, again, is absurd. So, if you truly desire to be taken seriously, I recommend that you adopt a better standard of rhetoric, and get away from these kinds of bizarre accusations. Especially as you are an administrator, other editors do look to you as an example. I would be more comfortable if you were able to present your thoughts in a more measured fashion, without all the excessive accusations. --Elonka 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. I hope that you might also appreciate that it was not very helpful posting remarks like this on Moreschi's talk page:

My concern is that a small group of editors, all agreeing with each other, moving from article to article and rolling over opposition, does not define "consensus". And that this group is adamantly opposed to any kind of wider community input such as an RfC or AfD, further concerns me.

Might you have privately communicated similar remarks to Shell before she appeared on this thread? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, after Zero G implied I was part of a liberal POV-pushing cabal, I wrote my first entry to this thread on 12:39, 20 July 2008. And I refrained from all the contentious comments you so quickly identify me with. Really, I maintain that my July 20 comment was a resonable and civil response to Zero G's comment, which called for a justification of my views. Then you (on Moreschi's talk page), Neon White, and Shell all jumped on me, basically supporting Zero G's accusation that my edits and views just reflect my being part of a POV-pushing cabal. I think when my good judgement has been so quickly dismissed it is fair that I ask why, and ask that the explanation be based on a thoughtful consideration of the substance of the dispute. As for my comments to you, I would just ask others to read them in the context of our earlier discussions rather than your misrepresentations. Be that as it may, the main purpose of my 20:37, 21 July 2008 was to clarify to MastCell and others that I had never called for a ban or block against Zero G. I also stated that while I did not like the way you and Shell are so quickly dismissive of my views, I do not view Zero G, you, or anyone else as an enemy. Somehow this triggered an outraged response from you. I am not going to sit here and parse my 21 July remark to figure out what kind of rhetoric is so outrageous to you, but I really am baffled as to clarifying that I do not support blocking someone is so provocative.

A final comment - you seem to think I am an example for others because i am an administrator. I find this reasoning anathema. And to be clear, Elonka, I am not insulting you, I am disagreeing with you. I think this one thing you wrote is wrong and dangerous, but that does not mean that I think you are a bad person or dangerous. I have no opinion about you personally, and I just assume that you have done good work here with good intentions. But you have written something - indeed, you have repeated it several times - and I think I have a right to explain why I believe it is wrong and dangerous. Misplaced Pages is a relatively anarchic community. It used to be more anarchic, and we realized we needed some structures to function, but always with some concern and regret about moving away from our original anarchic ideals. The ideal is simple: any one can edit, any time. There is no hierarchy here. No one is above anyone else. The only possible exceptions are Jimbo for legal reasons, and ArbCom in situationally specific ways as part of a dispute resolution (but not legislative) process. Administrators are certainly not above non-administrators. We are given certain tools that help us perform necessary maintenance on Misplaced Pages - we are like maids and janitors, servants of the community cleaning up messes. I hope some people are grateful for the many little chores we do but no one should look up to us simply because we are administrators. If anyone looks up to me, it should be for one reason, which is the same reason any editor should look up to any other editor, whether they have made 100,000 edits or five edits: they have done serious research and are making substantive contributions to the encyclopedia. I do not think Alun, for example, is an admin. And we have had big arguments - big, wopping nasty arguments. But I look up to him because I know he knows far more about genetics than I do, and he takes research seriously, and only makes edits that are consistent with his serious research and Misplaced Pages policies. In fact, we need more editors like Alun (and several others who have beeninvolved in the articles under discussion here) because the future of the encyclopedia depends on them ... and not on us admins. Editors, I ask all of you to look up to any other editor who is committed to serious research, as an example. No one at Misplaced Pages should be given more respect, or be looked up to more, than well-informed editors who comply with our policies to add well-researched verifiable and NPOV content to articles. If it is not clear already, these are the standards Ramdrake, MatchSci and others are defending. I look up to them because I value these standards. I hope it is clear now why anxieties about some thuggish cabal are misplaced. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, all we're asking is that your defend it without the nasty personal attacks against people you disagree with and anyone else who happens to wander into your path. That's it - there's no hidden agenda against science, Misplaced Pages or productive editors in general, just a pretty simple request to tone it down. A request that someone be civil isn't the same as (or even similar to) supporting their opponent. Shell 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, then, please look at Zero g's first and second posts in this thread. Nobody's pointed out that these are indeed grievous personal attacks. I guess everyone here could learn from taking criticism, but when one side in a dispute is criticized in kind for their words, while the other side, making accusations that are just as grievous (and maybe more) are left to their own devices as if this sort of commentary was normal, some sense of one-sidedness seems to exsude from the exchange, wouldn't you say?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have gone over my 12:39, 20 July 2008 comment (my first comment here) several times and I just do not think it violates WP:CIV. My next comment is I agree more assertive, but still I do not think uncivil. Elonka argued that WP:FRINGE should not apply to this situation - a dangerous proposal in my mind because that could undermine NPOV which is our one non-negotiable policy; she also insisted that AfD is the appropriate solution to this conflict which, as Moreschi pointed out, takes some power away from the community and puts it into administrators' hands - a potentially dangerous proposal in my mind because we should always be very wary of concentrating power or authority among admins here at Misplaced Pages, concentrations of power undermine the wikicommunity. Ramdrake called attention to one editor who kep reverting a decision made through discussion on the talk page of an article. I think it is reasonable to ask admins to pay attention to a brewing revert war, but to say that the decision (merge two articles or not) should be left to admins rather than the community is at the very least curious if not alarming. And I asked Elonka to come clean about her own motives. I do not consider this uncivil. You and Elonka have and others have not simply asked me to be more civil. You and Elonka have challenged my motives and those of Ramdrake and others. Now, when an admin argues we should ignore a very important guideline (FRINGE) and also take from the community the right to make decisions about mergers and put it in the hands of admins, I do not think it is uncivil for me to ask what agenda these admins have. It doesn't seem to be about supporting policy, since in one case the proposal weakens a guideline and the other, a policy. It doesn't seem to be about encouraging community process, since it rejects a virtual consensus. I guess you will just keep claiming I am being uncivil for questioning your judgement. I sincerely apologize: I did mean to question your judgment; I did not mean to be uncivil. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this post by Alun (aka Wobble) makes him an editor to look up to. Misplaced Pages isn't a political platform where you edit solely based on an ideology or pre-conceived notion, which is what Alun seems to be about if his posts are an indication. Manipulation of the casual reader aside, I also don't think the praising of fellow cabal members is going to add much substance to this dispute. I would use a different word than cabal, but that is what it appears to be.

Regarding the claim of being great editors, take Ramdrake's edits for example, an astounding 40% of his edits are reverts or revert like in nature, 50% is talk page, and the remaining 10% of his edits are minor/copy edits. The other editors show similar patterns with more talk and less revert. I'm not sure how they believe they contribute - they certainly don't seem to add well referenced content, instead they prefer to remove it. --Zero g (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Zero g, calling people a cabal and trying to minimalize the contributions of other editors isn't going to help you work out this dispute. I'm sure we've all said or done things we regret, but that does not make Alun anything less than a stellar contributor. Please stop. Shell 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this, I however, have given up any hope of ever editing productively alongside the core members of this group of editors (on the so called R&I articles), because they simply refuse to work toward a reasonable consensus. As some may have noticed, I've been phasing out my activities, and the recent AfD has shown me that the principles of Misplaced Pages only apply to non political and ideological articles - apparently the scientific evidence supporting the dysgenic hypothesis is too threatening to mainstream egalitarian convictions. So I'll take a short break and work on articles unrelated to heredity or psychometrics which should solve this particular dispute, hopefully without being wiki stalked. --14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that "40% of my edits are reverts"? The specific edit of mine you referred to removed a slew of differential fertility research papers which had been cited to support the dysgenic hypothesis, when they themselves never even mentioned dysgenics. As such, I just removed a whole bunch of OR. That's all. And if you think Alun's talk page comment was about ideology, it just goes to show you haven't read 90% of his comment, which is entirely about pure, hardcore science. Please, stop this. I'll assume good faith and won't accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting our edits, but in this case it looks like you're direly misinterpreting them at the very least.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked your last 100 edits and there were 40 revert like edits. Regarding the removal of sourced content, the sources used the term dysgenic which is an adjective of dysgenics and was clearly used in that context in the sources - many of the sources even used dysgenic in the title. While you are correct the sources didn't use the term 'dysgenics' your removal of the sources on that basis... and now once again claiming to remove OR... well, I don't really know how to describe it other than calling it extremely tendentious. Hopefully it gives people an indication of how incredibly frustration it is to deal with this kind of behavior when trying to do some serious work on an article. --Zero g (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for admitting that your numbers were made up by you. Also, looking at the article, a total of 18 references were removed, 15 of which did not contain any reference to "dysgenic" or "dysgenics" (which is why they were removed - their authors never inferred that their results suggested something like a "dysgenic trend" - and leaving them in would be OR). The last 3 were either already duplicated in the article, or were reintroduced. I won't push the insult to making the same ad hoc "analysis" on your edits as you did on my edits. Also, I would strongly suggest you just stop this line of attack, as Shell has already suggested; it won't get you anywhere.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Five sources that directly addressed dysgenics in fact, and sources can be used more than once, so deleting sourced content of a previously used source doesn't make it any less disruptive. Nor were the other sources used to claim something the sources didn't state, they were used to add more context to the article and show the historical scientific interest and findings regarding intelligence and fertility.

Anyhow, I'm done with this. You're clearly much better at this than I am. --Zero g (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also just noticed that your "diff" is in fact hiding no less than 10 intermediate diffs of mine, which carefully explain why I did all the changes I did:

So, please be more careful next time you accuse people of "just reverting stuff".--Ramdrake (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears IP edits

Carol Spears requested, on her user talk page, that an edit be made to the article Senecio vulgaris to undo an edit she had made earlier (before being banned/blocked). A single purpose single edit took care of this for Carol. I suspect this is Carol editing with an IP account and would like this checked, if appropriate.

It also revealed even more problems with Carol's edits. She apparently used herself as a source to insert nonsense into articles, this one back in February:

and one mention that perhaps it is distilled water which is harmful to laboratory animals and to human beings since every thing that drinks it inevitably dies.

1. Carol Spears. "Distilled Water, Just Say No!" (HTML). Retrieved 2008-02-05. All laboratory animals drink distilled water and they all die.

This nonsense edit was recently reverted by User:Cacycle as vandalism, although it had stood for a long time.

I request that arrangements be made for all of her major edits to be gutted, rather than allowing them to stand any longer on Misplaced Pages or requiring editors to spend hours checking this crap. Her crap should not be returned by search engines as sources on any subject. Preferably this could be done by a bot as I first suggested.

I won't be arguing this point or participating in this discussion if one occurs. There are too many supporters of Carol Spears' contributions willing to attack anyone who finds problems with her making stuff up to write articles on Misplaced Pages.

But it should not go down when her edits come back to mock Misplaced Pages in the press that no one knew what was going on. This is a notice about the potential for Misplaced Pages to look really bad for supporting Carol Spears as an editor and allowing her edits to stand without large scale reversion.

