Misplaced Pages

Somewhat related to this issue. Despite my attempts to get away from this crap, I ended up doing some reverts of his latest round of vandalism. To my shock, however, established editor User:Colonel Warden is now actively supporting this known vandal's edits and is doing edits for him, including undoing merges that have been in place for months, and reverting attempts to restore them,, restoring Bambifan101's IP sock edits, even adding a WP:COPYRIGHT violating link to one reverted article, etc. He is even using false edit summaries in these edits. I mean, I know he's a big time inclusionist, but this seems very excessive to me, and it seems to be more about attempting to undo something I did rather than a genuine concern for the articles, from his own remarks about why he undid the merge. I asked LessHeard vanU about the issue, as it seemed very inappropriate to me that CW is now basically helping the vandal which seems to go against WP:BAN.. Unfortunately, CW's responses were less than encouraging.

• Comment My interest in this matter arises from User:SoWhy's post at the head of this section which caught my eye yesterday. I looked into the topics in question and found them in need of some content-editing attention. One of them, for example, is a Number 1 hit single in the UK which has sold over a million copies, making it a platinum disk. Furthermore there was some seasonal relevance in that it was nearly a Christmas No.1 which is a perennial topic at this time of year. I have been fleshing this out but Collectionian seems so incensed by this that she has now proposed that the article be deleted altogether - an absurd proposition. Anyway, this is just an ordinary content dispute and the only special feature is that we have this Bambifan chap buzzing around in the background. I have no particular interest in them - it is the topics which concern me. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary alone is sufficiently deceptive that it renders Colonel Warden's motivations suspect.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hardly. I was adding to the article, working from the previous full version. Collectonian had interposed a redirect and so, of course, this was overwritten in adding additional material to the article. The point here was that another source was being added, so making the redirect moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Evasion in response to having your deceptive edit summaries pointed out doesn't help. The major impact of your edit was to undo a redirect. You and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles both try this nonsense of pretending that redirects don't exist and your edit summaries don't need to take them into account. It's disruptive when he does it, and it's disruptive when you do it. I think that behaviour alone is worthy of a block until you agree to stop doing it.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I gather that you are an enthusiast for such redirections and so are not impartial in this matter. Please indicate a relevant guideline/policy regarding edit summaries and I will be happy to consider it. Currently I tend to be brief and indicate with words such as "etc" or "&c" if there is more than can be easily summarised. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Undoing redirect" is beyond your ability to type?—Kww(talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have consulted the relevant guideline which says, "Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).". This is what I did - I summarised the changes which seemed important to me - the addition of sourced material - and appended ", etc." so that editors with other priorities could consult a diff if they wanted to know more. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't seriously expect people to believe that you find the redirects unimportant. If they were unimportant to you, you wouldn't spend so much of your editing energy searching them out and undoing them. As usual, your response to criticism is to attempt to be evasive and glib. I don't think that you fool anyone.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. I mean...what is the point of lying in an edit summary like that. It isn't like people with half a brain are going to say "Hmm, he says he's making minor changes but the file size changes from 234 bytes to 5600, I guess I won't check up on that". What do you gain? Protonk (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The suggestion that this was deliberate deception is ridiculous because it is obvious that adding content will override a redirect. Collectonian watches over articles quite closely and, as in this case, you can expect immediate counter-action when making an edit with which she disagrees. I have had content disputes with her before and am quite familiar with the pattern. Rather than engaging with the substantive issue, one has to deal with a torrent of wikilawyering like this irrelevant matter of the edit summary. The bottom line here is that I have reinstated and improved an article which should never have been redirected in the first place and the community is endorsing my action at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!. A better example of deception can be seen at this AFD in the claim of consensus for that redirection, when on inspection, it turns out to have been a unilateral action. The AFD nomination itself is an obvious abuse of process. Maybe this pattern of zealous behaviour is relevant to the Bambifan matter. Why is the Disney Vandal so fixated upon Collectonian? Is this a case of a young editor who was bitten hard and is now retaliating in a correspondingly immature way? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's nice. Now you continue lying. The AfD is not an abuse of process. You undid a very valid merge for no other reason than because you saw that I was the one who did it. Even the AfD is only saying keep (it was already kept), rather than delete. Sucks, but the merge was still valid. The article was tagged for merge TWO MONTHS without a single voice of complaint, so the merge was performed. How you can actually believe that one paragraph stub is somehow better in its own article than merged into the Teletubbies article is beyond me, but considering you are running around helping a vandal who has been active for over a year, nothing you do surprises me anymore. As for your final implication, to be blunt, F you. If anyone is acting like a fanatic, its you with you continued decline from at least a semi-respectable editor to pulling the same sort of crap I'd expect from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Nevermind that you totally ignored WP:BRD as the merge had been in place long enough that you should not have continued reverting its doing, but instead should have started a new split discussion. and As for the vandal, he was active long before I got involved (and would be the first to tell you) and he continued being active long after. I just amused him more because I caught him faster than anyone else bothered too, so he likely felt he had a challenge for the first time. He also vandalizes at least 5 other known Wikis, but of course, here he now has a new best friend (you) who will help him re-ruin many articles. Good going! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

<-- It is my experience that Collectonian knows what she is doing here. As far as I'm concerned, when she makes protection requests or sock reports, I take them seriously. Tan | 39 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and to note, I primarily did protection requests on those sub-articles which have been merged for quite awhile and which he seemed to be amusing himself by un-doing the merge, then redoing, then undoing. Protection seemed the best route. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• To be fair, whilst Kww is quite right about the "sneaky" undoing of redirects by certain users, this one is undoubtedly independently notable. The edit summary should've noted it, though. Black Kite 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is notable, does it really need its own article when all there is to say about it is what is there? That same information was already merged to the main article over a month ago, with no issues at all. Sometimes, even notable stuff can and should be combined into a more notable piece. And shouldn't a discussion have occurred before just arbitrarily undoing it under false edit summaries? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• It seems I'm a little late to this party, my invite must have been lost in the mail. I'm the one who tried to get pages blocked in order to obstruct and bore the Bambifan socks. I still don't quite understand the resistance to this idea. This banned user's latest blocked sock was using their talk page to "suggest" changes they might like to see. That is ban evasion and a clear abuse of multiple accounts. I let User:AGK convince me to drop it while he tried to reason with the sock, and when he saw how this banned user was talking one thing and doing another, he suddenly quit the project. So, now that we've lost a valued admin (at least partially) over this, you'll have to forgive me for feeling that we need to do everything within our power to stop this person. This conversation has wandered slightly off that topic, but it is my main interest here is to stress that I think with a concerted, prolonged effort they could be stopped, but only if admins don't take a defeatist attitude, saying it's not possible to stop this user, they'll never go away, etc. This user is not like other vandals, who move on to new territory when their "favorite" articles get blocked. They are obsessed with a small circle of articles on children's TV and films. If we can take those away from them, they won't have any "fun". And I don't see why any talk page of a known named sock of this user shouldn't be indef protected to prevent them from evading their ban and causing more disruption, like this whole episode. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding AGK, I assure you that it is  Unrelated, as he has told me personally. (He's not posting himself because that'd defeat the purpose of his retirement.)

"I've been pondering the retirement for a good while. I've banned enough users in my time to not become totally disillusioned with the project because one banned user fails to reform" is basically my thoughts. - AGK, as told to Penwhale, posted with his consent

• My question is why we haven't dealt with this at the ISP level. Can't someone from the office call whatever the ISP is and notify them of the continued abuse? They should be able to track down who the user is and throttle their WP access at the source. // roux   20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I filed an abuse report months ago, no one did anything with it. I also emailed the ISP abuse line and got no response at all. One of many reasons I got tired of dealing with the mess, seeming impossible to really do anything about him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The abuse reports seem worse than useless. Isn't there someone at WMF who can handle these things at an 'official' level? One would think a letter on WMF letterhead from Godwin would be enough, no? // roux   20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection's a definite here--the only question is how long? I'd personally go indef, given the level of disruption. Blueboy96 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Collectonian, can you post a list of currently unprotected, Bambi-sock-target articles to my talk page, and I'll indefinitely semi-protect them? Tan | 39 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List posted. In the last AN/I thread I participated in about this, I also posted a basic summary of his editing style and indicators its probably him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi does nothing. I've seen it happen on Simple. One of his original targets was The Fox and the Hound, which Majorly protected. Once Cassandra semi-protected WALL-E and Charlotte's Web 2, Bambifan jumped around to Teletubbies (those had to be protected as well). It's been so long ago that I can't remember all the targets that he's hit. Synergy unprotected those articles about a month ago, and I haven't been back to check to see any history of disruption. Indef semi will only block valid anonymous user edits and really doesn't stop him. He also puzzlingly became productive with his Touchpath account (riddled with typos, but he was creating articles where none existed) and was only blocked by Majorly when Collectionian informed them that he was, in fact, the Disney vandal. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for a comprehensive list of pages I semi-protected indefinitely. I agree that this is not a complete fix, Hbdragon. However, I disagree that it will do "nothing". It at least creates another hoop for him to jump through, at minimal blood and treasure for us. Tan | 39 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interim naming of December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes

We're having a problem where a fresh set of eyes might help. There is some discussion of what to call the article about the recent events in the Gaza strip. The article began as "Operation Cast Lead" named for the Israeli code name for the operation and some editors felt that this was a violation of WP:NPOV. That discussion (with the requisite renaming wars) began here and then continued here.

At issue is what to name the article in the interim, while we attempt to build consensus about a long term name. Specifically, that User:Cerejota might have overstepped by changing the name of the article to the current name while discussion was still ongoing. It seems to me that there is growing consensus that the article should be changed back for now if not forever, but that could be my own bias on the subject,

The general sense that I'm getting is that people are frustrated and unsure as to how to proceed both on the short and long term. So I'm asking for an admin to take a look and give us some feedback.

Lot 49a 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Operation Cast Lead? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We've had a few arguments raised: that an incident that involves killing civlians shouldn't be named after a poem, that by using the IDF name for it, we're endorsing their view, that no one in the media is using Operation Cast Lead to describe the events etc. There are screens and screens of arguments

Lot49a, we do not discuss content here at ANI, we discuss behavior needing admin intervention. It is sufficient to mention that you are misrepresenting the views you do not share. Interested editors can see the arguments, for and against, in the talk page. I am responding to your behavioral claims separately, as it seems you do not have the full information available. It is also obvious from your post you do have a side to pick, which is unfortunate, as I haven't seen you argue in the talk page as one should. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to all of this and wondering if instead of AN/I I should have gone to RFC? It honestly doesn't REALLY matter what we call the article in the interim while we wait to decide about the long term name. Both names redirect to the same page.Lot 49a 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Article started as Operation Cast Lead, but when I arrived the title was 2008 Gaza Strip bombings here is diff. That is when the discussion that Lot references started. A discussion started to develop, and in the middle of it, User:Wikifan12345 User:RyanGerbil10 reverted to Operation Cast Lead believing, incorrectly, with it being consensus. Then I reverted, and then did minor refactorings for language. Someone suggested that rather than "bombing", "airstrikes" was more correct, and I agreed it was so and changed it. If I overstepped, so did User:Wikifan12345 and User:RyanGerbil10. I believe none of us did, but I believe RyanGerbill is mistaken in thinking he operated with consensus. He didn't.

Yes, I was WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to ensure that an incorrect title didn't remain: Operation Cast Lead makes a great redirect, and should be mentioned in the lead, but both the immense majority of the reliable sources and a need for editorial neutrality make it invalid as an article name choice. Consensus cannot operate against policy on a per article basis: systemic changes on policy are to be by systemic consensus. I stand by the judgment call made, as it makes us a better encyclopedia.

As to a generalized sense of frustration, I disagree. I think we are all discussing this, and we disagree and agree but this is normal. There has been two users I have had issues in particular, User:Wikifan12345 (I can provide diffs upon request) that I have asked to calm down as he was on the verge of personal attacks (this is the same user who moved against consensus himself and who I reverted, and who has in fact launched threats to "get higher authority" over disagreements, personalizing the debate) - and User: Cowmadness who made inflammatory, soapboxy claims in a discussion I WP:SNOWBALL closed as irrelevant, and then posted some stuff about "talking to Jimbo" in my talk page. Otherwise, I have seen no other expression of frustration, just disagreement.

As a reminder this article falls into the Discretionary Sacntions ruling of the ArbCom for all Israeli-Palestinian articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"we do not discuss content here at ANI", you say just three minutes before posting a comment that... hm... discusses content on ANI. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to explain my behavior, from my perspective. My intent was not to raise a content debate, but address my behavior. I am sure you are capable of understanding the difference. (no thanks! because you find them sarcastic) --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The original title was Operation Cast Lead. There were about 6 members discussion the title, resulting in a lengthy 10 paragraph debate. But Cerejota completely ignored the discussion, and unilaterally changed the title to Dec 2008 Gaza Strip Airstrikes. He said the original title wasn't neutral, but even if that were the case (which it clearly isn't), he had no right to change the title without discussing it in the talk page. The title could have been Israel is Evil and he still would have been obligated to look at the rationale. In any case, Gaza Airstrike doesn't even reflect the article, as it now contains heavy infantry and ground-based finding. It's been more than 20 hours and nothing has changed. This is just ridiculous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, wrong forum. In reponse to Cerejota's bevahior, it was completely unprofessional. Changing the title of an article before a consensus has been reached is a gross violation of wikipedia policy. In addition, the strong claim of lack of neutrality carried no weight, no merit, not even evidence, other than opinion/perspective that doesn't belong in such a controversial article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, whenever I called him out on his behavior, he told me to "Chill out". Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, you are factually incorrect, and if you are going to assert things to uninvolved people, at least have the common decency of providing evidence:

1. The article started as Operation Cast Lead. The starting, as with most articles, was done without discussion, to my knowledge. Hence the article name was chosen by the initial editor. Yet, we can all agree he doesn't own the article, nor its name.
2. It was moved within 4 and a half hours of creation by user User:Jandrews23jandrews23 to 2008 Gaza City Bombings arguing it was clearer. This remained the name of the article for a few minutes and then User:Ceedjeemoved to 2008 Gaza Strip Bombings (because it wasn't just Gaza City) only to be changed by User:Joowwww to 2008 Gaza Strip bombings as per MoS capitalization.
3. This remained the name for almost four hours, until the debate that Wikifan talks about.
4. It was changed by User:RyanGerbil10
5. I reverted his change, first to the last version by User:Joowwww, then to a slight refactoring, and then upon a suggestion from another user, to the present name, that has remained due to a move-block in order to prevent a move war.

This tells us a couple of things, one that the "original" named had changed by a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing. The other is that at least three users had endorsed variations of the article name that were more similar to the present version, but neither their opinions were solicited, nor enough time was given for them to give an opinion. Since they operated uncontroversially, at the very least the discussion should have lasted as long as their version did, but in reality, it should have been longer. Wikifan's allegations are weak and without evidence: he has claimed in multiple occasions that I reverted the original name. I didn't. I reverted the name as it stood before the discussion happened.

So having fixed the chronology, an exploration of the discussion referenced by Wikifan also reveals he is misrepresenting facts by simple assertion:

DON'T SUPPORT THE CHANGE

I don't. The current "2008 Gaza Strip Bombing" seems fine. LOTRrules (talk • contribs • email) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION BY ANON USER

Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? 77.127.144.240 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RANDOM COMMENT?

If we change this one we'll have to change all but that's ok. It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. My problem with the gaza strip bombing is that there were many bombings in 2008 against gaza, see 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. So we should find a better name or leave this one but not return to the operations name as it is only called that way by the IDF and the rest of the world calls it gaza bombings or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER SUGGESTION

What about "Late 2008 Gaza Strip bombings"? I think it avoids both ambiguity and the not-widely-known operation names. Darwish07 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WEAK SUPPORT BECAUSE RELIABLE SOURCES DO NOT NAME IT, OPEN DISCUSSION

Well "Operation Cast Lead" would be actually better than 2008 Gaza bombings, but it isn't known for that name, internationally I mean.It's fine with me if u return it to that name but wait until 3 more Users or the majority of the biggest contributors agree.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

NO OPERATION NAME (IE THE POSITION THAT MH HAS)

I believe the Military History project has been over this countless times, so I'd suggest checking their discussions before adjusting other articles. Joshdboz

LETS WAIT FOR THE EVENTS TO UNFOLD (ie keep current name for now)

We should wait and see what unfolds between the two sides. Its current name, 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previously fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response. Chesdovi

FOR Operation Cast Lead

"I endorse the name change. Seriously guys, "Gaza Strip Bombing"? LOL. Wikifan12345 (notice how from the start, his attitude is not about having a discussion, but impossing his views by denigrating those who disagree with him) Happy138 Kormin RyanGerbil10 tariqabjotu topynate (this user has since changed his position, showing that consensus can change: WP:MILMOS#CODENAME states that "operational codenames generally make poor titles." The exception given is if the operation is amongst the 'most well-known' of operations, e.g. Barbarossa. Based on this, I retract my prior opinion in favour of Operation Cast Lead, and urge a name that follows WP:MILMOS.topynate (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, six users "for", one of which changed upon learning about our guidelines changed. However, seven users where either ambiguous or seemed willing to discuss the matter further rather than change right away. We don't vote nor do we have deadlines: this is hardly the wide discussion and strong consensus that Wikifan claims. In fact, it is a weak discussion among editors, and ignored arguments against and operated on a self-contained block, with RyanGerbil10 being the operator. It was not long enough, it didn't have enough participants (notably those who had agreed with the previous title).

Hardly a consensus, we can all agree.

So when User:RyanGerbil10 moved against the consensus of almost four hours (or almost half of the article life), I reverted to defend the neutral consensus. Wikifan (and to a lesser extent others) seem not to understand that consensus is not a vote. Consensus is what is most stable. Discussion is a way we can move consensus, but not the only way. It is clear the "original" name Operation Cast Lead was not consensus, and the alternatives developed by the natural process of editing. It was the WP:IAR action of User:RyanGerbil10 that lead to my actions: if the consensus of 4 hours was not going to be respected with having a wide reaching discussion because it was opposed, then there is no reason to respect the opinion of six guys who discussed this for one hour and a half. Wikifan's histrionics are just that, pure theater and do not stand to the facts.

Furthermore, Wikifan engaged in unproductive behavior, in spite of I calmly explaining my actions. I could understand why he might be non-plused, so I didn't escalate at the time. But his expression of exasperation are nothing compared to having to endure his trollish shenanigans.

Here is the specific thread and actions right at the beginning:

Cerejota

(at this point, I restore the previous name, with minor refactoring)

Wikifan12345

Cerejota

Wikifan12345

He threatens me with a "higher authority", beginning what would be a series of sarcastic remarks, and borderline incivility. If curious for more,

Cerejota

I respond that he should bring those higher authorities instead of threatening to, because threats are a million.

After a suggestion from another user pointing out how "bombings" was not really what went on, I changed it to the current name.

As you can see by the evidence, User:Wikifan12345 allegations and recollections of the events are mostly incorrect, except in a single fact: I did indeed move the page over any discussion, via WP:SNOWBALL due to lack of neutrality. While I didn't express it at the time, WP:SNOWBALL is also a form of WP:IAR. Having a one-sided, non-neutral title significantly keep us from advancing the quality of the project, clearly the intent and spirit of WP:IAR. It is a common-sense thing. Others my ponder my actions, but I didn't do them neither without discussion, nor without justification. There is no sinister plan, there is no ill will. There is the need to move forward.

Furthermore, consensus can change. Wikifan keeps on beating this poor dead horse instead of moving ahead with productive discussion as the events unfold, forcing me, a productive editor, to stop editing an encyclopedia in order to contribute to the WP:DRAMA, something I hate to do, even when warranted. If you look at the talk page, while there is still some soreness, editors who support Operation Cast Lead have agreed to put a kind of a moratorium in place, and have continued productive discussions aimed at developing article quality. Wikifan, unfortunately, has assumed the role of a troll, sometimes responding to serious, well thought replies and counter-arguments with unproductive sarcasm. I am sure all of you can at least empathize with this.

(Note: I am a great believer and admirer of sarcasm, but Wikifan's use of it is both amateurish and POINTY - it took me a while to realize, me WP:AGF and all that - in fact, only common decency has held me back from calling him WhinyBitch12345 and fetch him a wambulance.)

When I have called him to chill, it is precisely because he needed to, and in every occassion I did so in context and pointing to WP:CHILL. I could have gone stronger on him, and gone all WP:WHINE on him, but didn't. I showed mercy and restraint, and should be commended, not attacked for it.

I am willing to let the matter drop, as this has not been really an important focus for me (see the talk page of the article), but Wikifan should agree to refrain from personal attacks and commentary, and should be careful to not misrepresent the reality of the events, as he just did. We need to be honest with each other, if we are to advance encyclopedic quality. Misrepresenting events doesn't help with that.

My apologies for the length, but if assertions and accusations are going to be raised against me, I will defend myself. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

On Talk:List_of_Naruto_antagonists#Quit_saying_Pain_looks_cool I removed where an artists says he drew a character to make him look cool. Sounds like another artist on a soapbox to me.

I am tired of Snapper2 offensive behavior to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for me. Saying "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" to discourage me from editing anything is harassment.

Plus Sephiroth_BCR threat of blocking me for removing an artist's advocacy of one of his characters that belongs in a blog is overkill. Since when is self-promotion protected here? --MahaPanta (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed piped link to make it clear which page was being discussed CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And this requires administrator intervention how? JuJube (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

While a touch rude, it certainly isn't harassment. I'm assuming you're the IP editor on that Talk page? — The Hand That Feeds You: 08:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't log in at first, since it seemed like a minor case of an over zealous fan. Telling someone you shouldn't be editing, especially on a discussion page, use to deserve at least an administrator's warning, because no one is suppose to "discourage them from editing entirely" as thaken from the WP:Harass page.

If Sephiroth_BCR was threating with hitting me with the old ban hammer on editing just because I removed the words "designed to be cool", a member telling someone to never edit entirely including disscusion and talk pages, seems more serious.--MahaPanta (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As a defense, consider the following explanation of my comment:

• "You are in the minority here, as nobody shares your opinion" - This is certainly true. You and you alone are in opposition to (currently) six different editors. Add that to the fact that precedent in regards to "opinions" is clearly against you and you're just arguing for argument's sake.
• "your opinion (which apparently you shouldn't be giving anyway)" - Your argument is that "opinions" do not belong on Misplaced Pages. That in itself is an opinion. Following your own logic you should not be giving your opinion about opinions on Misplaced Pages, hence my statement.

As for Sephiroth, you were edit warring in defiance of established consensus, both of which are blockable offenses. ~SnapperTo 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please familiarize youself with WP:NOT#DEM.
• A discussion page is not an article page.
• No, even Sasuke9031 commented that I am following WP:BRD.

--MahaPanta (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEM is not a license to argue fruitlessly and pointlessly for no reason. And no, you're not following WP:BRD as you reverted twice (1, 2) even after you were aware there was a clear consensus to keep the information. It doesn't matter what you think in this situation, as you don't have an inkling of support for your action on the talk page and are merely attempting to exhaust the patience of those involved in the discussion. Had you reverted again, it would be under my discretion to block you for edit warring. In any case, there's no reason for this to stay open. There's no need for administrator action, and you're not going to get the change you want here, as ANI isn't for content issues. — sephiroth bcr 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is making automated edits

Betacommand indef blocked

Since the discussion between User:Roux and BC appears to be happening off WP, I have enacted an indef block on BC's account in the meantime. I cannot believe that we are having this discussion again; there is rarely an issue on whether the image compliance deletion notifications are outside of policy, but the manner in which they are conducted and especially the responses made to any query. Now, if BC wants to bring this (and me) to ArbCom to resolve then by all means unblock the account so he may commence proceedings - otherwise please do not vary the sanction until the community comes to some sort of decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to say that I now support this. We tried hard to give him chance after chance, yet he's now gone ahead and broken his final set of restrictions. I believe that for right or wrong, Betacommand is a serious time sink to the project and now constitues an overall net negative hence my support for this block. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There need be no abatement of any subsequent discussion here while the Arbs consider whether to take the case, and I have suggested as much in my statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It can continue here, yes. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's come to this, yes, especially given the ongoing civility issues and apparent unwillingness to acknowledge his community imposed restrictions. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I echo Ryan's sadness and also endorse this block. I don't really see any use in arbitration -- until Betacommand comes to his senses, there is nothing much that needs to be done right now. Kusma (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per BC's statement that he has no intention of abiding by editing restrictions . BC has never understood that while yes, his edits are within policy, there has never been a consensus for bot-like removals of images that don't conform to this aspect of policy. If these images actually do belong in the articles, then it is better to spend time solving the pro forma problems with the image description page (writing appropriate rationales) than it is to blindly remove the images from articles. But either way, human judgment is needed. --B (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I even provided a venn diagram above...--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this. His utter failure to acknowledge his civility issues shows someone who just isn't willing to change.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Wow....having looked this stuff up I have to agree. Every time someone gives him the slightest bit of critism he accuses them of harrasment. "No harrasment" and "no personal attacks" does not mean "no critism allowed" – in fact I'm sure wikipedia would be rather crappy without critism. He also seems to have a rather big ego and viciously harrases those who disagree with him by accusing them of harrasment. Misplaced Pages's worst enemies are those whose vanity has been wounded and they waste far more of the community's time than vandals. I say we show him the door.--Patton123 14:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Given Betacommand's unwillingness in this thread to acknowledge having strayed from the editing restrictions, I likely would have blocked him by now myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. It's not ideal to have to indef-block someone who admittedly can do a lot of good towards the project. However, the sheer amount of negativity caused by Betacommand and his behaviour is huge, and now definitely outweighs the benefit he brings to the project. Betacommand is unfortunately a net negative to this project. _TalkIslander 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing lack of civility (saying other editors are trolling and so on) also won't do at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per Islander MikeHobday (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If one editor calls you a jackass, screw em. If two ediotrs call you a jackass, screw em both. If three editors call you a jackass, they can all go to hell. If FIVE of more editors call you this, then its time to be fitted for a saddle. Sorry BC, time to saddle up. --Tom 15:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block, but this comment is precisely correct - if you have five independent complaints about your behavior, it's time to look at your behavior. In fact, three is probably enough to start wondering. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the assessment; one or two people complaining is (more often than not) just someone whining, whereas three or more complaints is indicative of an actual problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse this block. The community has been pushed beyond its tolerance by Beta's truculence. Nandesuka (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No endorsement of this block. I will make my rationale below. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection - Per precedents. I am someone who doesn't believe in going after people for every little thing they do, a violation of something or not. I personally agree that there has been disruption in this project, but as I always suggest, we should do some mentoring, and probably a long probation period. Blocking never solves anything, it just brings back more problems (e.g. block evasion). Therefore, I object to this indefinite block.Mitch32 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block to prevent Betacommand from engaging in further massive bot-assisted disruption and gross incivility. I strongly disagree with the assertion that "Blocking never solves anything, it just brings back more problems (e.g. block evasion)", since we have many effective tools at our disposal to prevent Betacommand from evading this block, including automated reversion, range blocks, and filing an abuse report with his ISP. John254 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fully endorse the block This has gone on far too long. Since the last community restrictions were put in place, Betacommand has been blocked four times and has never accepted any of them as legitimate. His answer is always of the form "this is bullshit but I'll ride it out" and it is clear that he refuses to abide by the restrictions concerning runs of automated edits. Yes, the runs in question were for the most part in line with policy but I should point out (as I tried to point out to BC to no avail) that a run to remove sports teams logos from tens of pages is unwise when it's done in the middle of a contentious RfC on that very subject. Beta's answer is that since fair-use rationales are not given for each instance of the use of the logo, removal is within policy. This is correct but these automated runs are nevertheless bound to escalate conflicts on the RfC. Betacommand's "shoot first, ask questions later" strategy is detrimental to the project and the editing restrictions were put in place precisely to avoid these problems. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block. Betacommand's conduct in the discussion leading up to this is a textbook illustration of the "I am right, everyone else is the problem, fuck off" approach that is a characteristic of long time problematic users, but profoundly disruptive to our collaborative work – even if pursued (as here) with good intent. Since there's no indication that he's ready to change his attitude, or even adhere to his community-imposed restriction, a block until such time as he is ready is approppriate.  Sandstein  18:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Not to be rude by butting in, but if there's near-if-not-totally unanimous support for Betacommand's indef block; can we consider Betacommand banned? --Dylan620 _Contribs 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• No. Indefinite block means it could end tomorrow, or it could end next year. I for one have hopes that Betacommand can contribute productively. // roux   19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block. I think he has tested the limits of the community's patience too long.--Berig (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block, BC has been given chance after chance after chance, and still continues to engage in the sort of poor behaviour that caused the problems in the first place. The real tragedy is that if he'd just asked to make these automated edits, we probably would have given him permission to do so. Lankiveil 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

• Endorse I do not think that a block was inevitable here. If Betacommand had simply responded to the concerns raised on his talk page in a reasonable manner, we probably wouldn't even be here. But because he responded with incivility and a declaration that he wasn't going to follow the restrictions, he escalated the situation to the point where a block was necessary. If Betacommand were to acknolwedge that his actions violated the sanctions and further acknowledged that he is, in fact, bound by the sanctions, I would support a reduction of the block to 1 month, continuing with the course of increasing sanctions for violation of the restrictions. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse After over a year of this I think the community's patience has been well and truly exhausted, as amply documented by others above. I am of the "indefinite doesn't mean infinite" school of thought, if BC was able to demonstrate he had moved on from the behaviour which got him here at some later point I wouldn't be averse to his unblocking. But to be honest I wouldn't really protest much if it remained in place, he's probably had more chances than anyone else on this project to reform. Orderinchaos 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

strong objection to off-wiki/IRC this time

Discussion Location

Proposal the third

After looking at this thread, the restrictions given, the case opened at arbcom, and so forth, I propose the following solution:

• Beta (remaining blocked until this point is resolved) provides a case per the community restrictions on WP:VPR that involves the removal of images from pages that lack non-free rationale using his seemingly-automated manner (some editor will help post for him due to the block). We follow the community sanctions - that is, should there be opposition to the task, there is discussion and so forth. (Yes, this is what should have been done before Beta started what he was doing).
• Presuming the task is approved at VPR, Beta is unblocked and allowed to continue though I would state that his edits for a day should be monitored and logged briefly by an admin (involved or not) just to make sure that the seemingly-automated edits in mainspace are appropriate per his proposal and do not go beyond that point. (Spot checking is likely appropriate here). This should be done for at least one month.
• If Beta is using his own programmed tools to do this, this fact should be made exceedingly clear in the edit summaries (even if it is just "removing non-free image without rational, using my automated script"). That is, Beta needs to be upfront that he is using automated tools, even of his own making, for this process to help keep this remedy open. (We're not asking for code, however). A brief summary of this tool should be part of his VPR proposal.
• Should it be found that Beta is doing other seemingly-automated tasks per community restrictions among these NFC image removals and has not discussed it at VPR even if it is completely within policy, he should be indef blocked until that issue can be resolved. (eg if he starts removing images that do have rationales but may not be complete, that is a different proposal than removing images that lack a rationale completely and thus he should be blocked)