--Blechnic (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that IP is her, it's on a different ISP and in a different country to the last IP she used. I just removed two more links to Carol's webpage. One was a link to her chili recipe that that she added as an external link in the Sherzer Observatory‎ article and had been there for over a month. The other one was to a page that doesn't exist (404 error) on her site that she was using as a citation in the Annona cherimola. There's another ten or so links that show up on the Special: EL tool but they all seem to be on discussion pages. Sarah 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More than likely it's (the single-edit IP) just someone who's seen the drama and forgotten to log in before fixing it. Orderinchaos 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most probably right. I also saw her request and I made another change to that photo on that article right after that IP. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. I doubt the IP is a proxy so I also doubt she is in the UK ATM since she lives in another Country. Also that cite above was added by Carol on the (8th Australian Time) Feb 2008. Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who was blocked and caused a lot of work for other editors to repair the damage I was amazed to see she is still editing. I agree with Blechnic and others, all of her edits should be removed immediately. A bot would be the easiest way I assume, that is if there is a bot programmed for this kind of work. She was given plenty of opportunity to help fix the massive amount of edits she did, and then did nothing to help with the clean up. Thus I feel the block should be enforced in full and any socks she is using should also be blocked. If necessary, her talk pages should also be blocked to stop her from interfering or trying to stay involved. If a bot cannot undo what she has already done, then can an administrator do a rollback on her account to remove her edits? I'm sure there are probably edits that she made that are acceptable but given there is so much that is not, I think removing her contributions completely would be the best. There are other knowledgeable editors that can add to the articles she has edited to get the information needed added. I endorse her block and feel block should continue and maybe even a community ban be considered from Misplaced Pages since her behavior has shown she sees nothing wrong with what she has done or is doing. --CrohnieGal 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As the account is indef blocked and the user talkpage is not being used to request unblock or otherwise for appropriate purposes I feel it should be protected. I was also against the community ban, but given the subsequent actions by the editor I am no longer in a position to advise that I would unblock the editor should consensus allow me to. I think that there was one other sysop who was not willing to sign up for the community ban, and if that individual were to clarify their position we might open a brief discussion to formalise a ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did express a willingness to undo my block, but sadly I've seen no sign on the talk page that she's prepared to play nicely. I think Misplaced Pages needs protecting from this editor - endorse ban proposal. EyeSerene 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:CarolSpears

Based on the above, User:CarolSpears is banned. I will update her userpage. Mangojuice 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fair to say that this user fell on its surname. Baseball Bugs 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

It's me again bringing up User:RRaunak again! This user User:ElementR did the EXACT same things as RRaunak again. Look at the contribs, the signatures. They both match... I am feeling that a checkuser might be needed. I should bring up the WP:SOCKrule as a meatpuppet. Is there any possible administrative action? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ! 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can submit an WP:RFCU. I recommend starting there; if a match is made, the researching admin can, and probably will, block as needed. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good you traced my signature.but i did not steal it.I took it by asking.see User_talk:tinucherian.User_talk:rraunakI also grabbed it by asking about the church in medak.But how am i related..
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I.E Same edits, same mistakes, lots of edits and copyedits on userpage/talk page design mostly copied from others users. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ! 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that their the same users. What cream brought up, same userspages, signatures, ect. -- RyRy (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, close usernames also. RRaunak has "R" on the front, and ElementR has an "R" at the end. -- RyRy (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My name is Rahul.and not rraunak understand ? I copied bits (not all) from his userpage.but see cream.he has also taken the border from rraunak
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain the same edits to your user pages? Both of you edit your user page quite often, not to mention the same related topics. -- RyRy (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it myself for a better design but u RyRy is a designer i see !
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the sock allegations but there's nothing wrong with stealing code for userpage design or signatures. Lots of people do it. In fact, I was just looking at another admin's userpage and it had a note saying he had stolen the code from someone else who stole it from someone else again. This is Misplaced Pages, you don't own anything. Sarah 11:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that you have a sock here, open a suspected sock case or as ThuranX said, file a request for checkuser. There's really nothing admin's can do here. Shell 07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok now tell me can i keep up my present userpage and signature or modify it ?
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can keep it if you want to. Sarah 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• It would be better off filing an RFCU, but, ahem, I'v never done one before... I suppose this is a good day to start. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell! I came here to check on the RRaunak thread and also to report on ElementR. Well its seems I dont have to. Isnt it so obvious that ElementR is a sock of RaunakRoy. Enven Infraud was probably a sock of Raunakroy. ElementR clearly fails the ducktest. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you all are doing here. So what if it is an alternate account? Let's assume that the two accounts belong to one person, what's he doing wrong? Someone might want to post diffs showing what the problem is because so far the only complaint I'm seeing is that they copied some code for their userpage and signature and that they make lots of edits. Neither account is blocked or banned and I'm just not seeing the problem or the reason for an ANI report. If you want to post some diffs showing that they've violated WP:SOCK by using an alternate account then I am willing to look into it but at this stage this looks like another waste of time. Sarah 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RRaunak made some rather disruptive edits and repeated them even after multiple warnings. Thjis time he is denying that ElementR is his sock. I don't think it is a good idea to wait until he repeats his disruptive patterns. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone needs to present some evidence showing that he is doing something blockable under policy, otherwise this may as well just be archived because no one is going to block him on the basis of what has been said here so far. Sarah 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The events surrounding my block discussed above

With regard to this, my own opinion is that the discussion centred a little more than I would have liked on the justification or otherwise of my block, even though that was a question I asked. That said, there seemed to be a reasonable level of agreement with some of my more general concerns. My own thoughts on the discussion:

1. Dunc is concerned that I was "synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative". Would I have to stick to the original narrative in the source? Why is creating a new narrative from a source while sticking to the original context and intent wrong? If it is then wikipeida can create no unique narrative and is simply intended to be a quote farm. That is news to me.
2. ThuranX appears to me to be saying that I haven't done much wrong in this case, but that I should get probation for it. I don't quite understand this.
3. I agree with much of what Angus said, subject to 2.
4. I am yet to see an adequate explanation from Dunc or anyone esle for the contention that I was guilty of synthesis.
5. Dunc @ 21:58. I reverted because I was sure about what the source said (I added them to the article while watching the documentary in May), but needed to wait for the time reference. And I was right. The cites were valid, and their attempts to say they weren't were clearly disingenuous, perhaps malicious.
6. The dispute on Young Unionists Dunc has unearthed. Yes I probably didn't handle that properly. But one must consider that that dispute was with an editor who has subsequently been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. revealing my identity and harassing me.

It seems to me that the best way forward from this situation is that BigDunc and Domer be treated as one user for the purposes of 3RR, either that or they be limited to 1R each, but the former seems to me to treat the specific problem highlighted. Many thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Chillum 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How are you confused? I said you'd done wrong, but were provoked, and while you shouldn't be blocked, you should be warned and put on notice. That's confusing? Really? ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. What do you think of the rest?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to point 1 above is contained in WP:SYN. Orderinchaos 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Play party

I removed unreferenced, challenged content from the article Play party. I have been asking for references for months and and prior to that an unreferenced tag had been up for years. Within minutes the unreferenced content was re-added with the explanation "References could be months, years, like all other articles". Well it already has been years... so he's basically arguing that content can never be removed due to lack of accuracy/references. This runs flatly against WP:V which puts the burden on people restoring content to find sources. I don't want to edit war over this... but surely after years and no references, we can't sanely keep in this content which I have looked for sources for repeatedly and found none. --Rividian (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• About time. Well done that Rividian. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to ever help? Am I the only person bothered by the fact that we're providing indefinite hosting to a how-to guide just because there's a {{fact}} tag slapped onto the end of the paragraph? Is it really impossible to remove unencyclopedic content so long as someone will edit war to keep it in? This is very frustrating. --Rividian (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a few other users have stepped in now. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on edit warring. I object to someone coming into an article that is in progress and removing anything uncited that they disagree with. The common policy is for editors to ask for citations on material they are concerned by, and give time for citations to be found. Usually information that is well known or likely to be true is left alone. I understand the need for good citations. I ask for citations from people on many articles. When an editor, such as is the case with Rividian, walks in and removed information that is well known to be true only because there is no citation yet, I have to object. It does not improve the article, it disrupts the process of gathering good information on the topic, and is generally disruptive within wikipedia. We probably have hundreds of thousands of articles with true, encyclopedic content that do not have citations yet.

Additionally some topics are not popular topics for sociologic research, and although the facts are well known by people within a subculture or community, journal papers, magazine articles and books are sparse. Such is the case with this particular topic, play party.

Although I understand the well meaning intentions of editor Revidian, and indeed, hope that some editor will seek out good citations for the material they put in the article, as an third party observer, I think that removing material that is obviously true is not beneficial to the article. Atom (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been given years to find sources... to say that's not enough time is just absurd. --Rividian (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not originate the article, sorry. From the time you added a fact tag (April 2008) on some of the material until now has only been a few months. I noticed and responded, in July of 2008, this month. It looks like a variety of other editors objected to your approach in the interim, including Simonxag, Prosfilaes , and Mdwh. So, although it does sometimes take years for an article to become well cited, you have hardly given years in this particular case. Atom (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The unreferenced tag had been on the article for 2 years when I got started... still, even 3 months is more than a reasonable amount of time to provide. My "approach" is just applying what a core policy, WP:V says... honestly, if people object so strongly to what is supposed to be one of our founding policies, this might not be such a good project for them. --Rividian (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI does not show on mly watchlist anymore

Since the flurry of protections, WP:ANI does not show on my watchlist anymore? Is it just me, or are others having the same problem? If it,s just me, what can be done?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem spontaneously went away the moment I posted something on the page. Blame it on gremlins. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably related to the recent protection. For some reason, when a page is protected, it vanishes from a watchlist until the next time an actual edit is made. --Elonka 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. I reported this as a bug; it was closed as "not a bug". --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, now someone tell me why I nearly checked to see if I was suffering the same problem, even though I was alterted to this thread by my watchlist...Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the system counts protection changes as an edit, and since watchlists only count the most recent edit to page, you are only seeing the many protection changes? At least that's what's happening to me. L'Aquatique 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I observed the same phenomenon as originally reported. It's a quirk in the system. Similar to, though not maybe the same cause, as when you upload a photo and it doesn't show in your watch list until you edit it once. Baseball Bugs 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've been talking with another user for some time about articles disappearing from watchlists. 2/3 of Perth suburbs (which I'd meticulously watchlisted as soon as the "raw watchlist" feature became available) disappeared from mine and in his case, many Australian politicians disappeared. Orderinchaos 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

System shows protection changes by administrators (not the automated unprotection) in the revision history and when you upload a photo, its page is a redlink and its revision history doesn't exist. I'm not talking about the changes to the image itself, but to changes of the description text. These revision quirks are the reason why does this happen to watchlists. And, BTW, you will find the protected page if you look for an entry named "(Protection log)" on your watchlist. Admiral Norton 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Another copyvio editor: wrong information, copyvios, broken links, spam links, bad geography, bad interpretions

I've been looking at some articles by User:Wilhelmina Will who is running a race for DYK and other awards on her vanity page. Her articles have tremendous problems, they're largely copied from single sources, generally blogs, they're factually incorrect, she mixes up geography (though on a lesser scale than a recently indeffed editor, New Mexico for California), the links are broken, they include spam links, she's copied wholesale from copyrighted internet sites. Check my edit history for some of the articles of hers I've had to edit and tag. I bring up the other example in this because, like CS, it appears that most of this editor's contribution should be removed from Misplaced Pages.

I assume, as usual, I will be attacked for this. But, it is nice to see that some editors care about quality on Misplaced Pages, though, and thank you to all those editors who did not feel it necessary in my case to shoot the messenger.

However, again, this is fair warning for when this comes back to haunt Misplaced Pages: this editor is copying material that already has copyrights, and having Misplaced Pages copyright it as Misplaced Pages material; she is creating articles that are wrong (like one article uses a source that is all about a turtle not being a crown group sea turtle, and she calls it a crown group sea turtle in the article, obviously not understanding the technical article at all); she is copying from blogs to build articles and sourcing them to the blogs, she is copying huge amounts of text from IMDb, etc., etc.

She appears, like CS, to have created hundreds, if not thousands of problem articles. I've only looked at ones that appeared on the main page in DYK. They are all bad in unacceptable ways. I have alerted the folks at DYK who will be watching her contributions more carefully to address this one issue. The other issue remains, what is to be done with her existing articles, potentially all of which are seriously problematic from the sampling I've taken?

--Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's human to make mistakes. Fix them if you see them. Sceptre 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a helpful comment coming from you Will after you didthis - by fix do you mean removal? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Every article she has created that I have looked at has mistakes in it. When I confronted her the first time she got belligerent. Should I review her hundreds and hundreds of articles and correct all of the errors, like the sea turtle article based on a misreading of the primary source she created? I've looked at half a dozen articles, all are almost completely useless for some reason. How about somebody find one article of hers that isn't completely useless, rather than have her continue to contribute wrong, copied, and bad articles? --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blechnic - are all of her articles copyvio issues, or are a lot of them just cleanup problems? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Her list of created articles is here. I note quite a few BLP articles in this mix, and there are several hundred of them. I only looked at a couple, and though they were not horrible, they weren't well sourced and there were at least minor errors in them. Both that I looked at quickly were borderline as to copyvio, so I can't answer that conclusively. I'm going to start working from the bottom up if someone else would like to start on some of the others. Risker (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom of the list. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) They all appear to be largely copied from various sources, although cleverly so, and some will debate me on this issue. Still there is enough copied to find which page she copies from with a simple and quick search. She does copy lists in their entirety, such as a huge list from IMDb. However, the bigger problem, as with CS, is that her use of technical literature is wrong. For example on the sea turtle article, Ctenochelys, she reads the abstract and says it "is considered to be a crown-group sea turtle," but the source she used is an article about it no longer being considered to be a crown group sea turtle, and in fact, it's not considered in the extant sea turtles where she plops it in her first sentence. She includes spam links. Nothing about the one reference in this article says anything about him being the director of all the soap operas. And her single sources are usually personal blogs of the person the article is about. It appears every article of hers that I have looked at has deep problems. I am tired of looking. Maybe she can clean them up herself.