The only reason I think this is appropriate is that this is the first time that Beta's found some task that can be actually a long-term one that he can be much more effective using semi-automated tools, and that is very difficult to see as being a contentious issue, as non-free compliance is necessary by the Foundation. As best I can tell, there has yet to be any attempt to use VPR to propose a task prior to undertaking it, so this presents a first good opportunity to do so. --MASEM 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• oppose While the long term problems with beta and his bots are indeed long term they are by no means his only problem. The incivility, and pointy behaviour about (his outright refusal to acknowledge that he violated the sanctions and that they mean anything) shows someone who has no interest in working in the best interest of the community. The community decides its best interest, not betacommand. There is absolutely no reason the community should be bending over for someone like that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Crossmr. Beta has had a second chance, third chance, fourth chance, fifth chance etc. etc. etc. At some point, the community must put their foot down and stop. Though certainly well meant, your proposal is just yet another chance - give it a month or two, and we'll be right back here having exactly the same discussion. Enough is enough. _TalkIslander 15:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose There are already restrictions in place that have consensus and that beta himself agreed to here. rootology (C)(T) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should a consensus that the block be lifted or varied not arise, nor ArbCom decide to take the case, then perhaps this can form part of a subsequent decision. First, I think we should allow another 24-36 hours to allow in this holiday period for a full provision of opinion. After weighing the community desires, then we can see if amendments or other proposals need considering. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, Beta has in the past ignored restrictions placed on him like this, I see no reason to believe that he'd pay attention to these ones. Lankiveil 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Beta motions at RFAR

I've asked the committee to codify the community restrictions that Beta himself agreed to follow as a full motion of the Arbitration Committee. To codify those restrictions (which again, Beta himself agreed to) as binding with the weight of the Committee as a motion. That would end any nonsense, and any trouble then if it happened would be from Beta not following the restrictions in the future. rootology (C)(T) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock proposal

User:Betacommand's statement

Betacommand has made a statement on this talkpage. He can obviously see the discussion here, so any comments should - I feel - be made here and any responses copied over from his talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my response to Betacommand: No offence intended to Roux, but he's had a fair few problems in the past here as well (). At one point he was verging on the brink of exhausting the communities patience altogether so he seems far from an ideal choice to keep watch over things. Should you be unblocked, you would really need an experienced and trusted administrator to keep watch over things. I'll have a think of some people who might do the job well - I like the idea of have 2/3 users taking on that role so they can be as much help as possible and so that there's always someone around for the members of the community to go to should they have concerns. If you were to be unblocked, that would be last chance for sure - I think you might have passed that point anyway as far as the community is concerned, but there's still a possibility that something can be worked out. I'll work on getting some names together for people that can be put to the community as formal mentors. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Given this statement, which strikes me as both reasonable and temperate, I would support changing Betacommand's block from indef to a fixed time frame of 1-4 weeks. Especially if quality mentors can be found, I still think that he will be a net positive to the project after some time to reflect on the level of frustration he has caused in the community and why. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a shortened block term like Eluchil404 suggests, provided the mentors are set up like Ryan wants to do. But Beta, please, if you're reading this... not again? :( rootology (C)(T) 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with shortened block term once suitable mentors have been found. Agree with Ryan that this is really his last chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Community" rejected mentors last time. Gimmetrow 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That was last time. Consensus can change (and so far seems to be). Is there a reason mentorship would be bad (has it even been tried before)? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The strange rules and lack of mentors was obviously going to lead to the current situation. It was seemingly designed to fail. Gimmetrow 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: shortened block term should be at least a week given the ongoing issues. That should be enough time for things to cool down and for off-wiki discussion with his mentors to prepare him for returning to editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Though reluctantly, I also agree with the shortened block term, providing a) that suitable mentors have been found, and b) we actually actually agree as a community, preferably including Betacommand, that this is well and truely a final chance, i.e. any further incident that escalates this far is met with an immediate indefinite block or even ban, no questions asked. I'd like that point to be added to Beta's restrictions, really. _TalkIslander 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, after thinking about it overnight, I oppose this unblock. Like I've said a couple of times above - he's had final chances, final final chances, absolutely final chances etc. No more. Enough. If he's unblocked, we'll just be in exactly the same position in 2-3 months time. No thanks. _TalkIslander 07:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm comfortable shortening the block to 1 month with an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a promise to adhere to a strict reading of the restrictions going forward. I'm not really concerned about mentors - I mean, I don't see what they're going to tell Betacommand that he doesn't already know. I do want peoeple keeping an eye on him, though. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - though Ryan, I'm not terribly pleased with your characterisation of me. Especially since Betacommand's statement is directly due to a long conversation I had with him. Anyway, I would support a reduction in the block to 1 week. Mentors I think would be good... Durova, FutPerf or JzG/Guy (for general cutting-through-bullshit talents), Newyorkbrad, bibliomanic15. In addition to the reduction, I would also suggest:

1. Adding the words "Blatant vandalism is not covered by this restriction" to the restrictions. I know, I know, he's unlikely to be blocked for reverting a massvandal spree. But I think blatant vandalism is an exception to the restrictions, and it's reasonable for a clear exception to be noted.

   A mass-vandal spree can be undone by someone else. This is just handing him a semantic loophole. He already considers any little violation of any sub-part of the NFCC to be "blatant vandalism". rspεεr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm, fair enough. Striking. // roux   02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

2. The community should revisit the restrictions three months after the end of this block. If Betacommand has stayed within his limits, I would advocated that they be loosened or removed entirely at that time. // roux   01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very least his restrictions should last as long as his disruption. I believe his incivility goes back at least 2 years. 3 months of good behaviour is a drop in the bucket.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

oppose any shortened block. Sorry but an 11th hour apology (which we oddly don't have an article on) doesn't cut it for me this time. When multiple users beat their head against the wall trying to explain to you that your edits are bound by policy AND your editing restrictions, that you agreed to, and you basically act like they're trolls and the editing restrictions don't exist, suddenly being sorry when the chain is finally yanked after all this time isn't sincere to me. As was repeatedly said above, we've had last chances, final chances, last last last last last x10000 chances, and it has done nothing. There is absolutely zero evidence that another chance would make any difference. What has changed since last time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He still violated his restrictions because he thought he was right, he attacked those who called him on it and he stubbornly ignored the community until indefinitely blocked and there was support for it this time. Now he's sorry?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the conversation I had with BC was prior to the block. I believe that he really did think he was acting within policy and within his restrictions. Was he wrong? Yes. Did he break his restrictions? Yes. Should he have been blocked for that violation? Absolutely. But I do think, based on that conversation with him, that he is genuinely apologetic for the mistakes he has made, and is genuinely going to knuckle down and stay within the narrowest application of the rules possible. We maintain the idea here that all people can be made into productive contributors. I think BC is no exception to that idea. Yes, his behaviour needs a lot of work--and I am among the first to say that good contributions do not excuse rude behaviour. But one final chance, with the very clear understanding within the community and especially on BC's part that this is it', gives him a chance to continue being productive for the project. // roux   02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But we've been through this so many times before. I've lost count of the number of absolute last chances he's been given. Orderinchaos 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How could he possibly think that? He edited more than 25 pages and didn't put it up first. There is no reasonable way anyone could think they were editing within those restrictions. I see nothing here from any statement he's made to give me any indication that his behaviour will change. A lot of people focus on his mass edits, but lets not forget the years of civility issues and this is just another example. His being productive to the project is not a net benefit, so us giving him another super duper ultimate final chance is not a positive move here. If I thought this was the last discussion we'd ever have to have about betacommand, I'd support a reduced block. But I don't even have to ask Kreskin on this one.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though he was under the impression that existing consensus was enough. This has been abundantly clarified to him. I dunno.. I know he's screwed up a bunch of times. I also think--and yes, I have been over the history, which took hours--there is an element of sincerity in what he has said both to me privately and to the community publicly that has not been there before. And yes, believe me, if he is given this chance and screws it up I will be the first calling for a permanent, it's over, immediate ban. // roux   02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that doesn't fill me with confidence nor is it a compelling argument. So what if you'll change your position next time? If next time someone else says the same thing do we let him back in again? Do we just keep going until there isn't a single body left willing to stand for him?--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys understand you are being set up for another fall? BC has repeatedly demonstrated over months, maybe even years, that he does not have the temperment and self-discipline necessary to make this work. I think you're making a mistake - but good luck I guess(?). Wiggy! (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit: Noting oppose for formality given this seems to have become a vote) Sadly, agree with you (and Crossmr above) - he's made promises and undertakings and broken them before. No user is bigger than the community, ultimately. Orderinchaos 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, keep it indef and make it a official community ban. He has one more chance at least half a dozen times and failed to behave every single time. He can't even abide by restrictions he agreed to (which are not onerous). Viridae 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How much more time and energy are we going to waste on BetaCommand??? For the last two years, his actions have been a regular topic in this forum. He does something that annoys one or more people to the point he gets blocked, another group step up to defend his actions, make promises for him, he gets unblocked & he repeats his objectionable behavior. And why do they keep supporting him? Has he done anything to improve Misplaced Pages that no one else has or can do? His contributions seem to be nothing more than a rapid succession of ill-considered edits which as often as not need to be fixed or reversed.

He doesn't have supporters -- he has enablers.

As for mentoring, why didn't he agree to this long before this? Why not when he lost his Admin bit? Or the first time he was blocked for running his bot? Or the second? Or the fifth? It's commendable that someone wants to step up & mentor him -- but wouldn't that effort be better spent on something else? I'm not making the assumption that volunteer energy is fungible -- an hour spent on BetaCommand is an hour taken from writing a FA -- but if a tenth of the time spent arguing over banning BC were spent supporting other Wikipedians who are doing the heavy lifting around here, maybe we wouldn't be losing these folks. Like AGK, who recently left. Or might leave -- like Guy, SandyGeorgia, or maybe dab (I keep wondering when he'll toss in the towel). And then there's the message sent with all of this bickering to keep BC from being banned: there are a lot of Wikipedians who are quietly disgruntled, but remaining civil & respectful, who see how that is not getting them any attention -- but being a jerk gets BetaCommand all sorts of second & third & tenth chances.

He's been a black hole that has sucked up too much time & effort from everyone here. I bet more words have been written about him than all of the Pokemon characters, tiny settlements in the U.S. no one has heard of, or internet memes -- combined. It's time to end this, write-protect his Talk page & move on to something completely different. -- llywrch (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

People have offered to be mentors before, and Beta has accepted them in the past. Why did "The Community" refuse these mentorship arrangements before this? Gimmetrow 03:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of these offers. There was nothing keeping him from accepting their advice, & changing his behavior. He's been blocked & unblocked twenty-four times in the last 25 months. Nine of the first ten times, the block was reversed almost immediately; since then, only once was the block for as long as a week. He could have acknowledged at any one of those times that how he handled other people wasn't working & gotten help. Now he sees that he has no more chances & he's willing to make any promise to keep from getting banned. He should have thought about that before now -- like anyone who wants to be part of the Misplaced Pages community does, all of the time. -- llywrch (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Viridae and Llywrch. Enough is enough. Jtrainor (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Roux and Ryan. Beta does useful work here. He's a bit incivil and forgets to run his edits through consensus sometimes. If we keep him held back with quick blocks at the hint of any problem, we should be able to end this problem. NuclearWarfare _{My work} 04:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  What evidence is there that any quick/short blocks etc would fix the problem further? He's been uncivil for years and blocked countless times. His useful work doesn't outweigh his problems.--Crossmr (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support per all of my reasons outlined in the (now-closed) subthread above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Person has known views. Views polarise community. Community gets its act together and tells him to stop polarising the community. Person apologises andagrees to restriction. Person violates restriction. Person apologises to save face. Sound familiar? Sceptre 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not at all similar. Your oblique reference to the Kurt Weber case seems misplaced, as Kurt was outright hostile to Misplaced Pages in so many ways, and showed little concern for Misplaced Pages's mission. Betacommand is rude, ascerbic, and in many ways overzealous to the point of major disruption, but I would have never questioned that he had the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind. Kurt Weber could never have been said to have had that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The community decides what is best for it. Not betacommand. The community decided and he didn't follow that. As soon as he didn't follow that he was disrespecting the community and going against its interests.--Crossmr (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • And now the community is being given further chance to discuss the issue. The "community" does not mean "Whatever prior result that was arrived at that I agree with". Prior decisions are not written in stone, and no prior decision is required to be maintained in perpetuity. The community may change its mind, and the community can do so even if you repeatedly respond to every single person supporting some form of unblocking with the exact same rationale. The more often you repeatedly make these same edits, Crossmr, the more it looks like you mean the "community" to be yourself. Everyone following this thread knows where you stand. It is clear. Responding to every editor with a differing viewpoint on this issue is bordering on harassment. Please just let the discussion hammer itself out, and let other editors have their opinions on this matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Consensus isn't a vote and discussion isn't people simply leaving their opinions and walking away. Anyone is free to offer a counter point to anything I say just as I'm free to offer a counter point to anything they say. As for leaving a reply to everyone who supports an unblock I've only replied to the same number of top level posts in this particular discussion as you have, 1.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Trust me when I say that (as someone who was fairly annoyed with Beta last time, and I now say unblock) that if it happens again, if he somehow isn't blocked, I'll bet you $10 of edits that he doesn't make it past the AC without a vacation. Just let the conversation breath. rootology (C)(T) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. BC has been blocked five times in the past two months. It's obvious that blocks, or the threat thereof do not have any effect on this user. I'm not opposed to some form of return for BC, but threatening more of the same probably isn't going to have much of an effect. Lankiveil 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
• Oppose. Followed the issue and discussion last time and again now. Fair to say that this particular community member's patience is exhausted. Good faith absenting itself, the discrepancy between the comments throughout Beta's talk page and the apology/unblock request is also striking. All the other comments are littered with grammatical and spelling mistakes, run-on sentences, etc., while the apology is pretty much perfectly formed. It's almost as if it was someone else's words. It seems odd to me. Mlaffs (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Over the past two years, Beta has shown time and time again that either 1a) he doesn't give a toss what people who are not Beta think, period, and 1b) he has no qualms about disregarding restrictions imposed by said people who are not Beta, then Wiki-lawyering later on when necessary - or 2) he has a communicative disorder. Either case is possible, but neither case is compatible with a collaborative project. You do not hire somebody without arms to teach sign language. You do not have somebody allergic to cats working at the animal shelter. You do not have an Amish person fix your engine. And you do not have somebody incapable of level-headed discussion and/or reading comprehension working on a collaborative written project. In response to the continuing line of BetaDefense - that he writes bots that do things and the things they do are well-intentioned and "think of the copyright" - there is no shortage of coders in the world, and I'm sure there are several open-source sorts who would be willing to write copyright bots for free if the foundation found it was necessary and approached them. And I would go so far as to speculate that their bots would function better than Beta's, and that the end-user "why was my thing erased" support they provide... well, it'd be hard to top this, but we can always hope... Badger Drink (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This should have ended with the "leave well enough alone" plea from jayron above... Protonk (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough is enough. He has had so many many chances to reform and he constantly mocks the community by reverting to old bad behaviour. IMO, it's a waste of future time and effort to give him yet another chance.--Berig (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Betacommand's statement is thoughtful and asks for something more nuanced than a simple thumbs up/thumbs down response. He doesn't expect to get unblocked immediately and expresses regret. That's not an easy sort of post to make and few attempt it at a juncture like this one. On principle, we ought to welcome such statements--better late in the day than not at all. It does persuade me to keep an open mind; perhaps sometime down the road we can revisit this. Two things Betacommand could do between now and then to improve the picture are: (1) respect the block and avoid socking, and (2) build up a good contribution history at another wiki. Durova 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - in his statement, I see two things: a lot of make-nice talk and a solemn pledge...to STOP violating the minimum standards he agreed to in order to avoid a likely community ban several months ago. I cannot help but feel the same fundamental disconnect here that I've seen all along. He's not a bad guy, but he just insists on sticking the fork into the toaster, fighting tooth and nail through battalions of editors to do so. Bullzeye 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/question - has anyone considered the idea that Newyorkbrad posted on BC's talk page? Reproduced:

  (Posting here as an individual, not as an arbitrator, and without prejudice to anything should this or a related matter come before me in the latter capacity. Just thinking out loud here.) Suppose that for a period of time, Betacommand were permitted to use whatever methods he wanted, but rather than take actions (remove images, change templates, propose username blocks, whatever) he would instead list the items he thinks are problematic on an output page. Then another user could independently review the lists and decide which items should result in immediate action, which in tagging or warnings, which are not problematic, etc. We would retain Betacommand's skill at using tools to identify potential violations, but take him out of the role of ultimate decision-maker or notifier in areas where he's been controversial. Would this work? Newyorkbrad (talk) Yesterday, 7:57 pm (UTC-5)</blockquote:

Thoughts? // roux   07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea Baseball Bugs 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have considered NYB's statement, and I think it's similar to what's already in place. BC would still have to get the green light to act (currently, I think he's supposed to run it through the VP), but he'd be allowed to use automated tools if he chose. Is the issue with BC just that he uses unauthorized bots or goes over an edit limit - whatever you want to call it, or that he's performing tasks for which there is no consensus? (I'm not familiar with all of the details.) If it's the former, NYB's proposal could work. If it's the latter, the proposal is too similar to the current restrictions that aren't being followed. WODUP 07:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Close... under NYB's suggestion, Betacommand would take no actions. He would gather data, spit out a list, other people would decide what to do with it (which, I guess, could include asking him to do it, but that wouldn't be required). // roux   07:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got it now, thanks. Now that I understand a little better, it's something we could try if BC agrees and we get people to review his lists. I do worry that if BC is producing a lot of proposed changes within a relatively short time, we'd have a backlog of proposed edits, and I imagine it would be difficult for him to allow what he knows to be legitimate problems to linger for longer than they had to solely because no one has signed off on them. WODUP 08:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is pretty much what was proposed last time: Beta would be able to use scripts, but a mentor would review any proposed tasks and provide a quick turnaround with a yay or nay before Beta could proceed. "The Community" rejected this, and came up with a set of rules with a long involved delay. Under these rules it could be days to a week before the proposed edits could actually be made. That seems like it would be a recipe for anxiety for many editors. Imagine how long many editors could function under restrictions not to fix any typos they noticed until they had posting a proposal and waited a week for a consensus to form that the typo could be fixed? And we're talking something more than typos here: many people are passionate about free content. Gimmetrow 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This would be even more complex than the current remedies, for no obvious gain. Everyone loses. rspεεr (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Newyorkbrad's proposal: I hate to say it, but why should we bend over backwards and spend loads of time babysitting Betacommand when there are several other editors that could, and have proposed, to do these tasks without needing such an arrangement? This proposal is something we could have accepted say, 5 Betacommand scandals ago. Personally, I don't think Betacommand has any credibility now when he promises to stick by any restrictions. He has done the same thing as always: refusing to admit any guilt and attacking people criticising him, suddenly apologizing when it's clear people have had enough, then going back to his old ways. Is he back? (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have suggested Betacommand be banned for an indefinite period in the past, but people were not too keen on the idea. I believe him to be a net negative to our project, and think he'd be better off doing something else for a few months, and perhaps come back for fresh start-over when he's had some time to think how he's been acting. Majorly talk 08:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose His block should remain indefinite. How many times have we been through this? And if you're really buying his statement, I've got snow in Mississippi for sale. He will just run tasks that are 24, instead of 25 and laugh the whole time while doing it. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Betacommand was blocked indefinitely for violation of the last/existing restriction, which was the maximum allowance the community was then prepared to allow him. If he is to be unblocked, then it cannot be for any more less restrictive measures - in fact, it could easily be for exactly the same set of restrictions. I would have no compulsion in again blocking under the same criteria, should BC be unblocked, and it is apparent that BC understands that such blocks will be made. It may be that this instance will suffice in convincing BC that he does require the communities good will to allow him to edit, and he will adjust his interactions accordingly. I also understand that there are many editors who will despair at BC being given yet another chance, and wonder if all this effort is worth the result. If I were to be given the decision, I would keep BC indefinitely blocked at en-WP for the time being and revisit the situation in 3 or 4 months time and see how he is interacting on the other wikis; if there has been no socking or other disruption here, and he is having no problems at the other wikis then we can unblock BC under the same restrictions that existed when I blocked. With all respect to Ryan, Brad, Roux, and others, I really don't see the point in us trying to find a way to accommodate Betacommand - it is for BC to decide if he can adapt to the communities requirements. However, as the blocking admin I am not !voting either way (and will therefore request that my opinion is not recorded), and will accept whatever consensus is arrived at. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, this action against Betacommand seems hostile and unhelpful, preventing him from pursuing an important Misplaced Pages policy for which ample consensus exists. If there's some restriction in place preventing him from doing this, perhaps that restriction should be reviewed. If somebody can explain to me what harm Betacommand's recent edits have done, I might begin to understand why this very drastic action was undertaken and why it seems to have so much support in the face of its apparently disproportionate effect. --TS 12:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you were to read the entire discussion, and previous discussions to be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand, where you would discover that a majority of editors recognise that Betacommand's intentions are good and that the policy he tries to service is valid - but it is the manner in which he works that is disruptive, and those restrictions that were placed were an effort to allow him to do the good work without the consequences of not coding/testing or reviewing the results of his scripts or work. I would also point you to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions, where the restrictions are clearly spelled out, which was worded with input from BC himself. The entire above discussion relates to the communities belief that BC violated those terms. Once you are familiar with the events of the last 18 months or so, in regard to the community and Betacommand trying to find a way to usefully coexist, I for one would be grateful for any comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read your blocking notice. I'm familiar with the events of the past 18 months with respect to Betacommand. I've asked for an explanation of how the actions of Betacommand (and not your disproportionate response to those actions) were disruptive. --TS 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that consciously breaking restrictions imposed on him is indeed disruptive, and that LessHeard vanU has made the right decision. I'd also like to ask you to read the discussion above where there is an overwhelming support by the community for permablocking BC.--Berig (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that is LessHeardVanU's argument. I also agree that there is a disconcerting degree of unanimity. The trouble is that it doesn't make any sense. Betacommand removed some internal links to items that do not belong on Misplaced Pages. They do not belong to us and nobody had made any justification for their use on Misplaced Pages. If there is community support for blocking Betacommand for doing these things, then community support on this occasion needs to be reconsidered carefully. Because on this occasion Betacommand is doing the right thing and those who are trying to hamper him are, on the face of it, doing the wrong thing. None of the discussion above seems to address this obvious problem. --TS 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain in what possible way violating restrictions is "doing the right thing"? I am afraid I do not understand you at all.--Berig (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that your failure to recognise the disruption inherent in Betacommand not being able to comply with restrictions, which he had agreed to so as not to be indef blocked previously, is endemnic of your failure to recognise certain non or counter-productive input at the encyclopedia, which I consider these comments of yours to be another example. It is nothing to do with the validity of the proposed edits, but how they are made and the failure to accept responsibility for any problems arising. If you do not understand how Betacommand's manner is disruptive, even after reading all of the material, then it is beyond my capacity to enlighten you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You might like to address the question. I certainly accept that generally the community can decide what it accepts and what it does not accept, and that it may impose restrictions on certain editors. But here we have an editor whose current actions are not, on the face of it, in any way disruptive, and in fact are a net good for Misplaced Pages. If this has arisen as a result of community restrictions, on the face of it the restrictions are at fault, not the editor. I don't think this problem has been addressed. I don't think this problem can be dismissed as a personal failing of an uninvolved party who fails to see the logic of blocking an editor for engaging in productive editing. -TS 13:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple; Betacommand violated restrictions that were put in place so that he might continue to make good edits without causing the disruption that he had previously done. The manner in which he violated the restriction was an example of the disruption the restrictions were imposed to address. A different example would be if BC were issuing vandal warnings with the edit summary, "Fuck off, troll"; the warnings are good and appropriate, but not the edit summaries for which he had been previously warned not to do. If his response is either to ignore the concerns, or to respond with "Fuck off, troll enabler" then he would be quickly and rightly blocked - the good of warning vandals notwithstanding. This, although in far less contentious ways, is what happened here - a restriction on how many fair use warnings without someone checking over that the code was working as it was supposed, because of previous instances when it hadn't, was being disregarded because BC believed that acting toward policy was more important than adhering to the conditions that meant that there were checks to make sure that everything would work without causing disruption. He wasn't prepared to allow anyone to make sure he wasn't making the mistakes he had in the past. This was why he was blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Betacommand has apologized and acknowledged the editing restriction, but following this there still seems to be a consensus for a long block. I've never seen mentorship help a blocked editor (although it must have happened now and then). I do see hints in the above comments that there might be a consensus to review the block (and hear what Betacommand has to say about it) in two or three months. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing a !headcount, I don't know about that. it seems fairly split to be honest. If the block stands any future review needs to be done publicly and over time.--Crossmr (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't seem to be reading the comments in the same way and what I meant by "long block" might not have been clear. To put it another way, I don't see any consensus for an unblock at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is a longtime abuser, an interpreter of policy that suits his own agenda, a committed user of abusive language, unreasonable tactics, and lightening speed edits with no discussion. Warned and ignores warnings over and over again...what is the point...of bringing him back? Modernist (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• I oppose an unblock under these terms, as they are too similar to those Betacommand has already shown to be unwilling to adhere to. It's clear that the community does not trust him to make any serial edits whatsoever. Accordingly, I would suppose an unblock only subject to a community restriction prohibiting him from making any serial edits (say, 10 or more similar edits within 24 hours), with the understanding that a violation of this restriction would result in a ban. This would also allow the implementation of Newyorkbrad's proposal above, which I think is sensible.  Sandstein  13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm yet to be convinced that the disruption lies in the actions of a single editor. Betacommand's good and reasonable recent edits certainly do not merit long blocking, let alone an indefinite block. His uncommunicative nature tends to exacerbate minor problems, however, and I think he has attracted the attention of some people who really want to cause harm to Misplaced Pages as well as some who disagree with the copyright policies and, unable to overturn them, set out to sabotage them instead. I think it's inevitable that he will be driven away by this community decision-making process, and it's obvious that the arbitration committee has not felt able to tackle the twin problems of seriously defective community processes and external sabotage. We may lose Betacommand over this, but I hope that we may also learn from it. The cost of open editing and decision-making is that we must often live with decisions primarily driven by actors who do not wish Misplaced Pages well nor have its best interests at heart. These aren't necessarily fatal problems as long as we can recognise our failures and take care not to repeat them. This has been one such failure. --TS 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, I do think it's helpful to keep in mind that some of this is likely stirred up by the many, sundry and often sweeping takes of editors on how image copyright policy should be handled on Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to letting BC back at some point, and I think that we can all agree that he's done some good in the past. However, the constant drama, incivility, and inability to follow simple community-agreed sanctions is causing more harm than good at the moment. I hope that BC can learn from this and come back at some point in the future, but I think right now a block is the only way to stop the flow of drama. And frankly, asserting that those of us who want to resolve this situation by actually enforcing community standards "do not wish Misplaced Pages well" is needlessly emotive and frankly unhelpful. Lankiveil 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Well the arbitration committee are currently unanimously voting to decline this case, preferring those so-called "seriously defective community processes". the wub "?!" 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose early unblock until consensus established. The apology comes less than ten hours after particularly vitriolic abuse and does not signify to me any change of heart. There's no rush to make a decision. MikeHobday (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Beta has rubbed me the wrong way every now and then but when it comes down to it, he does a lot of the dirty work nobody else wants to do. With that often comes the lynch mob looking for his head. It is personally sad to me to see this great editor reduced to a little child forced to ask/beg for permission before doing anything of any scale, isent that against the spirit of the wiki? This is a massive scale project, sometimes things need to be done. While some of his actions may be against the spirit of the wiki too every now and then his intentions are the best. I have no doubt in my mind that beta does not sit down at the computer and think, "what can I destroy on the english wikipedia today? The sad thing is based on the way he gets treated you could never tell that. Overall, I find this terribly sad and another loss for this project. If we keep this up, there are going to be 5 or 6 drama inducing editors with this place to themselves because nobody wants to deal with there BS. Chrislk02 14:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock in the proposed form Beta's mea culpa is too little too late and is inconsistent with his systematic refusal to recognize the previous blocks as legitimate. He writes "As for my restrictions, I honestly felt that I was within the rules and was being harassed by people" despite the fact that Ryan had told him just a few days ago that he was out of line . NFCC work is indeed thankless, it's a difficult job and it needs to be done, but it needs to be done right. Betacommand's inability to defuse situations and unwillingness to listen to others' concerns make him a liability in such a delicate area. The community shouldn't have to waste time and energy chaperoning him. The editing restrictions were crystal clear. Now I'm not saying that I'd oppose any proposal for an unblock but I certainly oppose any framework that imposes extra work on editors whose time would be better spent elsewhere. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this unblock, or any unblock of this user at any time in the future. The level of disruption is just way too high and has gone on for way too long. He's not the only person who does image copyright work, but he's the only one who causes anywhere near this level of trouble. A net time sink and drain on Misplaced Pages. Every time he gets blocked he apologizes and promises not to do it again, and then he does it and we have the same discussion all over again. Enough is enough! *** Crotalus *** 16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and unblock at this time. He's been blocked and unblocked many times, with no change. Who's to say that's going to immediately change? Give the user/block some time. A change has happend before with other users, lets see if Beta comes around. I have good faith in his edits that I've seen, but the incivility and breaking of the editing restrictions (that Beta agreed to) is what leads me to not support and unblock. Lets give it a rest for now and revisit it later in '09. User:MrRadioGuy 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm opposed to an unblock. The only reason he dodged a permanent block last time was agreeing to these conditions, and a lot of effort was made in stating them clearly and unambiguously. To then flout them and threaten anyone attempting to enforce them is unacceptable. The work he does is important, but he is not the only one, and it does not put give him a free pass, or indeed an infinity of free passes. the wub "?!" 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Under what terms would we accept Betacommand back

It seems clear that, even after his apology, the community is not of a mind to let Betacommand back yet. There is an element of a lack of confidence in Betacommand here, but there is also an element of a lack of confidence in the watertightness of the current editing restrictions. As such, a necessary element of any return must be to get the restrictions right.

I'd like to suggest the following as a starting point (additions in bold)

Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• are appointed as mentors to support Betacommand in editing constructively.

• Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus (such consensus to be confirmed by one of his mentors) supporting his actioning the request before he may begin. For the avoidance of doubt, explicit consensus for Betacommand to perform a task at this time is required. Any consensus for Betacommand to perform a task under the terms of this bullet shall expire 7 days after the task was first proposed.

• Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

• Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

• Should Betacommand breach any of the above conditions, he may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. Where such a block is applied, Betacommand shall not be unblocked without community consensus.

• Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. For the purpose of this enforcement, prior warnings to or blocks of Betacommand do not automatically make an administrator involved.

• Blocks should be logged here.

Comments on the proposal by Mayalld

• What if point 5 were changed to:
  • Should Betacommand breach any of the above conditions, he may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up to a week. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Betacommand may not be unblocked except through a clear community consensus or the consensus of his mentors.
• In any case, I'd support yours. NuclearWarfare _{My work} 16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is a last chance move, why would we set up for the 5th and 6th times he's blocked for violating his restrictions?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Query: is it deliberate that the terms of blocking/unblocking are different for "rapid/non consensual editting" and for breach of civility? MikeHobday (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I don't understand your point 2. I don't get what the sentence "For the avoidance of doubt, explicit consensus for Betacommand to perform a task at this time is required" adds on top of everything else, nor do I understand what it means to change "the request" to "his actioning the request". I don't even think "actioning" should be a word. What were you trying to say? rspεεr (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, why are we trying to create these convoluted restrictions. The more detailed we make this, the more problems we get. Why not just a three-fold restriction in simple terms:

1. Betacommand is prohibited from making automated edits using any tool such as, but not limited to scripts, bots, add-ons, or any other editing tool beyond a standard commercially availible web browser and a keyboard. Any repetitive and quickly repeated edits across a broad spectrum of articles, which any admin could construe to be made by an automated tool, shall result in the same block as if they were done that way.
2. Betacommand is banned from working in the field of image use complaince, broadly construed, and is not to concern himself with tagging images, warning users, removing images from articles, or in any way involving himself with any enforcement of the WP:IUP, WP:NFCC and related policies in any way.
3. Betacommand is on strict civility parole, and is not to demean, put down, call names, or otherwise act in a manner which creates a hostile environment for any editors, and may be blocked for the first instance of doing so.