Good start, Fritzpoll and Risker. She might be willing to learn how to do it properly, also. --Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The science articles are going to be the problem, if you don't know phylogeny something like someone saying it's a crown group when the article is about it no longer being considered one might not jump out at you. This whole article is so off, but so convoluted, I don't know what to do about it. I personally think Ctenochelys should just be deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let other admins respond to this one as well, but it depends on the scale of the problem - I'll see how many science articles there are. But I'm not sure what CSD criteria could apply Fritzpoll (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I got up as far as Morawanocetus from the bottom, and have made a note of the scientific articles on the way. I need to go to bed. Mostly so far, I have no direct copyvios, but some very poorly sourced articles. I suggest someone contact the author and offer to mentor her through the next month or so and to point out the lack of importance of DYK. She seems motivated, but in just the wrong direction at the moment. I hope she will reply here soon Fritzpoll (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the User:Orbicle case? This is how we handled it, with User:Gmaxwell's help. He queried the database for all new pages by the user, listed them in alphabetical order, and we had a team of about 10 (look at the page history) go through the list to check sources, and then we crossed them off when they were done. Some were copyvios which we re-wrote, others were fine as is. When there's a long list, this can be an efficient way to approach the problem.

Wilhelmina gets her articles from Articles for Creation. I haven't checked to see if she copies directly from there, but it is possible she does, assuming good faith on the part of the people who post there. I feel a certain responsibility here because I've been supportive of her efforts, have encouraged her, and she has often come to me for opinions about notability and sources -- but I haven't checked her work for copyright violations. Seeing as copyvios are a serious issue, I think we need to go through these, and of course if Wilhelmina herself would help that would be best of all. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree, for what it's worth. Many seem to come from Articles for Creation, but created without actually reality-checking the proposal (for instance, Oaaa, where the source was one unverified answer at a Q&A site). The cryptozoology articles are pretty bad too - articles like Issie, Cressie and Batsquatch sourced from various personal and non-scholarly websites that well fail WP:V standards. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she is a AFC regular. A bit of good faith is required here - she AGFed on the IPs being able to not copyvio or use unreliable sources. When I accept articles at AFC, I rarely deviate from the IP's submission. Sceptre 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good faith issue. I helped there for a while, and even assuming good faith all round, the practicality is that many (most, even) AFC proposals are by newcomers who've not gone through the small print of Unregistered users: Submitting an article, so it's wise to check the sources for copyright/reliability issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You really can't afford to blindly accept AFC submissions. When I was helping out there I found that the largest majority of articles posted there were copyvios. I always double checked every article before I posted it and I would encourage others to do likewise - it only takes a couple of minutes to Google a couple of choice sentences. Sarah 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has she been notified of these proceedings? Beam 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by a couple of editors on her talk page.

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

--Blechnic (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone alerted her to the exact problem with copyvio as well as the issue of writing poor articles? Beam 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Having worked with/pseudo-mentored User:Wilhelmina Will on the Iggy Arbuckle pages, I'm inclined to think it was an honest mistake from not checking the AFCs before doing them. She does go overboard on the non-free images, but I think its just from a lack of full understanding of the policy, which some long term editors no longer always have a good grasp on due to the changes earlier this year. I think a more formal mentoring relationship would be very beneficial in helping correct these problems and help her become an even stronger as I've found her to be fairly open to corrections, willing to learn, and to have a desire to be a good editor. -- ] (] · ]) 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the severity of the problem (factual inaccuracies, and admission on my talk page she doesn't understand the scientific article she wrote incorrectly, bum links, links to viruses, plagiarism, hostility in response when it's pointed out) I suspect this editor is worth working with. Please don't anyone underestimate the level of the problem with her existing articles, though. Underestimating the problem will not do her or Misplaced Pages any good. Maybe she could get some guidance and learning while fixing the problems she created. --Blechnic (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, initially I agreed that while its a big problem, its fixable with some guidance. However, it seems like she is very deliberately ignoring all messages on her talk page and this report and continuing along with her usual edits. That, to me, does not bode well. -- ] (] · ]) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be more circumspect with real people's names

I've done something blockable: I've altered Blechnic's thread title and opening post above. I'm also invoking IAR; made the changes to partially redact a real person's name who is not involved in this thread and is referred to as a negative example. Let's remember that sort of thing can have a real world impact via Google hits, etc. If a username is Fuzzyduckling22 and has no real world connection to anybody, then turn it into a meme if you like. Please be more circumspect with real human names. Durova 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what is a real person's name or not on Misplaced Pages, and when editors use their real names they have already conceded to allowing a real world impact via Google.

It was an expedient way to make it clear what I was talking about--what is appearing to be a common editing style among plagiarizing editors: factual inaccuracies, sloppy links, gratuitous references, overall bad editing.

I don't have an issue with changing the title of a thread, though. Why would that be blockable? Don't answer! --Blechnic (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What would really be better is if we treated copyright more seriously around here. After all, the Misplaced Pages community doesn't have the power to overrule real world legislation. If an editor is committing bright line copyright violations, he or she should get a limited number of warnings before an indefinite block. And then--as with legal threats--a retraction and pledge to stop creating problems should be necessary to get an unblock (with mentorship if needed). When we as a site treat the law less than seriously, we open the door to difficult editors making an open joke of it. That's a risk to the Foundation and to our site's credibility, and ultimately to the names of those difficult editors if they use their real names. Durova 04:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day vandalism/harassment active again

Now that User:Allemandtando has been identified and blocked as a sock of User:Fredrick day, IP harassment or vandalism from characteristic Fredrick day IP has started up again. I just noticed that edits of mine to three different, totally unrelated articles were just reverted by Special:Contributions/88.105.58.91. Not sure anything can be done about it, he'll just pick up another router, but thought I'd report it anyway. No problem, I reverted one of these and other editors caught the others, quickly. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that, as Allemandtando, he did very positive work and found him easy to deal with. Why does he feel the need to be a socking dick the rest of the time? I just don't get it... :( --Jaysweet (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he killerofcruft? If so, then good riddance. The last thing we need is more WP:POINTy deletionists. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He was Killerofcruft, first. Fredrick day, if you look back, was essentially an SPA devoted to article deletion. I'd say Fd was a bad hand account taking on this work, and he's claimed he has other accounts that he keeps clean. He may be telling the truth.

I have a theory. People who get heavily involved in cleanup, including vandalism and article deletion, can start to get a very cynical attitude about people. I think we got it wrong, early on. The encyclopedic project shouldn't be about inclusion/deletion, it should be about categorization, and what we currently delete falls into a number of different categories that we should be treating differently. I've discussed this elsewhere, but my opinion is that the status quo isn't sustainable. There are broad solutions that will need to be considered, but to look at it in a more narrow way, when an editor adds some non-notable, self-promoting, unverifiable text to an article, we don't scrub it from the database, we don't delete the revision so that only admins can read it. We just wiki-delete it, it's an ordinary editorial decision. There have been proposals for this, see WP:PWD, and it's the original wiki concept. It's also possible to have new spaces, where present deletion would be replaced by a normal editorial move to an appropriate space, such as "Non-Notable but of possible interest" (NN?) and "Junkyard." (A junkyard is a place where stuff that may not be currently usable is put for possibly recycling, spare parts, etc.) AfD is a horribly inefficient system, and it burns people out. I'm not proposing that nothing be deleted, for the obvious reasons. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to include such stuff on your own "junkpedia" wiki or something.:) I miss Crufty, I thought what he was doing with his editing and proposed changes to articles was excellent. I think he knew his life span would not be as long as other's. Sorry if you are getting hastle from IPs, Abd, and hope it gets sorted. While I like Crufty's work I don't know all the history and if it's him doing the harassment I of course don't condone it. It's not that deletionism makes people lose the plot, but if someone gets blocked, sometimes they blame someone for that block and lose it a bit. This has nothing to do with deletionism and can happen regardless of why someone got blocked. Sticky Parkin 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in starting a new project. I like this one. And I'm trying to keep it from crashing, and it will if the situation I've been pointing to isn't faced. Might take a couple of years, but damage is being done and accumulating. Yes, it's him. Nobody who knows the history is likely to doubt it. By the way, one way of implementing the solution I'm suggesting is indeed a separate wiki, with interwiki transfer made easier than it is. Essentially, I'm trying to set it up so that, in effect, deletionists get their encyclopedia, inclusionists get their encyclopedia, each benefits from the other, and users choose what they want to see. And it's efficient. Got a problem with that? --Abd (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Crufty/Fred has just posted here User_talk:Sticky_Parkin#ip_vandalism. He says the IP vandalism isn't him. Is he posting from the same IP range as them? Abd says Fred has a history of changing his IP, the IPs were said to be unrelated to Crufty/Fred in a checkuser. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fredrick_day. Of course, we can't even prove the bloke posting to my page is Fred.:/ Sticky Parkin 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

on the general matter of people developing a bias for acting in a certain way, I find that after a longish while of new page patrol I tend to over-delete enough to get some complaints. I've seen the same same thing tend to happen with others there, and also at afds, in both directions,and in spam fighting. I usually advise people to diversify. As for a separate wiki, the easy way is to set up one that will screen out articles from an inclusive one. Veropedia is something of that idea. If anyone wants to set up a non-pop culture version, and can think of an algorithm, the rest is easy enough. The difficulty, of course, is the extent to which the Misplaced Pages brand is known, which will make whatever is called by our current name the major resource. DGG (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in e-mail correspondence with Fredrick day/Allemandto. He admits that those accounts are related, and also provided me with the identity of a long-inactive account that he doesn't want to reveal publicly for real life identity reasons (if the account starts up again I will block it, but I see no reason to expect that it will, and inactive is as good as blocked for our purposes). He denies that most of the I.P. activity attributed to him is him, and also denies having access to the range of I.P.s that Abd claims he has (I express no opinion about the veracity of these claims). He denies being an SPA dedicated to deletion, and, with all due respect to Abd (which is a fair bit), this seems to contradict his impression that that's what Fd was. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, SI. I'm glad you added the disclaimer about veracity, but I'd have assumed the same without it, you simply told us what he told you. As to SPA dedicated to deletion, the more important part would be "bad hand account." But I'm not pushing that claim at this point, it's unnecessary; however the activity analysis that SI pointed to would not tell us, for example, how many AfDs he filed or voted in. Perhaps I'll compile that, I have the data. I see in the analysis cited, nevertheless, an extremely high involvement with AN/I. And to prove "bad hand" would require ID of the master account. But Fd has acknowledged having other accounts, with a strong implication they were still active. None of these have been found. One was possibly ID'd, but checkuser was inconclusive. (Good hand account! And I dropped it because, by definition, that account was not doing damage. And if it was merely a coincidence, well, sad and tragic for a user to be harassed for mere IP range coincidence -- though this was specific IP, it was shared IP.) The old account he points to would probably not be that major good-hand account, it would be an account he abandoned, as he states; I'm skeptical he would reveal his real identity to SI, but it's not impossible. Given that he has lied over and over, and was continuing to lie or argue deceptively elsewhere as he communicated with SI, nothing he says can be trusted without verification. And as to his use of IP ranges, it is possible that some IDs on the SSP Talk page I've referenced are not him; however, the ones specifically given here were clearly him, and the IP range used yesterday was one such Range he has used before, and not in any uncertain way. To AGF, I'll presume that he forgot he's used that range, and didn't check my references to verify. The very first edit made by him when he was identified as the "Section 31" harassing IP editor, admitting it, before there had been any notice of it by anyone except me, was from the 88.105 range . If this ID was an error, it's been mentioned many times, and he could have protested long ago. But for a long time he was "nyah, nyah, can't catch me" and didn't care about identification. Has he changed? I don't know. I just know that he lies and harasses and provokes and the rest. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As to the post to SP's Talk, that is Fd most common IP range, no reason at all to doubt that this was him. (Checkuser won't say, but I think it reasonably likely that this range was used for Allemandtando.) Sure, it could be someone else from his narrow range pretending to be him. How likely is that? Maybe it's me, maybe I flew to London, set up a Windows 2000 Server with his ISP, for remote access from the comfort of my office, and, heh, heh, can now do whatever I want and he'll get blamed for it. Until he complains to the ISP, and I'd presume he'd be savvy enough to do that if I were so insane as to do such a thing. As to what he says, though, remember that just a few days ago he was lying to all of you, and his modus operandi would suggest that he'd do anything to make it seem that those who notice him are idiots. There is a reason I consider it reasonably proven that the IP edits yesterday -- they weren't exactly vandalism, they were harassment -- were Fredrick day. The IP range is one that he has shown he can use, see Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, and, in particular, Special:Contributions/88.105.40.220 (explicitly Fd and shows what we are up against) and Special:Contributions/88.105.96.11, which is actually what he edited from when he acknowledged it was over for Fredrick day, and which also implies that Fd was merely one account of his.

Now, just looking at each of these edits, there wouldn't be any reason to think they were Fd, and, in fact, I didn't see it at first. I reverted one of them, thinking it was simply one more editor trying to impeach Robert C. Atkins, common. But then I happened to check the contributions for another IP which reverted in another article I watch, and, bingo! Three edits to articles I recently edited, nothing else. It's conclusive that this is an editor harassing me, and that is very, very characteristic of Fredrick day. Practically nobody else has done it. Now, another editor harassing me, from one of Fd's known access options? No that's it, million to one it isn't Fredrick day. Someday, somebody may decide to imitate Fd, and then Fd will get blamed for what they do. That's the breaks, that's what you get when you establish that you are capable of behaving as Fd behaved.

Now, deletionist editors, listen up! I'm not against you. You do valuable work, necessary work. But it is essential that major article and unsourced text deletion be done with serious respect and caution and helpful civility. I understand, it is very, very easy to become frustrated with all the POV pushers and the "fancruft" seems to breed in the dark, there is more in the morning than there was last night. But in your zeal to rid the encyclopedia of all this messy stuff, if you needlessly offend people, Misplaced Pages suffers. That must stop, and quickly. Delete someone's article and they call you every name in the book? Understand that the reaction is normal; with a minute's work, you destroyed -- he thinks -- his hours of work. Wouldn't you be pissed off? So cut him some slack, tell him how he can get a copy of his article you speedied, suggest other wikis, express regret for any inconvenience you caused, etc. You can still be firm about Misplaced Pages policy, but, please, when you interact with clueless fans, and the like, you represent Misplaced Pages, they will think you own the place. Don't trash our reputation! So when someone like Allemandtando shows up, blowing the bugle Charge! Kill cruft!, do not encourage him, and do not let it be inclusionist editors who are forced to restrain him. I'm an inclusionist, but I do not go after deletionists. Those are polarities, and wisdom is always, in comparison, a synthesis.

I was a prison chaplain, and I had some experience with prison gangs and how they function. Basic rule for functional gangs: do not allow your own members to abuse members of other gangs, it will cause a gang war. Instead, discipline them yourselves. A member of the Aryan Brotherhood knifed a white inmate saying he was "hanging out with the niggas." It was pure ignorance, not that other forms of racism aren't, but the knifed inmate was a Muslim. (Most Muslim inmates at San Quentin State Prison, where I was working, are Black, and some are Black Muslims, but maybe a percent or more are not.) The victim wouldn't tell the prison authorities who his assailant was. But it was known to the Muslims. And what did they do? Very simple. One of them worked in the offices, and could find out where the inmate would be sent. And a message would be passed to the Muslims at that institution. Would they attack this inmate? No, that would start a riot. They would have a chat with the Aryan Brotherhood leader there. "Take care of this guy so we don't have to." And that is, I'm sure, exactly what would happen, the assailant would be disciplined by his own people, probably knifed, because Lex talonis is easily understood and accepted as fair. Because there are so many inmates and so few staff, the prison population must, essentially, police itself, and it usually works. Like Misplaced Pages. But when it breaks down, then intervention is needed, and we get the stuff that makes news. (And don't believe everything you read about prison gangs, I don't trust some stuff in our article on the Aryan Brotherhood, even if it's "reliably sourced." Let me put it this way: the info in that article is based on a lurid newspaper report describing alleged behavior over thirty years ago as if it were current. My Muslim informant, supposedly an enemy, had a far more constructive view of the Aryan Brotherhood than did the newspaper writer). --Abd (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion to incidents requiring admin intervention. Debate over content in specific articles should be relegated to the Talk Pages of those articles. --Richard (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. By the way, was there any such "debate" here? I did mention Aryan Brotherhood but as an example relating to how article deletion and the like in general should proceed, with specific reference to editor behavior, which is generally the issue here. Sorry if it was too long. I recommend blinking and Page Down if vision is still unfocused.. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day (talk · contribs) has now requested an unblock at his talk page. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he has, actually... Avruch 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review invited: mrg3105

Review invited of my four-day block of User:mrg3105. This editor is already subject to the Digwuren restriction and has already been blocked twice under it. The grounds for the current block are serial incivility and personal attacks which include but are not limited to the following diffs: The question is whether four days is an appropriate tariff.

On a further note, this user has a long history of disruption as he is unable to recognise consensus and has little notion of when enough is enough. As part of a spin-off campaign arising out of the article renaming he has sought sanctions against Raul654 (, ) and tried to unseat Nick Dowling as a Milhist coordinator (). Perhaps the time has now come to consider either a lengthy block, or mentoring, or a community ban.

As mrg3105 is currently blocked, he is unable to respond to this, though he has been notified. (I don't know the usual procedure for transcluding this so he can respond and can't find an example to follow.) --ROGER DAVIES  05:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the block, the editor has some serious behavioural issues and hasn't been able to be resolved prior to this, and they seem to be causing quite a bit of disruption, hopefully this block will give them some time to reflect. On the topic of straw polls, I see their objection, though Misplaced Pages doesn't explicitly prohibit them, it does caution their use, but I've used them before, and I think it's use is more than likely appropriate on the article talk page that you linked to. Steve Crossin (contact) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am actually pretty concerned that you are citing complaints about individuals acting in "official roles" as a reason to block anyone within the project. mrg3105 is making his complaints based on Raul's and Nick's actions within their "official" roles within Misplaced Pages; in each complaint, he has been soundly rebuffed by other Wikipedians, and that should be the end of the story. Would we block every editor who complained about a person in such a role? I think those points are outside of the scope of the Digwuren decision. Of the remainder, I see borderline comments that are pretty mild compared to a lot of typical discourse on EE article talk pages. I also see no discussion on the talk page of the editor, no attempt to de-escalate the situation on the talk page of the article, and the fact that you, Roger, are the lead co-ordinator in the WP:MILHIST wikiproject, and the dispute centers on a disagreement about how that wikiproject is addressing naming conventions (more generally) for large scale battles. Instead of blocking yourself, perhaps it would have been better to bring this to WP:AE for discussion amongst uninvolved admins and others. Risker (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Despite my huge respect for Roger, I think if a block is to be imposed, it should be no longer in duration than that already imposed, and Certainly not up to a ban yet but mentoring isn't out of the question, but I do share some of Risker's concerns here. I think the block might have a chilling effect due to this user's history of having perceived problems with users in certain positions, such as the one Roger is in. This does not mean Roger is involved directly; just that more care can be taken in who imposes the block (if necessary) here. Straw polls are acceptable, but are never to be used or cited as 'consensus' for any edit as it would be incorrect, and invalid. Per what I'd suggested on the RfArbitration talk page, I think the blocked user thinks that straw poll is going to be used in that manner. I also think that this is outside of the scope of the Diguwaren decision to quite an extent, leaving question marks over the duration of the block. But I wouldn't encourage the block to be modified in any way. It enables discussion with the user itself, if anyone is willing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion. I thought I had put enough clear blue water between the two issues, but apparently I didn't. The block specifically deals with incivility (calling User:Buckshot06 the "epitome of a yes man"; accusing Biruitorul of "extreme bias" etc; and is covered in the first paragraph.

The stuff regarding Raul and Nick is part of a bigger pattern, for which I invited comments and possible remedies, in the second paragraph, as I am well aware of the ambivalence of my position there. --ROGER DAVIES  06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. The only thing that might be suitable to address the problem is probation (supervised editing) or a civility restriction for this user. Mentorship is the alternative. It's still too early to consider a ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a long chat with mrg3105 tonight and don't think a ban is needed. I'm not mentoring him and not officially speaking on his behalf, but I'd like to relay the general impression that he's reacting in ways that are usually consistent with ban not needed. Durova 10:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree about an all-out ban but think the editing restriction proposed below would be an excellent way of bringing out the best in him while making him think twice about florid behaviour. Do you agree with this? --ROGER DAVIES  11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I also endorse this block, but would certainly oppose a ban. This is a user who, in my experience, generally contributes very good content to military-history related topics, but can easily get upset and extremely stubborn when he doesn't get his way, often with respect to some minor editorial issues such as naming practices. He then has an unfortunate tendency of climbing glass domes dressed in not-so-flattering skintight unitards. The solution in such cases is just to make him let go of that particular conflict ? that can be done with short blocks if absolutely necessary, but longterm bans would be counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ? 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would like a solution that encourages him to contribute positively while putting a brake in the negative stuff. Do you think the editing restriction proposed below will do this? --ROGER DAVIES  11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• As Roger notes, this has been a long-ongoing problem. Mrg's attack on Raul654, Buckshot and myself and his other disruptive edits over this particular article is but the latest incident in a very long pattern of disruptive behaviour. For the last few months Mrg has been blatantly ignoring consensus and any guidelines he disagrees in repeated attempts impose his views on article names and content. In particular, he has been seeking to impose Soviet military names on battles involving the USSR in World War II and Soviet military concepts in these and other battles. This has lead to dozens of arguments over article names between Mrg on one side and literally dozens of editors on the other. When challenged he routinely resorts to abusive comments. The following some examples of the kind of disruptive behaviour Mrg frequently engages in. It is important to stress that these four examples are by no means isolated, but are simply some incidents I'm familar with. Several other examples and the the way Mrg typically responds to warnings are available from reviewing User talk:Mrg3105.

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/World War_II task force/Category restructuring - Mrg arbitarily, and radically, changed the category structure for World War II articles against numerous editors' opposition (which he dismissed as not being significant: )
• - Mrg re-wrote the introduction to the Battle of Kursk article so that it declared the near-universal English-language name for this battle incorrect as it isn't the name used by Russians.
• Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)#Another attempt at a new introduction - another example of an attempt to dispute a well known name of an article. This sparked a complaint by the editor who's user space Mrg was using and was rejected, but Mrg dropped the most contentious point into the article anyway several weeks later
• On the most recent dispute over the name of the 'Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation' article Mrg, instead of trying to engage in the discussion on the talk page, removed the straw poll , lodged a complaint here at WP:AN/I after I reverted this was told that dispute resolution is needed but declared this to be unessessary as he is correct about the article's name and everyone else is wrong . Following this rebuff Mrg posted the complaints against Raul654 and I which Rodger linked to above. Despite the clear opposition to the use of the term 'strategic offensive operation' on the Manchurian article's talk page, Mrg went ahead and renamed the Vistula-Oder Offensive the 'Vistula-Oder Strategic Offensive Operation' a couple of days ago .