These restrictions completely remove Betacommand from the types of editing which get him into trouble (bots and image use compliance) and make clear that the community will not stand for further disruption. I also propose that all blocks from this point forward are indefinate, and shall only be lifted at the pleasure of the community. No more progressive blocks, no more warnings, no more slaps on the wrist. Lets make this a real last chance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I feel this proposal is the equivalent of throwing even more good money after bad. If a volunteer can't be successfully mentored by any Wikipedian in good standing selected more-or-less at random, then the problem lies in that person. Consider the point of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not therapy -- we aren't contributing our time & energy to baby-sit problem users, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Still, if the necessary three mentors -- with the needed qualifications -- can be found who don't mind spending their time on this cause, for good or bad, I will acquiese to BC's return -- with the stipulation that he knows he is on thin ice. If he steps out of line, he's history -- no warnings, no more threads about him anywhere on Misplaced Pages, no protests that "he's just enforcing policy". Just ban him, write-protect his talk page, & block him from IRC. -- llywrch (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I just warned User:Savolya about inserting copyrighted text into Misplaced Pages, and noticed he/she had been warned previously in September and blocked. Going through the user's most recent contributions, there are still ongoing copyright problems. For example:

• Three Godfathers (1936 film) from TCM, even with the same spelling errors (e.g. "puruse")
• White Feather (1955 film) from TCM
• Bella Darvi from NationMaster (and cited as coming from NationMaster, so it wasn't mirrored from Misplaced Pages)
• Virginia Mayo from the actor's website
• Virginia Leith from this website
• Bundle of Joy (1956 film) from TCM
• Susan Slept Here from TCM

I was going to wait for Savolya's reply, but the more I looked at his/her contribs, the more concerned I became because the list above is simply from the last two days. If this has been going on since September, there's going to be quite a lot of mess to clean up... Regards, Somno (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I meant to post this to WP:AN. Serves me right for having so many tabs open. Should I move it there or leave it here? Somno (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Leaving topic here, so please comment here. Thanks, Somno (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Benjiboi

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As Durova notes, this topic ban was not imposed by the community but by the Arbitration Committee. The correct venue for an appeal of that restriction is WP:RFAR. Marking this thread "Resolved" although "Closed and directed to appropriate venue" is more accurate. Avruch 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: If an arbitrator wants to turf the appeal of an AC remedy to the community, they should do it on-wiki, with the understanding that this sort of thing should have the general agreement of the rest of the committee. Avruch 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

As to my knowledge, when an editor is showing problematic behavior, said editor is warned of said behavior before further action is taken. If the behavior continues, and a discussion is created, that user is usually notified of the discussion, so at least then, steps can be taken to resolve the conflict before the fail-safe measures must be implemented.

Benjiboi's edits, to the article he was topic banned from were problematic, looking over the history of this, I can agree there, but the topic ban itself, especially when it concerns an established editor, I have a problem with. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? As far as I can see, it was certainly thrown out the window here. At the time of the ban, as stated(but I just need to make sure it's said here), I agree that it was warranted, but, given this user's most recent contributions, it is obvious he has changed, that he has been able to change. The editor has even noted that he is no longer interested in the article he was banned from.

But anyway, I need to ask the community a few simple questions:

• Under what circumstances are established editors banned for an infinite amount of time from a topic or article?

• Under what conditions is the evidence from the past only considered, and the evidence from the present ignored?

The last question has to do with arbcom request I filed, but, before I continue, please note that I was advised to take this course of action(taking the case to ANI, versus ArbCom), by an arbitrator(on pm through IRC). Now that that is out of the way, let me clarify the reasons for the question as noted above. When I originally took the case to ArbCom, there were swift rejects, but all of these rejects were based upon past behavior, despite the fact that the editor had shown that he has changed. In fact, some of these rejects were in fact asking him to show that he was willing to change, and, even after posting on the case section on the ArbCom page, there was zero acknowledgment. This is not an attack, but in my personal opinion, if feels to me like the arbitrators, at the time, simply put in their final say, and then just ignored any new information in the case thereafter, it certainly seems like it anyways.

Also, as a side note, it seems that the subject of the article contributed to the topic banning of this particular user.

For a summery of the above:

User Benjiboi was topic banned from the article Matt Sanchez, in regards to sourcing content to youtube videos. He was never warned that this behavior was problematic, and was banned from the said article regarding a discussion he was not informed of. Several users, including myself, have tried to get this ban taken off, I do not know the others' reasons, but in my opinion, I do not feel that a topic ban with no expiration date is warranted, especially when the user has shown to have changed, and actually stated he does not wish to edit the article in question.

I will post any diffs of material if requested, and finally,

I ask that the community review the above, and any material if linked to(if requested). My goal in this is to place an expiration date, either in terms of time, or editing conditions(say, someone watch his editing behavior), or conditions met, on this topic ban.

Blocks are meant to be preventive, as far as I've learned, not punitive. What exactly is this preventing?— Dædαlus 09:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a link to the original topic ban discussion handy? I have vague recollections of disagreeing with this ban myself, but I can't readily find the original sanction. ~ mazca 12:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not a block, this is a ban. Also, as for "he does not wish to edit the article in question" - then what is the problem? Is this some sort of attempt to gain back respect or something? — neuro 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• What, again? He was topic-banned because his obsessive interest in the subject, and particularly in certain controversial statements about the subject, became problematic, and led to an extended dialogue via OTRS. Misplaced Pages has over two million articles and how many hundreds of thousands of editors? We do not need the input of one editor on one article where that involvement very obviously inflames an already volatile article subject. The topic ban was reviewed at the time, and his claim that there was "no warning" has been dealt with multiple times: his editing caused a problem best solved by him simply not editing that article. The topic ban was reviewed as an arbitration motion, and there too it was deemed not to be an issue. Why is Benjiboi still carping on about this? Beats me. He says he does not want to edit the article, and everybody he's asked has said that it is not a problem with him personally, it's an issue between him and Matt Sanchez; hopefully we won't ever need to judge who has the right of that particular issue or to what extent, there are many good-faith contributors who are enjoined to leave other good-faith contributors alone (including one sitting arbitrator!) - this does not mean Benjiboi is evil, or Matt Sanchez is evil. It implies no judgement on either party, and is not a black mark on anybody's record. I really am having great difficulty seeing why Benjiboi incessantly raises the issue of his theoretical permission to edit an article he says he does not want to edit. Nobody cares, except him and Matt Sanchez, and as long as they avoid each other (Sanchez through his restrictions via arbitration, Benjiboi through not editing the article and generally not being a dick, which he isn't, I reckon) then I fail to see what we are supposed to fix. You want us to say that yes he is allowed to edit the article as long as he doesn't? Feh. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got a link to the topic ban? Thanks, Skomorokh 14:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here. Black Kite 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Muchas gracias. Skomorokh 15:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• More relevant is the discussion which immediately preceded it: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive18#Matt Sanchez. Read that to gain a fuller understanding of what happened. Benjiboi was far less disruptive than the (now indef blocked) User:Eleemosynary, but the two together were apparently causing a flood of OTRS complaints from the subject of the disputed article. I am not committing one way or the other towards a recission of the topic ban, but unlike some of the other editors who have been blocked, banned, or topic banned over this article, Benjiboi is a productive editor, and open to reason. Horologium (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• But that does not address the vexed question of why he insists that he must not be banned fomr a page he does not wish to edit. Sanchez is an argumentative and prickly type, no possible blame can attach to being required to leave him alone, and if Benjiboi had stepped away when he was originally asked to then we would not even be having this conversation, let alone for the third or fourth time. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend a trip through these links to see the various venues at which this article has been discussed. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• What is actually being asked here? That Benjiboi's topic ban (or is it really just a single article ban?) be lifted? Does Benjiboi want to edit this article or is it more of a clearing of his record so to speak. Has Benjiboi been made aware of this thread? I have had a little interaction with this user with no real issues. Anyways, --Tom 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Beats me. If it's just that Benjiboi wants to trade the topic ban for an agreement not to go near Sanchez then I can't imagine why that would be a problem, but he keeps re-asserting that there was no problem therefore the ban must be vacated, which does not square with the multiple reviews of this including by the Arbitration Committee. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'll get links, but, as stated, at the ArbCom case I brought up, they only went off of evidence from his past behavior, not only that, but when some arbitrators said that they would change their decision if shown that the user in question was capable of changing, they would. Once that happened, they didn't follow through. But then again, I was alerted by another arbitrator, that, if other methods of dispute resolution have not been followed, that they would always reject it period.— Dædαlus 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would love to contribute to this discussion, but I am trying to get a response from my local electricity board that they have no problem in theoretically allowing me to use my genitalia as a sub station in the circuit that serves my area. Obviously, I would be foolish if I were to actually consider wiring my testicles to the high power line towers but for some reason the electricity board seem wish to question my sanity (although they are prepared to admit I "have balls", so I have partially won some of the argument it seems) in wanting to have their permission - so I am a little busy... Otherwise I would place my opinion here, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the heck is going on with you, but it did make me chuckle, thanks, I needed that! :) --Tom 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi was topic banned at arbitration enforcement, not by the community. This request is in the wrong venue. Could go to RFAR clarifications, but this action has already been appealed there and the Committee has upheld it. So unless there's a new basis for raising an appeal it probably wouldn't be worth the time. Bear in mind that as the editor who originally raised the AE thread that led to this action, I've kept an open mind about possibly supporting an end to the restriction. If there are new grounds for reconsideration then I'd be interested, but this is the wrong board for discussion. Recommend closure to this thread; am willing to resume dialog in a more appropriate place. Durova 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complain about Admin Toddst1

Hello administrators, I just want to report an event :

• 19 April : Administrator Toddst1 propose to merge two articles : Everest: A Climb for Peace and Everest Peace Project.
• 5 December : then he propose the deletetion of Everest Peace Project.
• 6 December : I reply : "Anything against this article? Obsession maybe!" :-)
• 7 December : he propose related articles I've worked on (Erik Mongrain/Prophase music)
• I've decide to not react because he's an administrator and obviously looking for troubles.
• 18 december : {{uw-npa3}} is added on my talk page, saying that I'll might be blocked.

I think this is abusive. Thanks a lot and have a nice day! --Antaya (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually you also accused him of repeatedly submitting Everest Peace Project for deletion, which didn't happen. Now you've come here and rather than decide not to react, you've accused him of looking for troubles, but I don't see the evidence for that. And of course, anyone who continues to attack other editors is likely to be blocked, do you have a problem with that?

• Meanwhile I'd like to ask others here about Erik Mongrain/medias - this seems a bit unusual, is it ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well maybe I didn't express myself correctlty in English, but I don't think I've attack anyone, no need to block me!!! --Antaya (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I have notified Toddst1 of this discussion, and nominated the "medias" page page for deletion. I have no opinion on the original complaint. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • {{uw-npa3}} might be a bit over the top (3 and above assume bad faith), but yes, the OP is not entirely blameless. — neuro 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought namespace subpages had been disabled on English Misplaced Pages - see WP:Subpages - or has that recently changed? – ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • They are discouraged by policy, but technically there is no way to prevent their creation. MBisanz 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a sub-page. It's simply a page in the main namespace that has a forward slash in its title. Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Well Todd was completely off about Mongrain; he's highly notable - and as one would expect, others better informed were able to correct him at the Afd. (Should have at least googled, Todd.) However, this all reads a little like you're in a disagreement and want Todd censured - please show if and where he ever abused his admin tools. Otherwise, its just two editors disagreeing, and does not belong here. KillerChihuahua 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roobit thread from WP:AIV

• 82.131.73.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On User talk:Martintg;. this is a sock of the banned vandal and sock puppeteer User:roobit. He is right now harassing his former 'opponents' on their talk pages. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations. (or WP:ANI, if SSP is still backlogged) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  For God's sake, I didn't need any wiki-bureaucratic discussions on the page you linked here! I wanted this IP (probably an Estonian internet café?), used by Roobit aka Poeticourt1 to be blocked for a few hours, so that the person concerned would be hindered from further disruption in articles and on my and my colleagues' talk pages! Is it too much to ask, eh? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC) In addition, he theoretically even broke WP:3RR 3 rv rule this time - on other person's talk page. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I can see your problem - you are too stupid to be able to read the notice on this page! If it is a sockpuppet problem take it to the sockpuppet page, and if it is 3RR violations take it to the 3RR page, and if it is more complex take it to WP:ANI. This page is for obvious vandalism and spamming (it says so, just above these reports). Not really our problem if you are too lazy or thick to place it on the right page... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're reply (unlike mine ;-)) contains violation of WP:NPA. Tell me where should I report you? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, having re-read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, I could easily conclude that the IP's acts fall under two 'Vandalism types': 'sneaky vandalism' in article space and 'Userspace vandalism' on various user talk pages. And according to Misplaced Pages:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism, “Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV”, so that if anyone has problems with reading, it's probably not me. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The above thread was at WP:AIV, but AIV does not seem like the best forum for it and as it was suggested already by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), I have moved the thread here. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"you are too stupid to be able to read the notice on this page", whilst perhaps not being the most appropriate response, doesn't sound uncivil to myself. In Miacek's position I would have merely taken it as a slap on the wrist, but I guess that is just an interpretation. — neuro 14:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that comment was clear violation of NPA and I shouldn't have done it (Trouts or time off as considered appropriate) so I apologise for that. As for the basis of the complaint, I couldn't see a direct link between the two accounts except for an obvious bias - but one which may be shared by several inclined editors, so folk more familiar with socking or this particular case should review it. As for 3RR, this usually needs more than one editor and I was not prepared to wade through the history to find if one party was more guilty than another (plus, it is AIV!!!) Lastly, I was I admit ticked off with the response; in that period I had more edits to the AIV board than the bot, and I was less than amused with Miacek's first comments - still, as I said, my bad. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I never said it wasn't an NPA violation. It is. — neuro 14:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good grief. I blocked the IP for a while, as I agree with the analysis that it is a returning blocked user harassing people. Miacek, LHvU is right, next time please take it to WP:SSP which is there for that exact purpose. Happy New Year, everyone. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point this thread can be marked as resolved - thoughts? Cirt (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and done. Black Kite 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So the problem with lack of civility on the part of LHVU is not to be addressed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not taking a side but asking...It looks like he apologized above and realized his mistake?? What more do you suggest or are you looking for? --Tom 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:BalLightning

BalLightning (talk · contribs)

Just checking this users contribs as I ran in to him again, he's made a total of 5 edits in over 2 years, 1 was vandalism, and 4 have been for promotion. The 4 promotion ones are all in the last month. His talk page shows a deleted contribution that from the looks of it was probably more promotion. It seems that he's not here to do anything besides promote (as slowly and infrequently as it is, but there isn't a good contrib in the bunch).--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I see no contributions at all. Anyone care to clarify? — neuro 14:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BalLightning does seem to list 5 contributions to my non-administrator eyes. I don't think any admin action is required here, the 4-level warning system should suffice as it's possible the editor does not understand the implications of their actions and it's no harm to assume good faith on the part of inexperienced editors. The Spore article has enough eyes on it to prevent any damage. Skomorokh 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems my ec was Crossmr fixing the username. I agree that no admin intervention appears to be required immediately - uw is probably the best course of action. — neuro 16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary abuse / suspect editing motives

Would it be possible for an administrator to have a quick look at the edits of User:Poncho32323 (a relatively small number). This apparent single-purpose agenda account holder has made a number of edits to articles related to a band called Stratovarius. All the edits have had gibberish edit summaries, despite pleas to stop, making it difficult for RC patrol monitoring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for 3 hours to permit them to read the welcome message on their talkpage, and to respond to concerns expressed there. Next time, WP:AIV is best suited for a quick response (as long as you don't get the grumpy reviewer that sometimes answers there). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the grumpy reviewer? ;-) Tan | 39 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't go to WP:AIV because I didn't consider it to be vandalism, or the matter to be particularly urgent. It was more "annoying" rather than "harmful" to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the curmudgeon who was the subject of this matter. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'm familiar. At any rate, you could have easily been referring to me - I do get grumpy :-) Tan | 39 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that "being grumpy" is an impediment to being an administrator. It may even be a requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, actually; I never promote any RfA candidate that doesn't have the correct level of grumpiness. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Kinda like you're not a true admin until you are told you are abusing your power...which in turn gives you an appropriate level of grumpiness. --Smashville 17:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense; the prerequisites of adminship are (1) had your talkpage blanked by an IP, (2) been accused of at least three words ending in "ism" and (3) had at least one argument with Baseball Bugs. There's a checklist – iridescent 17:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like you just went through my talk page archives. Tan | 39 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think another one is, "Likes to argue with brick walls". --Smashville 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop this requirement creep at once. Policy is clear on this matter. Skomorokh 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I get on pretty well with Baseball Bugs - and Duncan Hill, for that matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So do I, but it sure doesn't stop him arguing with me. I guess if you haven't had an argument with BB, one with Smith Jones would be an acceptable substitute. – iridescent 21:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Arguing" with Smith Jones would be akin to arguing with Gabby Johnson. Baseball Bugs 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never been in an argument with Bugs (well...not a real one that I can recall), but I've read enough of Smith...someone should've given him spell check for Christmas. Bugs is at least well-liked enough to have his own stalker. --Smashville 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's when you know you've arrived. Baseball Bugs 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. I've never had an argument with either (although I've read BB's comments here), nor have I had a stalker (not looking to fill the position, either). Maybe it's that I read stuff like this for fun, & folks consider me strange even by Misplaced Pages standards. But I can get grumpy. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, Complaint re OUTING and HARASSMENT

I was exasperated to find that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters appears to be continuing the outing crusade of Bali ultimate at ]. Lulu does this despite the exonerating results of the checkuser done against me. I made reasonable edits to the ACORN article and, unlike previous occasions, explained in detail why I was doing so, yet Lulu reverted them apparently just because I made them. As I recall I made several edits one of which was a mass revert of material (deleted previously by Bali) that happened to include maybe one Capital Research Center item and Lulu seized on this to again make allegations about my identity. Other edits to the article included an article from NPR which is considered on WP to be a reliable source. The fact that he is continuing the outing talk begun by Bali and continues to make allegations as to my identity contrary to WP:OUTING itself constitutes harassment against me. ] Also, Lulu tolerates no inclusion of negative legitimate information about ACORN on the ACORN article. I request that action be taken against him for his flagrant disregard of WP rules. As an admin, he definitely ought to know better. Syntacticus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just here to say i note that my name is repeated again and again up above apparently in some complaint about lulu. My connection appears to have to do with one comment i made a week or so ago (now enshrined in Acorn lore as the "outing crusade"), and other edits i've done about this, that or the other thing. It's all very confusing. If there's an actual reason for my involvement in this, someone let me know (aside to syntacticus: I'm pretty sure that lulu is not an admin.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I read Lulu was an admin. I may be mistaken. The reason you are mentioned here is because you made an attempted outing which I subsequently learned is a very serious blockable infraction of WP rules. You desisted after being warned but Lulu appears to have picked up the ball from you and is doing the same (or very close to the same) all because I happen not to agree with his reverts of my edits to ACORN. Syntacticus (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge the parties involved to take a chill pill. This looks like an edit war / content dispute, and a minor one at that. The sock/coi concerns are that Syntacticus added several sourcing links to contentious claims made by a think tank that he/she may be affiliated with, and is editing articles in a way that supports their position. Those concerns are not unfounded and are not answered by the checkuser's inconclusive result. There was an improper attempted outing, which was already handled here with a warning, but that is a separate matter - voicing sock/coi concerns is not outing. However, absent any blatant trouble, even if they are true Syntacticus is free to make good faith, anonymous edits here, and seems to be sincerely interested in participating in Misplaced Pages. When faced with a simple content question, and a murky question behind that of the legitimacy of editor accounts, perhaps it's better to stock to the content question. Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Lulu's edits, and they are troubling. Perhaps a: Lulu stop that, and a Syntacticus, please ask for community input about the sources that you want to use. I am extremely sympathetic to your point of view, but the sources that you want to use do not, as of yet, have community support. Request another mediation, ask more established users whom you trust or let CRC go.( on my way to notify lulu, as Im not sure he is aware)Die4Dixie (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I found what appears to be your insinuation that Lulu is a pedophile or a homosexual here ] troubling. Lots of us are troubled by what lots of people do.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D: Seriously, how can NPR not have community support? Why should I have to ask anybody's permission to cite NPR? My continuing concern with the ACORN article is that it very briefly and almost in passing recites just a few of ACORN's problems. It's as if ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis wrote the thing.(Perhaps the matter of ACORN's many legal and other problems would be dealt with in a separate article linked to in the main article?) As for the CRC item, it was just one in a mass blanking by Bali ultimate. This is not solely about CRC. This is about whether the ACORN article reflects make believe or whether it reflects reality. WP is supposed to be about reality, not about PR puff-piece BS. Syntacticus (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it some more, so if I jumped the gun , I apologize. NPR should be a reliable source ( although I seldom like what I hear them say :-). This sounds like a conflict dispute, so I'll check out the talk page. If it is CRC related, then I stand by my previous statementDie4Dixie (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon: I will take a rain check on the chill pill, but thanks for the suggestion. I want to get to the bottom of this. Syntacticus (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

104Serena

New account 104Serena (talk · contribs) has plunged straight into editing a number of articles on contentious issues (such as police action, feminism, porn, depression) and made edits which, while having innocuous edit summaries, remove cleanup templates around neutrality, OR, unreferenced claims, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two edits which removed templates; one was a revert to a previous version, and the other, well, who knows, maybe it was malicious and maybe it was an accident. Is there a reason you came here first instead of first asking them why they did it, and telling them not to do it again?

I do not see any problems. Have you cautioned the user yet? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New editor? I doubt it. dougweller (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOCK does not disallow unnamed alternative accounts, so this is not actionable as such straight out just because it appears to be a sock. Actions done by the account, however, may well be blockable, although I certainly don't think it has reached there yet. — neuro 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

another grumpy admin Request for Assistance

• Clarification: I am NOT editing the article, nor have I been involved in any of the discussions, except to give my $.02 when an editor asked for input as to the notability of a certain poll. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On Christmas eve, I slapped the hands of a few people involved in an incipient edit war on Talk:Sarah Palin, involving a long post with no clear explanation of how it might be utilized to improve the article. It read like an essay or blog post; it had excerpts from two offsite articles which also read like essays or blog posts, and the first one was even labeled an essay and the second described as "another" - although I have since been informed that one was a book review, and I have been much maligned and chastised for daring to refer to them as essays. I confess I didn't read the linked sites very carefully; my interest was in stopping the edit war and getting the editors back to discussing the article, preferably civilly. I re-removed the long post and posted a rather snippy warning and templated (yes, I templated) Writegeist and warned Factchecker atyourservice With one exception, this (getting back to discussing the article) has mostly happened. The exception is Writegeist. You will possibly recall that very evening he brought his unhappiness with my actions here, as "User:KillerChihuahuah. Unacceptable behavior by this admin at Sarah Palin talk." Not much happened with that, naturally, as I'd been a bit brusque but not unreasonable, as that article is on what seems to be semi-permanent snipefest, and if it isn't on probation it should be. A campaign of ABF has ensued, in which every little error I make is blown into a malicious lie. He has since posted about desysopping admins on his user page and inquired elsewhere about me (from Bedford, of all misbegotten trolls to ask) and has inquired of Kelly information regarding the "IDCab". Kelly stated s/he prefers to put that in the past, yet helpfully pointed Writegeist to Misplaced Pages Review. Please also feel free to read my attempts at some kind of discourse here on User talk:Writegeist, as well as this (since removed) section from others to Writegeist, primarily regarding his ANI posting - in which, interestingly, Writegeist states that "Having followed countless ANIs it's pretty clear to me that pandering is in fact exactly the technique for getting admins "on side" and encourage them to break ranks with findings against their co-admins". Hrm. Back on topic: I post this heads up as I fully expect harassment and nonsense from this source, up to and including a renewal of that tired old meme about the IDCab. If anyone has any clue-stick which they think might actually make an impression, I beg you to use it before this becomes Yet Another Lame running war on OMG the Evil Admin (me.) I notify you in advance that I have no patience for another of these bizarre little wars from Wronged Editors. I'd like to avoid Rfc if at all possible. ty in advance, KillerChihuahua 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• He continues his campaign to malign my actions and accuse me stating I had "singled out" the user to whom he is posting, when in fact I struck, rolled up, or removed three editor's comments in an attempt to improve civility. KillerChihuahua 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

comment - KillerChihuahua has been trying fairly to play referee in the hornets nest that is the Palin article and talk page with little thanks or support from others. I support this admin for trying to do a thankless job that others have shied away from and will try to abid by his/her oversight and recommendations. Thank you, --Tom 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I appreciate that, especially as yours was one of the affected comments. I think several editors there have become somewhat heated, and as I've said, its calmed down a great deal - with the one exception. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to also offer thanks for rational behavior in a somewhat strange environment over there (even with the weird comments from WG et al <g>) I consider the BLP flagging issue as something for which the time has arrived. Collect (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I got burned at Sarah Palin, and am supportive of KillerChihuahua and any sysop attempting to keep the peace at that place - but I think KC could refactor his comments regarding Bedford (who was also an effective admin, other issues notwithstanding). As for Writegeist... I suggest ignoring with extreme prejudice, such things very rarely produce much in the way of content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I could indeed refactor my comment regarding Bedford. How would you characterize this: "I have her listed on my excrement list, but I don't recall off the top of my head what her transgression against me was" if not as trolling? I welcome suggestions. KillerChihuahua 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, many thanks for your support as regards T:SP and SP; while I would certainly love to "ignore with extreme prejudice" my experience has shown that when editors seek to involve others in their campaigns, ignoring becomes impossible. KillerChihuahua 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's response didn't exactly do him any favours, to be honest. Black Kite 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• The user seems intent on a suicide mission: was enough for me to block them until they can satisfy people that they are not going to behave like that any more. Anyone is free to unblock if they think the user has returned to rationality, but that is just not on. Anyone who feels motivated to co-sign the barnstar I just put on user talk:KillerChihuahua should also feel free to do so, policing that ocean of toxicity is a tough job and I'm glad someone's doing it. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Drat! You missed his best posts! <g> Collect (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG OPPOSE BLOCK YOU'RE CENSORING PEOPLE WHO LIKE SARAH PALIN, ELEVEN. Uh, rather, endorse block. Incidentally, someone might want to look into meatpuppeteering beteen Bedford, Writegeist, and Die4Dixie. They seem to be banding together a lot, and the Confederate/Palin4President/anti-Obama trifecta of userboxes (the third, presumably, either because he's black or they buy into the bullshit about him being an Arab terrorist, rather than genuine concern, but I digress) is a bit worrying... Sceptre 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed beneath contempt. Please provide some evidence of your pathetic claims, other than my encouraging you to quit wikistalking user Bedford. there really needs to be a childrens Misplaced Pages.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

???This isn't it??? Baseball Bugs 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ach, I am a sucker for a little drama. I'll clue you in, Sherlock Holmes. I'm ecstatic about the block. His use of the user boxes was to poke fun of the users who used them. I figured that out when I first saw his user page. As far as Obama and black goes, I love me some Clarence Thomas, and maybe take a little gander at the rest of my boxes, might help you solve the mystery, since you still seem to like to play The Famous Five (series).Die4Dixie (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of puppetry, without concrete evidence, are crossing the line. Baseball Bugs 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at their contributions last night, and I don't see any evidence of meatpuppetry. While all three of them have similar political viewpoints, Writegeist seems to be more vitriolic than the other two (as evidenced by this old version of his user page). Other than some like-minded discussion at User talk:Bedford, in which all three of them are reinforcing their beliefs that Barack Obama is evil, the South was wronged in the American Civil War, and Misplaced Pages admins are also unspeakably evil, I don't see any evidence of collusion. --Elkman 14:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page picture is not protected

The commons version is transcluded... please change ASAP! --84.125.135.8 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I protected the Commons version temporarily. Can someone do a local copy please? rootology (C)(T) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)File:Thylacinus.jpg is now also locally protected.  Sandstein  19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

is also currently unprotected, and transcluded into the main page. John254 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein got that one. Why are all these commons ones sneaking on there? I thought we always did local copies. rootology (C)(T) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not greatly mistaken, protecting an image locally, without uploading it locally, will not prevent vandalism of the commons version from appearing directly on the main page, in which case the problem with File:Domestic goat kid in capeweed.jpg hasn't actually been remedied. John254 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it less time-consuming to just protect both the Commons file and the corresponding Misplaced Pages page for a day or so. That's what I have now done.  Sandstein  19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If an image is protected at Commons, there's no need to also protect the corresponding Misplaced Pages page; non-sysops cannot upload a new local file under the same name as one at Commons. (And when the image is on our main page, the cascading protection will prevent creation/vandalism of a local description page.)

In other words, if a main page image is transcluded from Commons, protecting it at Commons is sufficient. —David Levy 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecting an image file housed on Commons, though, because it's on en.wp's Main Page isn't appropriate, though--we just did that since no one uploaded a local temp copy here that was locked down. rootology (C)(T) 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's entirely within Commons policy to temporarily protect an image for exactly that reason; we even have a template for the purpose. —David Levy 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? That seems... backwards, since this is one site out of many. And that's not the template on File:PreityZinta.jpg. When did we go away from doing a local copy? rootology (C)(T) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Neither protection method has superseded the other. The two have long been used interchangeably, depending on whether the protecting English Misplaced Pages sysop happens to also be a Commoms sysop (which is more likely to occur with TFA, OTD and TFP images than it is with ITN and DYK images, as the former usually are known much further in advance).

2. Commons protection arguably is preferable, as local protection can insulate the English Misplaced Pages from important developments at Commons (such as improvements to the image and copyright concerns). If an image is protected at Commons, such an issue must be addressed by a sysop there, who should notice that the image is on the English Misplaced Pages's main page and respond accordingly.