• In light of this consistant pattern of disruptive behaviour and rejection of consensus decisions, I believe that a editing restriction is now necessary. Mrg has been warned about his behaviour multiple times, and been blocked twice, but has not ceased his disruptive behaviour or moderated his approach in any noticeable way - I would argue that it is actually getting worse. Mrg is a long-established editor who has made thousands of edits and is aware of guidelines and policies, so there is simply no excuse for his behaviour. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's just four days and he doesn't request unblock there is no need for him to do anything, but if his poor editing continues then the case needs to be taken to Arbcom. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, ArbCom is not going to accept it so prematurely. Let's try something as a community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted notices on the Administrators Noticeboard and in the Bureaucrats Noticeboard to the other pages used to complain and to this page so no one gets confused or lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing Restriction

I propose he be subject to probation (supervised editing) for 6 months. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for up to 1 month. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator. After 2 bans on the same page or set of pages, the duration of the ban on that page or set of pages may be increased to 1 year. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support --ROGER DAVIES  09:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering Mrg's past, but also his ability to be very productive, I think this is a good move. It gives boundries. Narson (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support; I think this is a good compromise. He also needs to be made very aware that the line between being an asset and a detriment to Misplaced Pages is one that editors - particularly those with stubborn, argumentative natures - can easily cross without realising it... EyeSerene 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:XxJoshuaxX page moves

Would someone care to check out what appears to be disruptive editing from this user in moving pages based on faulty premises? Check the talk page for examples, specifically moving articles on books, films and songs with "Over" in the title to pages with a small "o" in the word "over", contravening the actual titles. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this editor operates more like a vandal, wikilawyering, quoting MoS to suit purposes, and working entirely against consensus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

Isn't this the same guy as Big T.V. Fan? If so he just changed his username last week after way overstepping the bounds of . I had to file a CheckUser even. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Same guy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is in order in that case. Chafford (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is someone going to implement it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, this was a legitimate renaming of an account, not sockpuppetry. Still the page moves he's doing are absurd. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin be bold and undo the editor's page moves? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved the Cuckoo's Nest novel, play & films back. Do we have consensus for a block here, or would a severe warning be enough? I'm leaning towards block myself, given the consistent disruptive editing and accompanying incivility... EyeSerene 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the MO established, I would first favour a "highly descriptive" warning before resorting to the ACME hammer. FWiW, I think this is a very young person who probably is well-meaning but then again, his actions are highly problematic... Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

I moved those pages because "over" is a presposition. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

However, when dealing with the title of someone else's work or the name of another entity, it should be rendered according to their intent, including any grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization errors. Or perhaps the article on the hit song should be He Is Not Heavy. He is My Brother. And the article for the toy giant should be Toys Are We! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh,I get it now. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But I feel like a total idiot now. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)Someone to Watch over Me (film) still needs to be moved back to Someone to Watch Over Me (film), as does the disambiguation page Someone to Watch over Me and all the pages linked on it, all of which have been moved to pages with small "o"s in "over". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I'd got them all. Done. Any more I've missed? EyeSerene 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's history, there are a number of other moves which may be problematic, if they followed the same procedure of elevating grammar and Misplaced Pages naming conventions over the actual titles of things, but most of the rest of them involve songs and musical artists I'm not particularly familiar with, so someone else will need to evaluate the moves. In the meantime, I hope the editor takes to heart the lesson here not to override the names of things, and to initiate some discussion before making potentially contentious page moves. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I went through many of them earlier, but didn't have the time to go too far back. If someone else wants to have a look...? EyeSerene 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)I'm concerned that User:XxJoshuaxX is still doing numerous page moves, some of which seem pretty dicey on the face of it. I think it would be a good idea for an admin to take a close look at his edits and give him some advice. It might be a good idea for him to hold back from doing page moves for a while. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mcanmoocanu

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

Yesterday, we decided to ban Tasc0 (talk · contribs). Late last night, Mcanmoocanu left this incivil message on Tasc0's talk page, which he (Mcanmoocanu) immediately reverted. He also left this message on his own talk page. Believing that this account had possibly been compromised by Tasc0 (the comment on his own talk page seemed to be talking to himself) I indefinitely blocked the account pending a checkuser. The checkuser has come back unrelated so I want to bring it here for a determination from the community about what to do. Looking at his user talk contributions, he and Tasc0 seemed to trade incivil barbs on a pretty regular basis. I have no particular opinion about whether to leave this user indefinitely blocked, unblock immediately with a stern warning, or reduce the block to a finite time. Obviously, he did immediately revert his own comment to Tasc0, but it is so extreme that it's hard to uncork the bottle. So I'm open to suggestions here. Thanks. --B (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the negative checkuser, except for the messages in question he's done nothing blockable, and seems to have made a number of minor but useful edits. The language in those messages though is such that a short block seems appropriate, such as time served. DGG (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm inclined to offer him the same deal Tasc0 previously got - agree to not make personal attacks and understand that further personal attacks will result in an extended block ... and if he agrees, any admin can unblock him. --B (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, time served for the appalling comment... plus 3 hours for the spelling mistakes? Nevermind, it is 4 hours past the last comment so I will unblock if it hasn't already happened. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Unblocked just over three hours after B's comments by User:Sandstein. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain what the heck happened to this page??

Audi A8 Enok 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow you can't see it anymore with the most recent edit, but it was this stuff about someone calling themselves "the Zodiac" having an administrator's password and threatening to "post their logo on the main page". I don't know why it's not showing up in the History. Enok 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We have had a rash of IP spammers changing templates that include this Zodiac stuff. It wasn't changing the text of the Audi page, but a transcluded template, which has likely been reverted back, but that's why you can't see it in the article history. If you see such types of problems, report them here but we're pretty quick on reverting such changes. --MASEM 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism was at {{Infobox Automobile generation}}. Spencer 15:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any reason all templates shouldn't be semi-protected by default? I think that anyone, including me when I started, should not be touching templates. --mboverload@ 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You want WP:VPR#Proposal: Semiprotect the entire Template: namespace. Algebraist 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, User:BalkanFever

For once more, impoliteness, incivility and difficult communications with User:BalkanFever, same language repeated twice here (..."learn the name of the country or gtfo") and here (..."and you definitely should gtfo"). The guy obviously has a serious behavioural problem, his has been reported many times before for similar behaviour, for example here, here and here, and has also been blocked several times. Will someone actually do something? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You aren't being reasonable with your dealings with BalkanFever. Perhaps you should try to work with others in disagreement. Beam 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I've notified him of this on his talk page, which you should have done. I did just see your notification on the talk page of the article in question, I'd prefer it on his talk page. But I guess that's just a fine point and not important.Beam 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the context of these comments at Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute I see no action necessary and would warn you not to edit war or pov push. Beam 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, are you an admin? Or his lawyer perhaps?? Or just his good friend? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm his sworn enemy. Also, anyone else will probably make similar statements if they read that talk page. And Fut.Per is an admin, and I'm pretty sure he agrees with me. Beam 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that BalkanFever was blocked repeatedly for incivility or similar problems is wrong. He has only one block in his log (I should now, because I was the blocker), and it was for a revert-warring spree he succumbed to half a year ago when he was rather new. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, FPS you were the second blocker, see here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Only one block. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Prior to "BalkanFever" he was User:202.10.89.28. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there was something in his early IP days, and he was honest enough to include the IP talk page in his later archive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that, only he hasn't changed his overall behaviour. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I've had a couple of issues with the user as well. The most recent of those was this "probably cause you suck" to an annon and the response I got from BF I'm pretty sure he does suck. I don't have the time to get to the links right now, but I'd appreciate it if he didn't call Philipp Kirkorov gay and so on. It just looks like a habit of his to use such words, but it's not nice reading them, really. I don't think it's something worth a block, but a formal warning or something? --Laveol 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it's because I myself am sometimes guilty of such statements (once at least), but I really don't think that "I'm pretty sure he does suck." is blockable. I haveto admit when I read that I chuckled. No, I'm not an uncivil jerk, but it suprised me. Plus BalkanFever is a good user. If ever does slip on civilitty, similar to me, it's only because he's fighting the good fight for NPOV, Consensus, and RS. The lightest of uncivil comments should not be put ahead of the Encyclopedia. Beam 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there won't be a third block even if those comments were uncivil. Beam 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I said it was not worth a block. --Laveol 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

really? And why is that? Corvus cornix_talk 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were uncivil, which they weren't, blocks aren't punitive. You should try, and this may seem strange, speaking with the user whom you disagree with. Beam 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But you make it sound as if you have the final say in the matter. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever occasionally over-eggs the pudding with some of his comments but usually he's quite rational and sensible. I wish I could say the same for some his adversaries in this thread. We don't need to lynch him on ANI for a few misplaced words, thank you very much. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me please make it clear that I am not taking any side in this discussion, my only concern is the authoritarianism and finality with which Beam makes his pronouncements. Corvus cornix_talk 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for concern. Beam 22:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good people, lets get back to the point: someone has to do something with BF's repeated comments of such "quality". The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodgechris

User:Dodgechris was indefinitely blocked yesterday for using multiple sockpuppet accounts abusively (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Dodgechris). He's now actively editing again using his sister's account PAWSFORSPORT2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While none of his edits with this account have been necessarily 'bad' thusfar, user contribs clearly follow his usual editing patterns. Is this grounds for this account also to be blocked? Frickative 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. --jpgordon 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for dealing with that. Could someone tell me - what is the best way to report block evasion? He's now moved on to using Chesseman,ganster rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so is obviously going through accounts at quite a pace. Should I be opening new sockpuppet cases, or is it better to report it here? Frickative 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion for sockpuppetry, providing it is obvious and current, can be reported to AIV or here (AIV is faster but may be denied as not being obvious enough) and obvious but not currently editing should be reported here. Not obvious should be returned to SSP for a more expert opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Chesseman,ganster rabbit blocked indef as sockpuppet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - so just to be certain, it's definitely okay to report to AIV, even if the edits he's currently making with the new account don't actually constitute vandalism? As of this morning, he's moved onto using King Sausauges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Frickative 13:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of block/protection of User:Ebfilms

I would like to request some comment on my indefinite block of Ebfilms (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) and the subsequent month-long protection of his/her talk page based on WP:NPA. The initial block was for 48 hours, and this user has a block history. After abuse of the unblock template and further disruptive edits on the talk page, I indefinitely blocked until the user could show understanding of applicable Misplaced Pages policy. The personal attacks, directed at me, are obvious at the bottom of the talk page. I subsequently fully protected the page for a month. Tan ǀ 39 17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. Look for an ip or what not to try to recreate "his" articles. Seems the type to not let go. Beam 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the block and the talk page protection were more than called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. Editor's got some issues with working collaboratively, from the looks of it, and the personal attacks were uncalled for. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me as well. The username could've probably been blocked long before the incivility as a USERNAME vio as a blatant spam username. Combine that with the obvious SPA/COI intentions of the account, and the belligerence/attitude when Misplaced Pages actually follows through on its intentions to keep spam out, and what you have here is a perfectly legitimate (and welcome) indef block + protection. Nice work, on to the next! Bye bye, ebfilms, come back when you're notable. Better yet, let someone else write about you when you're notable. Keeper ǀ 76 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block per Keeper76 EyeSerene 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Another vanity spammer bites the dust. Good riddance. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, spamming isn't the way to be FILLED with vanity on Misplaced Pages, you just have to get 25 FA. Beam 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block Tan. Synergy 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block per the reasons above. Yet another spammer, this should really have been caught at UAA though. Rudget (logs) 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tagging by TheWatcherREME

User:TheWatcherREME appears to be impersonating an admin (by blocking user pages/accounts in an apparent attempt at a new form of edit warring, tagging user pages with sockpuppet tags, etc., for all users which with he disagrees.) The block log shows the editors are not really blocked, unlike for actual blocks. The edits by this user look suspicious. TheWatcherREME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Yaf (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he incorrectly applied the {{indefblocked}} and ((sockpuppet|blocked)) templates to User:Nukes4Tots and User_talk:Nukes4Tots. Refactored the section heading accordingly. Avruch 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat bizarrely, he's also created Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots and added himself to it. --Rodhullandemu 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He also appears to have tagged his own userpage with the same templates () and populated a "suspected sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots" category, although there doesn't appear to be a checkuser in his history to back up the claim. Avruch 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And also to: User talk:195.18.164.66‎, User talk:24.224.153.255, User talk:24.229.253.142,User:Jedediah42, and User:Variablebinary. Looks like more activity that is impersonating an admin to me. ‎Yaf (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All the accounts edit primarily gun-related articles - perhaps he's tagging the accounts and IP addresses that belong to him? Doesn't explain the talkpage edits by Nukes4Tots to WatcherREME's page, though. Avruch 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

??Well, I'm not sure why my single edit on his talk page means anything. He copied an article directly to the text in his new article. That's copyvio, plain and simple, and I tagged his talk page and the article as should be done. As I said earlier (below) this is the standard MO for JetWaveDave if you look at his edit history. He's trying to trash me like he did to Parsecboy. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he just has a personality disorder. Beam 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet account for Jetwave Dave. Yes, there is some sort of mental disorder going on. He creates wildly obscure articles through CopyVio and then personally attack those who try to enforce standards on his articles, links, and pictures. Same MO if you look at Jetwave Dave's history. Needs a perm block just like his previous persona, User:WatcherREME.--Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynch1000s

Lynch1000s (talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles and changing bold text to bold and italics, and sometimes incorrectly so that random apostrophes show around words. As the convention seems to be that the first instance of the article's title is bolded, this seems to be against convention. The user has already been blocked for vandalism in the past. Is there an admin tool for reverting everything this editor did today? NJGW (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one of those clever contrib history jokes?