3. The template to which I linked is used at Commons. File:PreityZinta.jpg has been locally uploaded, so it's tagged with an English Misplaced Pages template. —David Levy 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, that bot would be turned back on or some new one drawn on to automatically upload these locally and protect them, so that there is never a long period of time where any Main Page content is unprotected, is my point. Doing it by hand still relies on someone paying attention at the right time to do it, which isn't that efficient, and protecting it on Commons still prevents people from improving the images in any event. :) rootology (C)(T) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an automated process would be good, but I've cited reasons why it's debatable whether local or Commons protection is preferable. (Commons protection only delays improvements for a short time, but local prevention can prevent all sorts of important developments—including legal issues—from reaching the English Misplaced Pages while the image is transcluded on our main page.) —David Levy 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A perfect example just arose. File:Farthing-1948-front.jpg's protection at Commons led to someone's realization that there might be a copyright problem. Had we protected it locally, we probably wouldn't have learned of the issue (and would have displayed the potentially problematic image on tomorrow's main page). —David Levy 16:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since they're locked down coming and going now, it's sealed off till someone replaces the transcluded commons versions with locally protected ones. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. is still transcluded onto the main page, and unprotected at commons. John254 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check them all, but I protected that one now on commons and left a note on the main talk page. Do we always do these right from commons...? rootology (C)(T) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we usually bring them in from commons, if that's what you mean. If something is going to be on the main page someone always seems to think of transferring to commons beforehand. — neuro 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? I always thought for our main page we used a local temp copy that was protected here. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we did too. Did we once do that, but now have changed, or are both Rootology and I senile? KillerChihuahua 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you have misunderstood. Usually people are attentive enough to transfer PD images to commons before they go to the main page, I didn't say that they should be at transcluded from commons when on the main page - they shouldn't. We should have a local copy. Hope that clears it up. :) — neuro 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, see File:PreityZinta.jpg with it's transferred from Commons temp-protection template. Some of the upcoming images on Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 2008 are not locked down however, so this will just come up again. Did someone change this process and forget to send out a memo? rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They are only uploaded a few hours before it goes live, AFAIK. — neuro 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected images displayed on the main page, again

, , and are currently displayed on the main page directly from the Wikimedia Commons, without being protected there. While any local content displayed on the main page is automatically protected, cascading protection does not extend across projects. Could these images be uploaded locally by an administrator, or protected on the commons? Thanks. John254 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All protected, and the previous batch unprotected by me. We need a more efficient way to do this. rootology (C)(T) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I initially believed that I could remedy this problem by uploading, say, tomorrow's picture of the day locally, so that once it was transcluded into the main page, it would be protected. While non-admins are apparently not permitted to upload images at the same filenames as existing images on the commons, I was able to improvise a solution by uploading a local version at a modified filename, then changing the image in the picture of the day template before is to be protected. Specifically, I uploaded File:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC.jpg at File:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC LOCAL COPY.jpg, then edited Template:POTD/2008-12-31 to use the local image. John254 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that the main page templates are set up so as to prevent most cases in which images could be locally vandalized immediately before being displayed on the main page. For instance, the picture of the day template transcluded into the main page tomorrow is not Template:POTD/2008-12-31, but rather Template:POTD protected/2008-12-31, which is currently protected via transclusion into Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Tomorrow. John254 00:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, I CANNOT do anything to protect and , which are both already transcluded into Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Tomorrow, but displayed directly from the commons, and not currently protected there; an administrative remedy is requested. John254 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've protected both at Commons. —David Levy 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, it appears that you may have missed -- please see . John254 01:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I have no idea why the protection didn't go through. —David Levy 06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not by any means an uncommon occurrence. About 30 days ago, I uploaded images with {{c-uploaded}} nearly every day for quite some time, as this is the only way a user who is an admin here and not an admin on Commons can protect images from vandalism. I eventually gave up because it is extremely tedious and time-consuming. It is far, far easier from the Commons end, because all they have to do is it. To do it from this end, you have to download the image from Commons, upload the image to en.wp, fully protect it, copy all the licensing and sourcing information from the commons page onto the en.wp page, add the c-uploaded template, and then the next day, you have to delete it off en.wp, and restore any legitimate local revisions, such as featured picture designation, categories, or whatever. Tedious, and extremely annoying, because there are so many people who are incredibly active on this project who are also admins there, who could do it, but no.... J.delanoy_adds 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only we had things that automated this stuff with no user interaction! ;) rootology (C)(T) 02:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta just pointed out Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Main page protection robot which is the bot for our troubles. rootology (C)(T) 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that previously we did not have this problem because of the use of commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page and Zzyzx11's efforts for over a year to keep in running. (ITN, not being planned in advance, had to rely on local uploads the most.) While I haven't been following matters, it appears that it was superceded recently by User:MPUploadBot up till it was blocked a month back, leaving us in our current mess and the current proposal for a replacement bot. I think the lesson is that there's no job a bot can do that Zzyzx11 can't do better. - BanyanTree 09:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys

It appears that Biophys (talk · contribs), unsatisfied with the direction that this AFD appears to be taking, is now going around to random talk pages of "Criticism of" articles and misrepresenting the discussion as "a discussion to remove all "Criticism" articles: Everyone is welcome to participate.". Appears to be blanket canvassing by way of misrepresenting a single AFD discussion as "removal of all criticism articles". Wasn't sure how to handle it, so I'm bringing it to ANI. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it was another user who suggested deletion of all "Criticism" articles: , and perhaps he is absolutely right. If this article will be deleted, one can reasonably argue that all other "Criticism" articles must be deleted -simply based on the precendent. Therefore, I informed other users who might be interested in this discussion.Biophys (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And a lot of them are, like "in popular culture" articles, spun out by people who don't like the fact that the sections keep getting justly pruned down to manageable proportions. Almost every "criticism of" article I've ever seen has been a POV-fork to at least some extent, and nuking a bunch of them probably would improve the encyclopaedia quite a bit. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all, though. The O'Reilly article, for example, was simply spun off from the main article because the section was getting too large in the main article. Baseball Bugs 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, that was precisely my argument why all such articles have every right to exist. But there is nothing wrong to mark all such articles for deletion, if someone thinks otherwise.Biophys (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos provides no edit differences, so thus far his accusations are baseless.travb (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

, . // roux   22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My message was neutral and non-partisan. Hence this is not canvassing.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your message was wildly inaccurate and WP:POINTy, and yes it was canvassing. You were attempting to get people to support keeping the Putin article by falsely implying that all Criticism Of articles would be deleted if that one was. // roux   23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing false in my message. It was not me who indeed suggested to remove all such articles . I did not suggest to keep or delete anything specific in the posted messages, but only to participate in discussion, as obvious from the diffs.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And he is now being WP:DISRUPTive. On Criticism of McDonald's there was consensus on the talk page to merge into McDonald's. Following WP:MERGE, I did a selective merge, only merging that information that was referenced (unsourced information can be removed at any stage). He has undone my compliant merge claiming I have partaken in a unilateral deletion, and when undone, he is now claiming to take it to AfD. Is there any other word for this but WP:DISRUPT? --Russavia 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Instead of merging, the content of this article has been effectively deleted by User:Russavia, apparently to prove his point. Nominating this article for deletion however would be fine.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements may be removed by any editor at any time. // roux   23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But deleted text was sourced.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:BURDEN, the burden is now upon yourself to provide sources for all of the unsourced WP:OR which you have re-instated, which is why it was not included in the merge. Additionally, 5 editors have expressed their opinion on the talk page over a period of some months, with no objections (meaning the article is not watched by many, or they don't care), and I have simply gone by that consensus on the talk page, and done the merge. Can you see how you have now been WP:DISRUPTIVE? --Russavia 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Russavia:"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" I find it incredibly ironic and Orwellian that an editor who deletes well referenced material by misquoting established guidlines is accusing the very editor who is attempting to stop such misconduct of being disruptive.

I must admit, User:Russavia, your command of acronym soup is impressive, but as I clearly showed in this AfD, the central guidelines you quote to justify your AfD contradict your reason for the AfD in the first place. As User:Digwuren wrote in the AfD: "...since the nomination is erroneous, there is not even a potentially valid basis for deletion offered -- so a speedy keep would not be out of order."

I believe with a little investigation, User:Russavia's claims that he "did a selective merge, only merging that information that was referenced", will also be found to be lacking.

User:Roux, is an active AfD delete editor (AfDs created: 54 Articles created: 11) along with Blaxthos, who posted this ANI (AfDs created: 72 Articles created: 7). User:Roux, we can go through WP:Canvas line by line if necessary. There is a lot of arbcom rulings on WP:Canvas, and admin actions which will completely nullify this baseless argument of Canvasing. If Cool Hand Luke, a newly elected Arbitor can solicit a number of editors on and offline to vote in his arbitor election, two neutral edits on a similar page is not a WP:Canvas violation.

WP:POINT is "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point". Accusing User:Biophys of disrupting wikipedia to make a point based on one entry on a talk page is patently absurd, especially considering User:Russavia much more disruptive actions I mention here. It is not only false, it is a Personal attack. travb (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roux, is an active AfD delete editor (AfDs created: 54 Articles created: 11)'

And that has anything to do with anything because? Some articles should be deleted. Some shouldn't. I have made absolutely zero opinion on whether this particular article should be deleted; I was commenting on the canvassing by Biophys. Kindly don't try to... I don't know what exactly you were trying to do, but it's obvious that you were trying to discredit me because I happen to have nominated some articles for deletion. Don't do it again. // roux   01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

given the general context, and the other articles selected, it does indeed seem like WP:POINT. Given the way the Putin AfD is proceeding, I do not think the article will be deleted, nor will the one of Bush or O'Reilly articles. As for McDonald's, the claimed consensus to merge is based on an old poll with half the supports being anons/SPAs, and no real discussion, so it would seem reasonable to reopen the issue. If anything, like many attempts at canvassing, this will prove counterproductive, so I think no action is necessary. DGG (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My selective merge of only sourced material will be found lacking? Care to back up that statement with a little evidence there Inclusionist? Here's the diff, the only thing that was referenced is the environmental section. The rest is for all intents and purposes WP:OR, as there is not a reference in sight for the rest of it. So do your little investigation and you get back to me. --Russavia 01:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies Russavia, I was absolutely wrong. travb (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, although it is better if WP:AGF was present beforehand. Now coming back to Criticism of McDonald's, both User:Biophys and User:Martintg have taken it upon themselves to undo that merge. The WP:BURDEN is now on them to completely source that entire article, and I am going to somewhat expect them to do so. As to Vladimir Putin, User:Inclusionist and User:Martintg have reverted a heap of edits of mine to the article, not selective reversion, but wholesale reversion. Within my edits were a change to the date format in the infobox to match the rest of the article, the replacement of a dead link to CNN to a live one to RIAN, removal of unreliable sources (anticompromat.ru), general formatting fixes, wikilinking to various articles, removal of a WP:TRIVIA section, placement of content tags (such as "who", "fact", etc), removal of criticism unrelated to the section in which it is located, adding of information to various sections (such as his meeting with Nashi), re-placement of some information (the brand section), criticism which belongs in Medvedev's article, not Putins, removal of POV terms (such as "teflon image"), removal of a list of names to do with his dacha, removal of the size of the dacha (in the article as 7,000m2, and is unreferenced -- as I stated in the edit summary, that is not a dacha, that's a palace), and removal of unsourced information on the media, and which was left had nothing to do with criticism. As there has been absolutely ZERO assumption of good faith on both the part of User:Inclusionist and User:Martintg, I am now placing the WP:BURDEN on them of sourcing all re-introduced information into the article which is not referenced. I made it clear, that I am working on improvements to the article at the moment (off-wiki), and re-inclusion of things such as media is already being worked on, but these two editors chose to ignore WP:AGF and now that WP:BURDEN is on them, and I expect them all to source the information as per one of the key policies on WP, or they are more than welcome to start assuming good faith, undo their undoing of merges, and wholesale revisions, and instead of working against me, work with me, and get articles up to par. --Russavia 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion here be archived. Clearly this discussion had gone off-topic, which was originally about alleged canvassing (my two cents is that the original messages were neutral though probably placed in the wrong spot, perhaps in the respective wiki-projects may have been better), and the discussion has moved to a confusing content dispute which the best place for it is on the respective article talk pages. Martintg (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't confusing about it Martin. I have laid out the details, as I was advised to place it here by an admin for other admins to look at, and I would rather have some resolution to this here. The question above remains, and I really would appreciate an answer as to intentions of the 3 editors I have addressed, yourself included. --Russavia 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've read through the above twice and it's about as crisp as mashed potatoes. Exactly what are you asking regarding editor Marintg's "intentions"? I have found him to be an upstanding editor who backs his editorial contentions with reputable sources. PetersV       TALK 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism_of_McDonald's - all but the Environmental section is unreferenced - it is the environmental section which was merged into the main article. 2 editors have undone it, and hence re-inserted unreferenced material into the article. It is their WP:BURDEN to source it now.

On Vladimir Putin,

However, critics of Putin are seldom seen on major national TV channels like Channel One and RTR. Channel One (at that time ORT) used to belong to Boris Berezovsky, one of Putin's main political opponents, and was considered independent from Kremlin, but in 2001 Berezovsky was forced to sell his shares of ORT to another oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Since then, Channel One has been considered to be controlled by the Kremlin. The same occurred with NTV in June 2000: the owner of NTV, Vladimir Gusinsky, was forced to give up his shares in exchange for his freedom and the ability to leave the country. NTV was then captured by Gazprom on 14 April 2001. The NTV channel's news team immediately defected to TV6 and the channel was sued after that by LUKoil. On 21 January 2002, the channel was taken off the air due to a liquidation process ordered by 14 judges of the supreme arbitration court. Four months later the TV6 channel team appeared again on the news television channel TVS, which was launched instead of TV6.

Is completely unsourced.

As is:

Since 1992, Putin has owned a dacha of about seven thousand square meters in Solovyovka, Priozersky District in Leningrad Oblast, which is located on the eastern shore of the Komsomolskoye Lake on the Karelian Isthmus near Saint Petersburg.

And other info re-inserted. Because they have lacked WP:AGF, knowing that I said I am working on the article, the WP:BURDEN is now on them to source all of that, including the 7,000 square metres, unsourced information. As one can see from the article history, there was a series of 24 edits done by myself, with all sorts of fixes and removal of unsourced info, and the entire lot has been wholesale reverted.

If they don't want these edits to be called as WP:DISRUPTIVE, they need to source all of this information they have re-inserted. Or they can start assuming good faith with their own edits, and work with me instead of against me.

Can it be said any clearer? --Russavia 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has all but confirmed that he has no intention of sourcing anything that he re-instated, nor has he addressed anything raised here, so one can only assume that this was a deliberate non-AGF WP:DISRUPTIVE act on his part. It is also evident that User:Inclusionist has not WP:AGFed and has also acted WP:DISRUPTIVELY and quite WP:TENDENTIOUSLY, in his mass revert of 24 edits on a single article (including many improvements), WP:GAMEing by selective inclusion of edits which I removed here (note, he has attempted to make myself out as a POV vandal, by even including deletions of information which has been dealt with as WP:FRINGE by myself and other editors on the article)...and his insinuations that I have not acted in WP:AGF and making out that my edits are improper...this is a hit-and-run attack by himself. And by Martintg's comments simply stating this should be closed, he too has no intention of addressing the issues which I have raised. Yet, it can be shown clearly that I have at every stage answered questions and been up-front with my edits (and I challenge anyone to show any different). Is this not just another form of WP:HARRASS, which was clearly pointed out to editors only the other day, I will no longer tolerate]. I would like some response to this from an uninvolved admin thanks. --Russavia 08:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, citing every single Misplaced Pages policy over and over again in caps doesn't add veracity to your allegations. You need to step back and take a deep breath rather than continue with this wikidramu. Of all the policies you cite, I recommend a review of WP:NPA. Martintg (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, OK, I read your rant here. But this is simply not an appropriate forum. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lindale13 again

This is more or less a pro forma notice, since it involved a lot of pages... Please see User:Lindale13 in the ANI archive 500. This user, as discussed there, was mirroring the user pages of others into their user space, via copy. I don't think any major harm was intended, but it's a GFDL violation, and worse, it was making some categories wonky (any category that a given page was in also had the mirror page in it too). I suggested to the user (at User_talk:Lindale13) that they should reply. They did so, but to the ANI archive, rather than their own user page or mine. Based on what they have said, (about not needing the pages, and about "deleting them" (actually what they did was blank the page that linked to them, making the pages unreachable, but not deleted) and the issues originally raised, I've deleted the entire swath of pages, as can be seen in my deletion log: . I shall notify the user of this discussion. As always I welcome review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I do hope that he is able to follow course work requirement and project assignments criteria a little better than he does WP:Practice and Principles. Yeah, fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in Fundraiser Headline

I'm sure a lot of admins have suppressed the fundraiser banner, so they don't see it on each page, but there's a rather embarrassing misspelling in one of the messages and I haven't been able to find the page from which to correct it:

Merci et bravo pour votre impartialité ! — Benoit from Luxembuorg, donated 30 EUR (Thank you and bravo for your neutrality!)