• 20:13, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Malignant narcissism‎ (you can't psychollogically penetrate other people) (top)
• 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) The Devil's Advocate (film)‎ (→Plot summary) (top)
• 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) People‎ (top)
• 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Other‎ (top)
• 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Penetration‎ (top)
• 20:09, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Psychology
• 20:08, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) You

Avruch 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through his contribs before coming back here and noticing Avruch's post...I was about to say, individually, his edits aren't uniformly bad...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these edits are incorrect and unconstructive. User is likely up to no good. --- RockMFR 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note I also put a notice on the "usernames for administrator attention" NB because this person's name is "lynch thousands", but as soon as they got blocked for the unconstructive edits, a bot removed the name from that list. Can somebody here look into this? NJGW (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I just noticed a ton of seemingly random IP's replacing articles with this diff So far the following IP's have made similar edits:

• 76.252.168.122
• 83.233.183.104
• 79.185.244.114
• 96.232.181.247
• 209.216.179.12
• 69.205.185.242 NanohaA'sYuri 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus User:Poohea and some others apparently. Probably some 4chan gangup or something similar. Suva Чего? 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I didn't open that diff at work. Looks to be sort of the same vandalism that's been hitting some of the templates recently. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile pirates aren't allowed at work? Beam 21:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's usually something frowned upon...Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this too.... I've never seen vandalism like this before. -- RyRy (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A functionality could be implemented to disable IP edits involving large numbers of <br>s. Admiral Norton 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New editor and copyright problems

Keith Jeffords, MD (talk · contribs) created two articles last night; Norman Mackenzie (Conductor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the latter was originally a redirect to Atlanta Symphony Orchestra) The text of the two articles was copied from http://www.atlantasymphony.org/abouttheaso/meetthemusicians/conductors/normanmackenzie.aspx and http://www.asochorus.org/ with a few minor changes. So I removed the copied material, welcomed him on his talk page and pointed him towards our policies on copyright and NPOV (as the text is just the choir's own promotional material in any event). But he doesn't seem to have taken the hint, and several reverts and unanswered messages on his talk page later he's still reinstating the copied material, claiming in his edit summaries that it is not copyrighted. His claim is rather undermined by the fact that the page in question says "© 2008 Atlanta Symphony Orchestra". But I'm up to three reverts, so I'm done for the moment. Could someone uninvolved please review the situation? Thanks Iain99 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does 3RR cover a situation like this where User:Keith Jeffords, MD is clearly acting outside policy and guidance? In any event, I reverted his most recent change to Norman Mackenzie (Conductor). – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You're good to go. I sincerely hope none of our admins is clueless enough to block someone for removing a copyright violation. See this section which specifically mentions this case. Antandrus (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise 3RR doesn't apply to blatant copyright infringements, of course, but I didn't want to keep reverting ad nauseam without some sort of reality check anyway. I was also hoping that someone less close to the end of his patience than me might be able to offer some constructive advice to the editor as well - so thanks for doing that Antandrus. Iain99 21:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive image tagging

This post is in reference to recent mass tagging of images for deletion by User:OsamaK. I've tried to talk it over with him here but he seems impervious to my line of argument so perhaps I can hear a wider range of views on here (plus those images are set to be deleted soon, so there's a sense of urgency to this).

The idea is simple: we all agree sources should be provided for images, but I believe, and OsamaK doesn't, that there are some common-sense exceptions to that rule, mainly involving old (say pre-1923) images uploaded years ago when the rules were more lax. Take, for instance, this one. The subject died 201 years ago. The sketch was uploaded five years ago by someone inactive for over a year. It's not readily accessible on the Internet. Can't we presume PD?? Or how about this one? The photo is at least 115 years old, and is from Russia, where anything is PD if the author died before 1953, which is almost certainly the case. There are many other examples among the images tagged by OsamaK. The problem is he has a rather extreme view on the subject: afraid of "forgery, deception and lack of confidence", he will ask that any unsourced image be deleted, regardless of "when uploaded, when taken, when died". I find this stance narrow-minded and disruptive in that it threatens to rob us of many undoubtedly PD images. Perhaps some intervention could rescue them. Biruitorul 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... It has been discussed so many times before. See HERE, for instance. --Ghirla 07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely disruptive, these images are clearly PD, regardless of their lack of sourcing. Someone with automation tools needs to undo these tags, which should never have been placed. Losing all these images will be detrimental to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How to discus while you undoing my edits?--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I have to undo all of your undoing. Stop now!--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The first couple I checked, I don't think it's disruptive, I think it's a fair cop. No matter the age of an image, it still needs a proper source, and those items didn't have one. No image comes from thin air. Maybe threatening to delete in 7 days is a bit much, but the rules are what they are. Baseball Bugs 07:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, George Dawe will rise from the dead to sue Jimbo and Misplaced Pages over Image:Aleksey Arakcheyev.jpg. You are free to believe this, but please don't flood my talk page with this useless clutter and loud deletion threats. --Ghirla 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that documentations tell us to note you by default. It is easier to skip you and others, and tag image page only. Once, I had a problem in Wikimedia Commons, I filled some inactive user talk pages with these notes, which makes my browsing so slower. I taught about skipping all user talk pages. After few days, an user undid all of my edits and my hard work lost! For that reason, I note all users. Read this documentation for more.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not likely, but you still need to provide a source. I've been told this many times about images regardless of their age. Maybe it came from a website, maybe from a book; but wherever, it did not come from thin air, it had to come from someplace. You need to provide a source. Baseball Bugs 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need a source in that sense. You do need enough information (author or publication) to verify public domain status, though, and being really old isn't enough. If someone was born in 1840, took a photo in the U.S. at the age of 10, never published it, and died at the age of 100, we have an 1850 photo that's copyrighted until 2010. --NE2 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but really, how likely is that? At some point (pre-1900?) we ought to err on the side of assuming PD. Requesting source information is fine, but threatening to delete within a week when they've sat there for 4-5 years with no problems is rather counterproductive. Biruitorul 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I stopped arguing with these guys after they deleted the equivalent of Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 058.jpg because "the uploader needs to prove that it is a rembrandt" and not the work of a modern forger. I suddenly realized that browsing the web archives for a website where I had found the image years ago was not worth the effort: they will still find something to torment me with, say, that the attribution of Rembrandt paintings is highly uncertain, or that a reproduction may not reflect the original color scheme quite faithfully, or something else. In short, I can't prove that it is a rembrandt to someone who is determined to expose what a cheat I am. Let them have their way. I still firmly believe that the activity aimed at sourcing=deleting obvious (and in many cases hard-to-find) PD-art stuff is detrimental to the encyclopaedia. --Ghirla 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

extreme view. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not a copyright extremist. I (and many others) just read Misplaced Pages image policies and try to apply it. Simply, because it is our interest. Well, if Mr. Biruitorul ,or anyone else, think that image source policy has to change, I'll discus, and I may agree for better image hosting, but it is not my job! I think currently policy is fair enough. It is ugly to say: "a troll", "extreme view" or "Definitely disruptive". It is not my mistake when I try to apply Misplaced Pages policy.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never accused you of trolling. Biruitorul 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, you did not.--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Misplaced Pages rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements

Ignorance of Misplaced Pages rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, inncludig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Misplaced Pages rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Misplaced Pages, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Misplaced Pages rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, inlcuding basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin. How technically possiby can I be blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Misplaced Pages really turning into a POV supported absurdity?--Moldopodo 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HERE IS THE WHOLE STORY

OK, so where's the beef? Biruitorul 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, you were not blocked for filing a request, you were blocked for your racism, your ranting, your edit warring and your failure to get the point with, well, everything and anything. Whether others warrant a block has nothing to do with your block, which was fully justified. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review my actions at Overspending

Can someone please review my actions at Overspending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in particular in relation to this thread on the talk page: Talk:Overspending#Primary_source_is_outdated. I plan to disengage, so as to ensure I don't violate 3RR, but would like other admin's opinions as to whether I've already crossed (the spirit of) that line. --ZimZalaBim 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Colonel Warden that this discussion is taking place, and suggested he wait for a consensus on the article Talk before removing the {{Out of date}} tag again. Your willingness to disengage from editing the article for a while will be helpful here. The quality of this article seems disappointing, and it would be hard to argue with a WP:DRV nomination to review the closure of the recent AfD. (It was a speedy Keep, closed in less than 8 hours by a non-admin, without meeting the criteria for speedy keep in my opinion). Nothing wrong with you proposing the DRV since you were the AfD nominator, if you choose that option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:ZimZalaBim has added no content to the article in question and seems to be causing this disruption out of pique relating to another AFD. Since his behaviour seems to be stalking, it is well that he should withdraw. As for the article, I shall continue to work upon it as the fancy takes me since no-one else is doing so. Removing tags is quite proper in the course of such work since that is their purpose: to provoke edits which address the issue. In my most recent edit, I:

• added a source which was more recent than the disputed source
• provided some historical context to show that overspending is not a new phenonemon and so does not require an exclusively contemporary treatment.

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Harris Coalition

Hmmmm. Someone w experience & tact might want to glance at this page. Does the organization really exist? Is is wiki notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC) That bot is fast. Blocked me as I tried to go back and sign.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this is not the best place for questions on articles' notability, I agree with you that this is either a hoax or a very non-notable organization. As such, you might want to AfD it. If you need help with that, just let me know on my talk page. Juliancolton 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Although AfD'd, this ought to be G3 Speedied. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Italicus is ignoring the issue

Italicus appears to be one of many sockpuppets—a series of IPs and a couple of accounts.

I responded today by notifying all of the accounts of the report for suspected sock puppets, but 201.67.241.178 probably noticed and went ahead with the same thing (here we go again).

When that IP was blocked today, Italicus simply continued in doing the same thing. I don't think that I can deal with this for ten whole days. What should I do??? ~ Troy (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Italicus for continuing the edit war. Kevin (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I need a bureaucrat to email me

I have a matter that I need a bureaucrat to resolve, that involves personal information. Could a bureaucrat please email me? Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC) (Note: I'm aware of WP:BN)

Better off at WP:BN, IMO. Enigma 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, if it involves personal information an email is probably better. Nwwaew, you could just email any bureaucrat of your choice rather than waiting for a 'crat to happen along. Sarah 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On this day...

Can someone please tell me where I can edit the entries in this list, because I want to pull one of the stories out to make them line up with the Did You Know entries on the other side of the front page. Or can someone do it for me please? Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries/July 22 Moondyne 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I figured it out, what I really needed was some advice on whether I should pull a story from that section, as that would leave the section with only three stories and I'm not sure if that would be considered an insufficient number. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL by User:Fowler&fowler

Please see this edit diff edit-diff . Please see that the edit summary is an indirect legal threat. As it is quite serious, I request immediate action.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you take an oath of any sort? If not, then you can't perjure yourself in the legal sense. —Kurykh 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the word i had used "indirect" . User:fowler is clearly threatening here, why else he should make a remark like don't perjure yourself.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a breach of WP:NLT. On the other hand, anyone looking at this should probably be aware of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer... --Akhilleus (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:akhileus, Did you mean to say that I had made similar legal threats before???? This is as per Misplaced Pages:Don't overlook legal threats & Legal threats should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator. from WP:NLT.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I realize it's late at night, but I'm not seeing it. Where is the alleged "legal threat" in Fowler's posting? Baseball Bugs 06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See edit summary.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in riddles tonight. Please state explicitly what you're getting at. Quote the guy's alleged "threat". I'm not seeing it. Baseball Bugs 07:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"No Legal Threats", not "no legal terms". Honestly, now. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone posted this to my talk page. If anyone can find a "threat" in there anyplace, please point it out to me in plain, straightforward English:

Regarding Bharatveer's allegations against Fowler&fowler

These are the diffs I (will get an account soon) found "threatful"

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=226880350 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kerala_school_of_astronomy_and_mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=226878753 Was just trying to solve the riddle... anyways keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.60.172 (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a threat anywhere in there. Baseball Bugs 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Polly.White and, now, User:Pamela.Hale

Polly.White, hoaxer previously discussed here (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#User Space) appears to have returned as Pamela.Hale - recreating the same hoax article (The Romance Kiss, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Romance_Kiss), creating a near identical user page (Polly.White's is currently deleted and SALTed), and having the same, unusual, period between names.