"Luxembuorg" is spelled wrong, I haven't been able to find any location which is so spelled. It should be "Luxembourg." Pretty sure this is an admin task, but I have no idea where the notice is generated from. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The class is "siteNoticeBig notice-wrapper", if that helps anyone locate it. — neuro 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably on Meta-wiki. Majorly talk 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The banner is created by the Foundation staff... Shoot an e-mail to foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org? Avruch 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the quote translations are editable by meta admins, has been taken care of by Marybelle. Avruch 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

This is most aggravating. Editors who have been using the tool for a long while should be very well aware when rollbacking should be utilized, but coming from a sysop no less, I expected better. Thoughts on what to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How about trying a little harder to not be so irritating? older ≠ wiser 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That gives you absolutely no reason to imply I am vandalizing. Your bad faith revert on that redirect should be undone immediately. You don't deserve the rollback feature as far as I'm concerned. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You were making repeated blatantly nonproductive edits under the mistaken aegis of WP:BRD. older ≠ wiser 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Bkonrad that comment was out of line, I suggest you retract it. As for rollback abuse, rollback should never ever be used to revert a good faith edit. However I should also point out that both of you are close to breaking the 3rr--Jac16888 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede the comment may have been out of line for this forum. However, this editor, despite knowing full well that his edit is blatantly nonproductive, and even apparently agreeing at least to some extent with me, he has WP:POINTedly once again reverted here and here. I'll stand by my characterization as irritating. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering to justify yourself. Your use of rollback, in an edit war, was out of line, if you refuse to accept that then perhaps your permission should be revoked--Jac16888 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What wikilawyering? The edits were blatantly nonproductive and he failed to follow up on discussions that he initiated before reverting while incorrectly invoking WP:BRD. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if your assessment is 100% accurate, in no way does that justify your use of the rollback function, which never should be invoked in a content dispute, regardless of who's right or wrong. You've been a sysop since May 2004, so I would hope that you're aware of this. —David Levy 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit that my use of rollback may have been motivated by a fit of pique. I should have manually reverted the edits and once again attempted to explain to irritatingly deaf ears why the edits were unproductive. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In such a situation, it also can be helpful to consider allowing someone else to revert. The edits appear to be relatively minor (rendering reversion non-urgent), but if you're correct in your belief that they were "blatantly nonproductive," an ample number of users should agree. (I realize, of course, that it's easier to prescribe that type of patience than it is to summon it in the heat of the moment.) —David Levy 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week. Please settle this dispute on the talk page, either way (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for looking into this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed at WP:EAR

Over at WP:EAR, there's a situation which needs additional admin input. Please see: this thread, titled "Editing assistance in continuation war". Any admins with special skills in rooting out sockpuppets would be most appreciated. This one has my spidey-sense tingling. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidx5

Davidx5 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked twice in less than two weeks for repeated disruptive editing. He doesn't like the article at Hispanic, so he keeps putting in contentious edits, which keep getting reverted. He then created Hispanic (updated), which contained his personal point of view, and that got speedy deleted. So he's just re-created it, I've listed it for speedy deletion as db-repost. Somebody needs to take Davidx5 in hand and explain that he can't have his own articles, and if he continues, he should be long-term blocked. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable block of RMHED (talk · contribs)

WP:HOUND by IP user

An IP user logging in from 84.139.*.* (the IP address seems to vary with every edit) has been wiki-hounding me for the last couple of weeks - especially the last few days. Since he or she does not have an account or a fixed IP address, the easiest way to confirm this claim may be to look at the articles I have edited recently and track his contributions. Besides having an apparent dislike for my work, he seems to have a faint but consistent German nationalist slant.

(I brought the matter here a couple of days ago; he replied by making claims on my edits that were prima facie false - at times these claims were contradicted by the diffs he had given. This seems frivolous, to say the least.) Feketekave (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Interestingly, Geolocate shows that this user is logging in from Rostock in Pomerania (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Can somebody run a check against two recent users in Talk:Drang nach Osten? User:Skäpperöd and User:HerkusMonte may have compatible views, declare themselves to be from the same region and have been contributing to the page where the wikihounding started. No offense intended; I hope my relations with those two users (should they be distinct from each other and from the misbehaving IP user) will continue to be cordial. Feketekave (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The List Companies

Could somebody please speedy delete The List Companies? I've now got three "new" editors, including the article's original creator, who has a conflict of interest name that's similar to that of the company, removing not only my db-spam tag from the article, but also CorenBot's copyright notice. Salting may be necessary, too. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a Rangeblock

• 76.30.97.194 (talk · contribs)
• 76.30.207.143 (talk · contribs)
• 76.30.96.91 (talk · contribs)

Could I get an administrator who knows ranges to work a rangeblock that'll hit all three of these Comcast IPs? They're sock- or meatpuppets of 98.197.8.210 (talk · contribs) and have been harassing users involved in blocking the socks and WP:CHECK as of late. Thanks in advance. -Jéské Couriano 06:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• 76.30.96.0/23 for the close pair, 76.30.0.0/16 (No go) for the whole. What makes you think that comcast isn't just assigning dynamic IPs across a large range? Do you think the smaller range will block a few potential socks from being created? Protonk (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to agree with Protonk on this. We had a situation abotu a month ago where someone had a Bell Canada IP, and had dynamically assigned addresses over a /8 range. It was kinda like this. Given the size of the range, and the way many large ISPs assign dynamic IP numbers, it would be as ineffective in stopping such a person with a range-block as it would be just handing out individual whack-a-mole blocks. The targeted ranges only have a random chance of stopping him, temporarily, while they will also block otherwise good users at the exact same rate, thus making any rangeblocks in this situation pointless. WP:RBI and semi-protect for short durations (a day or so) as needed seems to be the only way to stop this. Yes it sucks, but given the way that Comcast likely handles assigning its IP addresses, its the only feasible way of doing this. Get your whack-a-mole hammers ready... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk · contribs)

This is unacceptable. Someone do something about it. OrangeMarlin 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

is also interesting. I find him amusing, like a return to Noddy or Mr. Men books.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

thumb|right|upright|WikiNoose Guess you'll be needing this. Toodles. Sceptre 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like twat is the new word for the day .Die4Dixie (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that word went out with buttonshoes, 23-skidoo, and Negro. Baseball Bugs 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cunt" would get me blocked :D Sceptre 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

/EC/ Nah , 'prolly not, I think you're golden. You are a welcome and amusing diversion from tense edit and content disputes. I don't think that there is an admin willing to block you, and If I'm wrong, I'm certain one will unblock you posthaste. Carry on.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then try "Berk", as John Cleese did on Olbermann, talking about O'Reilly. Baseball Bugs 06:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but then again Cleese's from the (Very) Silly Party. -Jéské Couriano 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually "twat" will get you blocked, too. Applying crude, demeaning terms to your co-editors is inappropriate, and in this case seems to be part of an escalating pattern of incivility. - Nunh-huh 07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Was going to say that he'd find himself blocked. In any case, Sceptre knows better. WODUP 07:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This editor is untouchable. I have seen blocks for considerably lees. There is nothing to see here folks, I bet he'd be unblocked faster that it takes Gnasher to gnaw a bone.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to visit his website, "The Sceptic Tank". Baseball Bugs 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Describing another user as acting like a twat is clearly unacceptable and I doubt that any ordinary editor would get away with it. We have developed a culture where certain editors do get away with offensive behaviour simply because the drama caused by blocking them considerably outweighs the benefit gained by blocking them. Generally said civility blocks don't work and it would be quickly overturned if he were blocked. It is extremely disappointing that a genuine complaint about something that is clearly genuinely upsetting to another user is not being taken seriously by participants in this thread. If Sceptre had any decency he would redact his immature comments now that he can see that OrangeMarlin is offended but of course he won't because being sensitive to the impact of his behaviour on other users simply isn't in his make-up. Spartaz 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that Sceptre has now been blocked for this therefore striking through last comment because he can't actually change what he said now. Spartaz 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Twat" is an incredibly mild swear word in the UK at least. I've never heard it being used in a seriously derogatory manner, merely mild name-calling between friends. It's about as harmful as "idiot". Majorly talk 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Remarks posted on the Internet in the UK, however, do not seem to stay in the UK. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended. You're only looking at the result here, not the intent. Majorly talk 08:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He was informed it was offensive, and continued calling his co-editors "twats". There's no ignorance involved. Calling your coeditor a "twat" is not civil; it's not appropriate, and it will get you blocked. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you blocked him. Majorly talk 08:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you also saw that the block was reviewed and maintained. - Nunh-huh 08:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that someone as offended as OrangeMarlin was would be "ROFLMAOing" at the original comment. Majorly talk 08:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I thought another UK attribute was the ability to detect satire. So, do you really want to advocate for a "right" to call your Misplaced Pages co-editors "twats"? - Nunh-huh 08:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't satire. And no, I never said it was right to be name-calling, but it's not something to block someone for 3 days over. Majorly talk 08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're agreed about the wrongness of the offense, then, at least. I'd hate to see a "request for comments" on whether it's OK to say "you're a twat" to a supposed colleague. I take insults that demean not only those they are directed at, but also an entire class of persons not directly involved very seriously. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a hostile environment, especially to entire classes of persons. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was wrong (as is any kind of name-calling) but the length is my issue. I think three days is beyond preventative and is becoming punitive. Majorly talk 08:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I reviewed the {{unblock}} request, I'll comment here: I declined to reverse the block due to the namecalling and the attitude that Sceptre showed in the early stages of this thread (see the "cunt" comment and the noose above). I looked at the length of time, and left it unchanged as this is not the first incivility block on Sceptre. Titoxd 08:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My handy dandy Oxford English Dictionary informs me that it is a slang vulgar term for the external female genitalia, just like it is in the US. His comment about using it instead of "cunt" shows that that was his exact intent, to call users "cunts", and get away with it. I don't expect you would call your grandmother a 'twat'. My mother is from Scotland, I attended school there for some years, and I would never call my gran a "twat". Why not? Because it is a vulgar churlish word that demeans women and relegates them to the role of sexual objects, that's why. Die4Dixie (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, dixie, would you say it's worse to call someone a "twat" or to imply someone you're in a content dispute with is a pedophile or a homosexual like you did here? ]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I think we've determined well enough that "twat" is an offensive word. Let's not keep discussing it for the sake of discussing it. Majorly talk 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, while I'm not exactly Spectre's number one wikibuddy, I can't help but find this exceedingly absurd. Are we really blind to the difference between somebody saying "you're a dumb twat" and "you're acting like a twat"? The British "twat" is analogous to the American "dick" - a term that, while slightly off-color, is hardly so grossly insensitive as to cause severe emotional distress to any but the most already-traumatized of human beings by its mere presence alone. If an "entire class" of editors can be, uh, "demeaned" with a simple four-letter word, then perhaps this esteemed "entire class" should work on being a bit less hyper-sensitive - or, alternatively, perhaps we could consider other words that might cause similar offense as fair game for action. A 72-hour block - even given Spectre's prior history - for a single off-color remark is rather excessive. Is there a multitude of prior Spectre/OM interaction, of which I'm unaware, that might elevate this beyond the point of extremely petty kindergarden bullshit? Badger Drink (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single off-color remark, but rather several remarks which were problematic for being insulting to co-editors rather than merely off-color. And, for what it's worth, not all of them were similes rather than metaphors. As for 72 hours, it is, if anything, a bit short given the durations of the prior blocks. Blocks are supposed to escalate, not get shorter. - Nunh-huh 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the entire sequence of events "Spectre says something about OrangeMarlin having acted 'like a twat' in the past" -> "outraged editors pounce on Spectre" -> "Spectre gets a little outraged and defensive himself and drops a c-bomb on AN/I"? Generally, blocks should escalate, but there exists a balancing act between "law of diminishing returns" (see: Betacommand, above) and establishing a "one and you're done" zero-tolerance no-win situation. This particular case - as I currently understand it - is a bit too close to a "no-win situation" for my personal comfort. Badger Drink (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your original point was interesting; however, the continued and deescalation shrillness (edited by user )of your message detracts from it and makes me ask quid bono. Your advocacy is passionate on the issue. You also conveniently forget the bad faith assumptions that he made about some Obama meat puppet thingamajig that's linked to above. Die4Dixie (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's "shrillness"? That's "escalating"? I guess you have me on "continued", but your statement seems so disconnected from the flow of reality as I know it as to almost seem like a Mad-Lib. I'll assume good faith. If you poke around, you can see that I have defended Mr. Marlin on numerous occasions, and was against un-blocking Spectre during his original three-month block for sockpuppetry and actual incivility. I don't believe users are typically blocked for making bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs, but if you have examples of precedence, I would be glad to look them over. In any case, the block summary says, in full, "Incivility: escalating pattern of incivility, as demonstrated in thread at AN/I. A working environment in which crude sexual terms are tolerated is not conducive to production of an encyclopedia", which leads me to believe that he was not, in fact, blocked for bad faith assumptions regarding meat puppet thingamajigs. Badger Drink (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaawwwwwwww, you unarchived it, ok Badgerdrink, if anything productive comes out of this in the next 20.5 hours, OM and I will help you write a Featured Article....XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Majorly's comment, specifically, "So you're assuming Sceptre is aware of every different culture's dialect and word usage? It's not his fault someone was offended." I must concur with this, the first time I said the big C on IRC I got shot down for saying a word that it apparently extremely offensive in the US, and is sort of up there at the top as far as profanity goes. In the UK it is thrown around very liberally, even in a reasonably polite and mature conversation. I had not done research on how the word was taken in the US beforehand, and nor should I have, because why would you look for a cultural difference that you didn't know existed? — neuro 10:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this had been a one-off brain explosion on Sceptre's part, I'd probably have felt comfortable unblocking him with a stern warning not to do it again. However, it seems that the term was used multiple times. It's one thing to drop a word when you're genuinely unaware that people will find it offensive due to cultural differences, it's entirely another to re-use it for dramatic effect when you know that it they will. This takes it beyond "boys will be boys" and up to the level of a serious civility violation or intent to intimidate or offend, in my mind. As always, I suggest applying The Grandma Test before pressing "Save Page". Lankiveil 11:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

• Lankiveil is right - "twat" has varying amounts of offensiveness depending on how it's used, and also where in the UK you're from. It's not just a synonym for "idiot". Black Kite 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if Sceptre doesn't have a long history of attacking Orangemarlin, or me for that matter, both here and at Wikipediareview. His comment is simply another instance of his long-running personal ax grinding against OM. It's Sceptre's choice of "twat" to describe OM that needs to be dealt with here. It's use is simply unacceptable, and the fact that he's from the UK is no excuse; Sceptre, as a former admin, has been on Misplaced Pages dealing with US sensibilities for years. Sceptre simply knows better and yet still deliberately chose to employ the term here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Highly offensive. Good block. Sceptre has been here at least 3 years, but just this past spring he started accumulating blocks. What's the story there? Baseball Bugs 13:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Burnout is my usual diagnosis. Thing is, sometimes you can call someone a twat in fun and it's fine, other times it's not OK. In this case Sceptre seems to be harbouring a grudge against OM. That's a really good reason to keep well clear and leave it to other people, especially if (as with Sceptre) the spotlight is on you already. It's really not a great idea to go using invective when trying to recruit admin help against people with whom you clearly have a long-running dispute. You might as well just post {{blockme}}. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at his block log, he was indef-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded; then long-blocked several times, only to have it rescinded. All of that since last spring. You may be right about the burnout. Maybe a moderate block that doesn't get rescinded would be what the doctor ordered. Baseball Bugs 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sceptre is (or at least was) fundamentally decent, I think he needed and needs a break, I think he was unblocked / came back too soon, before the pressure had wound down. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Given its Anglo-Saxon meaning, the only time I ever utter that word (which isn't too often, maybe thrice a year at most?) is when talking to friends who were brought up speaking English, I'd guess wontedly to make them smile about some dumb thing someone has done. The way Sceptre used it could easily be taken as a personal attack by many editors. As to why he slips like this, I can only say that maybe in a year or two or three, he won't. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I never heard the word "twat" until I tried using the word "saltwater" on some message board a decade or so ago and it got rejected because of the word it contained. Someone had to explain it to me, with my big, wide, wondering eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old Scunthorpe Problem :-) the wub "?!" 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I still remember first hearing it in the dining hall at boarding school when I was 14, uttered spot-on with its etymology (as I look back). That was a fit school :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You are all acting like saltwaters :) --Tom 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was used to using the word in its lesser sense ("you're being a silly twat") until I managed to completely offend most of the members of my girlfriend's family when using it in front of them to describe someone who was drunk and being a bit of an idiot at a family wedding - which was when I realised that it is far closer to the c-word in certain parts of the UK, let alone in the US. (Luckily, I managed not to use it at our wedding)... Black Kite 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, you may have been luckier than Robert Browning, who seems to have thrown it into a poem, thinking it meant a nun's hat. Hmph. I'm starting to wonder if Sceptre even knew what he was saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When we were younger and more innocent a friend of mine believed that "twat" was just a variation of "twit". So when our art teacher called another student a twit, he promptly followed up with "Yeah, you're a right twat". Needless to say he soon