Polly.White is nearing final vandalism warning and has a SALTed user page, so this looks like fairly simple sock puppetry - but there might be more to it. Polly.White appeared to be a merely a minor who liked to include herself in fantasy articles (both users specified their birthdate showing them to be 10). But as at least one of these user names is now clearly not the real name and the reason for creating the fantasy articles is less obvious. Does this sockpuppetry and vandalism which is not purely deluded vanity sound like the work of a 10 year old? Ros0709 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Are you thinking an adult pretending to be a child? Perhaps as a trap? I've blocked Pamela Hale as a sock and am tempted to indefblock Polly White too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - perhaps not as a trap, but possibly because editors reviewing contributions may look more favourably upon a ten year old girl than they would anyone else. Ros0709 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Negligent reverts

User:Baseball Card Guy has made numerous reverts to pages in which he has made quite a few errors. I had corrected a number of problems with regard to data as well as notability and image violations. I have given warning here. I have also tried to discuss the issues here. It does not appear to me the individual is interested in correct and verifiable information. I have previously asked the individual not to make frivolous reverts out of spite. Libro0 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the errors, or how are we to know that they really are errors? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing argument between these two over technicalities about the articles in question. Baseball Bugs 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of 1980 Topps for example, you will see a source cited. This book contains all of the data for the listed sets. This individual has a habit of undoing my edits frequently and in so doing has made mistakes. The sizes are listed in # x # inches. They are from the source in fractions. He changed them to decimals and in the process of redoing them all, had slipped up on a few. This also goes for errors made in quantity(of cards) of a given set. I have also had to clean up spelling and grammar that he refuses to allow me to correct. It has become clear to me that he does not have any of the source material. Libro0 (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you two the only ones editing those articles, or can you recruit help from others who also have an interest in the subject? Baseball Bugs 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I had considered this but here is the problem: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/I Hate CAPTCHAS, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy. Furthermore, it is a children's hobby and thus attracts the younger crowd. When I said that I did it as a 'scholarly pursuit' I was laughed at. Nevertheless, I stand by the fact that I did it to introduce both a notable company with roots in a popular hobby and the national pastime to the encyclopedia, and I did by providing verifiable material with sources that are considered the industry standard. The pages are not 'for me' or 'to my liking'. They were designed with wikipedia policy in mind. I would greatly appreciate assistance with these pages without the trouble of sock puppets or people wanting to decorate it with 'all their favorites'. This is not a selfish pursuit but I feel that for the above individual, it is. When I make the articles, I have the reader in mind. Libro0 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed conditional unban of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

This request may come as a surprise to those who have followed my admin actions over the last few months (such as in this log), but I'd like to propose a conditional unban of RMS. He first came on my radar a few months back as a banned editor who was routinely editing the encyclopedia. I truly believe that a ban is a ban and took it upon myself to enforce it to the best of my ability: blocking his socks, deleting articles he created while banned under CSD G5, and undoing virtually all of his edits. In fact, I think I have been even harsher in enforcing the ban than my fellow admins User:SirFozzie and User:Alison, whose long history with him predates my arrival on the scene.
Let me be clear in my request that he get a second chance that I do firmly believe that RMS has behaved quite badly in the past, see here and here for evidence of a deserved block and ban. However, I believe enough time has passed, and that he has made enough solid, encyclopedic contributions in the interim to warrant a strictly supervised conditional unban.
While I have been the number 1 RMS hunter around here in recent months (he referred to me as his 'nemesis' via email!), I'm happy to transition this role into the number 1 RMS supervisor. I've made myself incredibly clear that I have no qualms about strictly enforcing a ban around here, and have strongly impressed upon RMS that this is a one-strike, you're out deal. I will also be tracking him in my usual thorough manner to ensure compliance with the terms of his unbanning, and I will swiftly and firmly act in case of non-compliance. He has assured me that he will follow the guidelines laid out for him, as he has no desire to further see his hard work systematically wiped away from the encyclopedia by yours truly. He has been very cooperative and disclosed all of his unblocked accounts. He has agreed to all the terms of his conditional unban. I hope you'll consider this proposal to be of low potential cost and high potential gain.

Proposed terms

I have laid out the proposed terms of the unban here for your perusal, inspired by and borrowed from similar unbannings for User:Rootology and User:Vintagekits and incorporating the Arbcom ruling on The Troubles. These terms were a collaboration between User:Alison and myself.

Examples of his contributions

Articles created: Colin Woodroffe (geographer), Maude Storey, Stephen Fullarton, Nydia Westman, Dora Gordine, Robert McMordie, Kindred McLeary, Mari Fitzduff, Berta Scharrer, Sanford Palay, Ruth apRoberts, JuJu Chang, Colin Rankin, Patricia Bergquist, Felicity Peake, Tamsyn Imison, Jonancy, Kentucky, Tonieville, Kentucky, Aideen O'Kelly, Nicholas Candy, Florin Krasniqi
Deleted created articles (admins only): William Bulfin, Gordon MacWhinney, David Thornley (Irish politician), Arthur 'Robbie' Burns, Robin Livingstone, Mary Barbara Bailey, Shara L. Aranoff, Anita Brenner
Recent edits to the encyclopedia: 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Thanks for your consideration. I will block all of his recently disclosed accounts and restore his articles created under his ban should this be acceptable to the community. ~Eliz81 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Alison

Hi all. I'm User:Alison and I've been dealing with Robert Sieger (aka RMS) on and off for something like three years now. I've endorsed no less than two community bans of this character and have probably blocked more socks than anybody else on WP; it's literally been hundreds and hundreds and I've just given up even tagging them at this stage, there have been just sooo many. RMS has written quite disparagingly about me on Daniel Brandt's site amongst others. He had a reputation for being an extreme Unionist and anti-Catholic, anti-Irish POV-pusher and no Troubles article was safe from his interference and bigotry.

Back two years ago, RMS was a huge liability to the Misplaced Pages community and many hours were wasted by many folks in cleaning up and dealing with him. But along the way, something changed. He was always a wikignome, always interested in biographical articles and early 20th century actors and actresses. His attentions started moving away from Troubles-related articles to his favourite topics where he actually did a lot of really good work; adding facts, tidying articles and finding references, etc. The fact of the matter is that Robert is helplessly wiki-addicted (and self-confessed, to boot :) ) and just loves contributing to the project. As time passed, as I discovered RMS socks, I'd block them procedurally - half-heartedly - and apologize in the block log! I hadn't the heart to rollback his edits, and as time went by it just got sillier and sillier. RMS would ditch the account and immediately move on to another. It's All About The Editing, and he just loves contributing.

I'd like to endorse Eliz81's proposal to unban Robert, though under some clearly defined conditions, similiar to those proposed in Vintagekits' case;

• Robert will edit from one account and one account only.
• He will initially be placed under a three-month topic ban regarding all Troubles-related articles.
• When that expires, he will be subject to another three month's restrictions under the Troubles Arbcom probation conditions.
• A mentor will be appointed from the WP community, similar to the Sarah777 case. This mentor should be chosen by the community. If the community wishes, I'll gladly assist.

I expect there to be a number of voices of dissent here - especially from the Nationalist side of the Troubles dealings, but I sincerely believe that Robert has reformed and put all that behind him. I've been in extensive email contact over the space of two years and can see the change in him. Without going into too many personal details, he had a number of issues some years back which contributed to his problems on-wiki, but these have been long-since resolved. In closing, though I've campaigned strongly in the past for his ban, I've also gone full-circle and am now sticking my neck out and calling for his unban.

It high time that Robert came in from the cold - Alison 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I'd like to point out that if RMS decides to renege on his word here, I'll be very happy to banninate his ass from WP and block his future socks with impunity. He's definitely in the Last Chance Saloon - Alison 07:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Tom Mix would give this the nod, so I will too ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be more willing to support an unblock if he had gone several more months without any socks, but I trust Eliz and Alison's judgement on this (and the ease to reblock should he slip up in any way), I'll weak support this SirFozzie (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This all seems very sensible and gracious. I'm with SirFozzie on this. Synergy 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, no, not under any circumstances ever. This mainspace edit alone where he pipes to my userpage describing me as a "Irish fifth columnists and republican supporters" and makes various other disgraceful accusations should mean this editor should never be unbanned. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree here. Regardless of his positive contributions, if he upsets just 1 other user what are we gaining? his hatred has probably upset more than one user and non-contributors as well if any of them saw his behaviour. We have all kinds of wikignomes that are here, have been here, and will come in the future. There is no reason to extend further chances to a bigot.--Crossmr (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I admire the fact that both Alison and Eliz81 have contributed extensively to this and particularly in the terms of probation that 'he will be banned if there is a violation of the conditions' laid out there. However, with comments like those linked by One Night in Hackney, I have serious doubts as to whether this effort is in vain. Its relatively recent and if we lose one good editor for the sake of giving another chance to someone who is already banned, the former wins again and again. Rudget (logs) 10:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break - Responses to above statements etc (RMS125a)

I support this action and similar actions 100%. Past civility infractions should not come before future potential gain. To the people who are too personally involved to see the good that could come of this, I'm sorry, get over it. Beam 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question: I know zero zilch nada about this case, so consider this either a useless uninformed view, or a valuable fresh outside view, your choice. But based only on what I read above, why is the topic ban so short? If the problem is massive past misbehavior on the topic, and his latest contribs have been wikignoming on other topics, why not a 1 year topic ban, and a similar 1 year ban on interacting with people he's fought with in the past? If he plans to get back into Troubles-related editing after 3 months, I'd say it isn't worth the risk; if not, then a longer topic ban shouldn't be a problem, and I'd welcome his help in all other areas. --barneca (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  Rephrasing: I oppose this unless the topic ban and interaction ban are extended to one year, or until someone gives me a good reason why doing so is a bad idea. If they are extended, I support. I understand and have weighed Durova's points below, but think they aren't a deal-breaker. I wish I could explain why now, but I have to go; assuming this hasn't been resolved before I return, I may comment on Durova's reasonable position later. --barneca (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  I have no personal stake in this, perhaps you should read WP:AGF before you slam other editors opinion. This is the first I've read of it and I find it disgusting that anyone is remotely considering giving this person another chance given what they did.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. Under the best of conditions it is difficult to persuade sitebanned editors to refrain from socking; it is an exceedingly bad idea to propose rewards for that behavior. Higher up on this very page we have just concluded a community ban on a prolific editor whose plagiarism, copyright violation, and misuse of sources are so pervasive that every edit she has made may need to be reverted. She has started to sock, she is threatening to sock more, it is likely she is reading that thread, and may be reading this one. That person does not benefit from a mixed message. Others like her do not benefit from a mixed message. We are not so badly in need of one more wikignome. Tell RMS125a to sit on the sidelines. If he or she does that without socking for six months I'll open the unban proposal myself. Not this way, though. Absolutely not this way. Durova 10:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What? But this editor apparently contributes good stuff, not copyvio garbage, self referencing bullshit. The only thing being rewarded here is good editing, good contributions, and honesty about past infractions. Beam 10:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bullshit. I can cope with incivility towards me on talk pages, user talk pages, wiki pages, but I object to in in the strongest possible terms when I am attacked in article space. If that is what you call "good editing, good contributions", then your opinion is worthless. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I meant by "personally involved." The editor in questions, according to two well respected administrators (both who were attacked mind you), say that he is such a positive to the project they are willing to overlook it. Whereas you, instead of being so gracious, attacked me because I even suggested getting over your personal issues. Nice. Beam 11:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hackney, I agree with your argument; it would be more persuasive without the distracting epithet. Beam, the point of my argument is that this proposal turns WP:SOCK on its ear, and sends precisely the wrong message to an entire population of banned users. This conversation does not take place in a vest pocket universe in which RMS125a's ban status is of no interest to anybody else. Banned editors read our noticeboards, banned editors use Google, banned editors network with other banned editors. And perhaps you think we can reward one person's ban-evading sockpuppeteering without that influencing any other banned editor, but I don't. Even those who propose this unblock are dubious it would succeed; I think in the larger picture it's a bad idea to try at all. Some other way, certainly. I hope to have the pleasure of giving RMS125a the resilient barnstar someday, but I refuse to validate this socking. Durova 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam: There's very personal issues between ONiH and RMS. I was there for a while with him, blocking RMS's socks. I had to think long and hard about even the weakest support involved here. I understand where Hack's anger is coming from. I do understand Durova's point about that how are we to believe that he'll follow his rules when he's been breaking them left and right. My thoughts are.. what harm does it get to unblock, if he screws up, he's gone again permanently, and if he has improved, then the encyclopedia benefits. That, the ease of any action that needs to be taken, and my faith in Alison and Eliz's judgement is the reason why I did support. SirFozzie (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. At most they suffer one more attack, and then that's it for atleast a while. Can they not take that risk for the good of the 'pedia? Beam 11:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone's been attacked as much as ONiH has (you've seen the edit above where RMS sneaks an attack on ONIH into article space, right?), and done as much work to keep RMS off WP, I think we should give ONIH a little extra wiggle room. I know he's upset, he's made it clear to me how upset he is, and there's part of me that doesn't blame him at all. Jumping down his throat doesn't help discussion, really. SirFozzie (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I firmly believe the interests of Misplaced Pages are better served by retaining the ban at this time. At most we gain a wikignome. We have plenty of those already, and none carry the downsides this one would. Durova 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe personal feelings are getting in the way of judgment. Per Alison and Eliz, who both are offering to watch and monitor the situation, I see no reason not to let him give it a go, a one strike you're out type deal. But, of course, I wasn't insulted by this person.Beam 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What a strange supposition; I have zero history in this conflict and I have a consistent record of opposing similar unblock proposals for the identical reasons. Durova 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you had a personal problem, I was referring to someone else, but the logic behind my post, positive contributions, stand to you as well. Beam 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not superhuman beings, they are human like everyone else and make mistakes. On this occasion I believe they are making a huge mistake, and believe me I've made plenty myself including one I regret very much. However ArbCom recommended this editor should be "banned by acclamation", and that was well before his subsequent community ban. You've got an editor who's banned for prolific sockpuppetry (considering they stopped being tagged ages ago an exact number isn't known, probably around a thousand socks now), POV editing and attacks on other editors. The prolific sockpuppetry has never stopped, and my one diff shows he's prepared to make gross POV edits to an encyclopedia article that attack the CRE, Irish people and another editor all with one edit. Regardless of who he attacks, anyone prepared to do that should not be permitted to edit this encyclopedia, and I'd argue that even if he hadn't attacked me with the edit in question, and I can find you plenty more diffs where he attacks other people too. Couple that with the fact he did it while he was already banned, and it's a no brainer - this person should not be unbanned under any circumstances. Everything he was banned for he's still been doing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Everyone makes mistakes. Beam 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people drop a spoon by mistake. This person is a proven bigot who harassed entire nations of people. Sorry, but given the choice between the two users, I don't want that person on this encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesing that you support banning someone who watermarks images indefinitely , and yet someone who harasses and abuses other editor and had multiple prior chances should be allowed back in? That certainly seems rather polar...--Crossmr (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the unblock. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• If we keep him on a short leash, then fine. Sceptre 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Willing to trust Alison and Eliz81 on this one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole

Not seeing what admins can do here. An unfortunate case where two good editors are in conflict over something extremely trivial, and at least one of them is saying things they really shouldn't. WP:CIVIL is policy. Orderinchaos 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued with the uncivil insults and will not remove the comments made yet remove mine. If this user is allowed to continue to insult me and left those comments up then that leave a message out there saying it's ok to insult of other editors. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a note that I've posted this here and they call my notice as trolling Bidgee (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the user "Hey, you, out of the..." Gene Poole, is unhappy about this article being nominated for deletion, and is spending his time baiting other editors instead of actually working on improving the article, i.e. on finding reliable sources. Maybe a good word from an admin would get Poole refocused. Baseball Bugs 07:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww FFS. This does not require admin intervention, unless Baseball Bugs and Bidgee are somehow compelled to look at Gene's page. Gene's being a prat, but he's also being needled at home. Go find something else to do, please, everyone. - brenneman 07:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As an Admin you should know better then what you said above (and here) and know that the comments made by User:Gene Poole are uncivil not matter where it's posted, Do you have a personal problem with me? Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourself. This is a bilateral problem of baiting and biting. Either bury the hatchet or walk away, but don't come here looking for people to take sides because you might not like the side they take. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not about sides but it's to do with insults and it seem JzG it's ok for a user to call someone stupid and an idiot which is wrong and you fail as an Admin since they user broke Wiki's policys. I could careless if the list that I put up for deletion is safe. As of now I'm will no longer be an editor on here since the Admin (Aaron Brenneman) refuses to remove the statements made by Gene Poole. So it seems to be ok of users to insult and for Admins to leave the insults and have ago at the victim. The way it's going editors will see insults as ok which is the wrong path for Wiki as a project to take. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That didn't help either. But I am pig sick of people who come here bitching about the reaction their actions provoke, and refuse to admit any fault whatsoever. It's rare that any issue like this is wholly the fault of one side. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The two editors need to leave each other alone and work on proving or disproving that the article in question should be deleted. As I've told them. And also warned Poole that calling people "idiots" enough times is a blockable offense, unless the standards have relaxed in the last year or so. Baseball Bugs 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have respect for both editors from past dealings, and I'd say Baseball Bugs's advice immediately above has merit. AfD can be an emotionally fraught area, I avoid it for weeks at a time for that reason. Orderinchaos 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate result here is that failure to take any action on the civility policy implicitly states that calling other editors "idiots" is OK. I was once blocked for doing that. Has the level of civility worsened so much in the last year that "idiots" is now considered to be an insult only on the order of "you silly pudding"? Baseball Bugs 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious page vandalism

Hi, I don't know if this is quite the right place to bring this up, but I noticed the page for the computer game Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War has been the target of serious vandalism which I don't think can be reverted without the help of an administrator. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheres the vandalism? As far as I can tell, June (30th?) was the last edit. Synergy 09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no June 20th. In any event, if any article is subject to massive amounts of vandalism by multiples users/ips, it goes to WP:RPP. If not, report a user or ip to WP:AIV (this is because blocking one editor is preferred over protecting the article in question). Synergy 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Grawp transclusion vandalism, someone has reverted the template so it's gone now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No wonder I couldn't see it... Synergy 09:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei

Tenmei (talk · contribs) has been engaging in personal abuse and disruptive behaviour on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could please review this issue and take appropriate action. To summarise a long story, he has inserted text which describes these ships as aircraft carriers and is disrupting efforts to replace this with text which captures the ambiguity over the ships' classification (the Japanese government and some sources says that they are destroyers, other sources say they are helicopter carriers and other sources say they're aircraft carriers). As is shown on Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, he has not explained the rationale for his opposition to including this text despite repeated requests from other editors, but has instead responded with a string of personal attacks on pretty much all the involved editors (for instance: , , , , (note also the rejection of the process which used to develop the consensus text in this diff and the statement that he stood aside and waited for the discussion to be complete so he could restart the discussion again, along with further personal attacks), and ). He has been warned about making personnal attacks several times (, , and ) but they are continuing. As is clear on the talk page Tenmei was invited to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than carriers, but did not do so, and was invited to participate in drafting a consensus paragraph which discusses the disagreement over the ships' classification but did not participate in this discussion. Instead, a week after the discussion was completed and shortly after I added the consensus text to the article he is now demanding that the consensus on the need to discuss the ambiguity over the ships' classification be overturned and the discussion be restarted from square one (I would be happy to provide diffs for this, but it's probably easier and more meaningful to review the article's talk page directly to get a flavour for the discussion). He is still declining to provide a reason for this, however, and is continuing to make personal attacks. I believe that this behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:POINT and would appreciate it if an admin could please issue an appropriate sanction. Thank you. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help that Tenmei uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil. Until he goes around throwing insults at editors, I doubt a civility block would be in order. However, I have fully protected Hyūga class helicopter destroyer due to the dispute, and issues should be worked out on the talk page now. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Tenmei's comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offence, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself. Not just for that reason though... I gave up reading eventually. Talk about wading through treacle - strongly recommend he reads WP:TLDR. EyeSerene 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, including protecting the page. As the edit war there is pretty slow paced and the smallish number of edits have been spread across several editors, I think that it is the nature of the discussion on the talk page which most requires intervention. I consider the comments which I've posted diffs to above to be highly rude and constitute personal attacks given the consistant complete lack of any assumption of good faith - instead there appears to be an assumption that everyone has an agenda which they're pushing other than a desire to improve the article. All requests to Tenmai that he explain his concerns and participate in resolving the dispute have been met with uncivil responses, and warnings against his behavior have had no effect. As such, I don't see how it's possible to work out the issues on the talk page as Tenmai is not willing to discuss them. Given that the behaviour has been continuing for over a week now (including a very lengthy cool down period while I waited to see if he had any comments on the consensus text before inserting it in the article) I think that external intervention is required. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Paroles

Please see this edit . Territorial expansionism. Inflammatory messages.
These kind of messages are not enhancing Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a forum nor a graffiti wall. Kubura (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning left for user. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day unblock proposal

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

I don't see that this discussion is going to have any chance of an unblock. I probably have had an error of judgment here, but please don't throw the book at me, for perhaps assuming too much good faith. Best, Steve Crossin (contact) 14:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See related thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fredrick_day_vandalism.2Fharassment_active_again

I think most of us know who Frederick Day is. He was blocked in late march for harassment, among other things. Most users here are familiar with Frederick's previous activity. He recently returned as Allemandtando (talk · contribs), where he made constructive contributions, though was blocked as a sock puppet. Fredrick had requested an unblock here, noting that there would be conditions to an unblock, and I'm one to think that we should extend second chances to users. I realise that Fredrick has had major issues in the past, but I think that we should extend second chances when a good faith request is made. I propose that Fredrick Day is unblocked, though placed on some sort of civility parole, and placed under mentorship. He would of course, be limited to one account, and any other suggestions that can be considered. I know that he has a poor history, but I think that we should extend second chances where possible. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (contact) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also include a 1RR limit if he does get unblocked. Seddσn 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally support SteveCrossin's proposal, The editor was doing no harm and was bein constructive.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a second active thread on this page about this blocked editor? Avruch 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Has caused so much trouble and continues to cause it, saying one doesn't want to sock anymore as a reason for unblock is not convincing. MBisanz 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I don't have anything against him personally, I'm sure he's capable of being a very positive contributor - but I don't think using sockpuppets and hanging around on IRC to make friends is the way to get unblocked. I suggested he contribute to other projects for awhile, and build up a reputation of constructive participation in a WMF community. That was only yesterday. After he's demonstrated he can consistently adhere to behavioral policies I'd support an unblock - but he hasn't yet. Avruch 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

comment I'm mad for Koc and I hope he comes back, but it's a bit soon to propose this only a few days after it was discovered that he was a sock of a banned user. Whenever we propose an unblock of someone who's been socking, they should at least face a short block before that's allowed, to let them know socking is not ok. This bloke lied about his past, I can understand why but it's still cheeky. We can have a week or a few weeks to work out the details of the unblock, and to deter socking by him or others. Sticky Parkin 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you unblock this guy, you may as well just throw all the rules out the window. Baseball Bugs 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I must oppose. The separate reversions dealt with in the first of the two AN/I threads are concerning. Originally, I thought it might not be the same person -- there is the occasional stalker -- but the IP addresses (User:88.105.116.147: Fredrick Day) and the reverter above (User:88.105.58.91) are too similar for it to be a coincidence. I applaud Steve for assuming good faith with these actions, but I'm not convinced this behaviour has stopped. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawrencoma's identity theft

This user Lawrencoma has very recently created a similar user name to my own (as well as copying my user page) to evade previous banning for sockpuppetry as well as to continue their disruptive edits to the Al Anbar Governorate and Ramadi articles. I think this user has already been banned previously under the names of Hisham 5ZX, Hisham100 and Shihab20 as well as a number of IP addresses in Haifa, Israel. Following the ban, he created Hisham600 and the new Lawrencoma.

• Supporting evidence:

Here is the diff for the most disruptive edit to the Al Anbar Governorate article:

I also think that our respective user pages is clear evidence of a breach, not to mention identity theft. It should also be noted that I always include an edit summary in my edits - this user clearly does not.

Please move this to the correct page if I have made a mistake. Lawrencema (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned user User:Encyclopedist appears to be back again...

..and using IP 76.107.120.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) to vandalize and possibly impersonate another user... Though, oddly, the user name he signs there appears to have never been used for actual edits and just forwards to another account... that might need to be cleaned up, checked for a sock or something. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Encyclopedist should never be allowed to edit, given what he's done to other users. Sceptre 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards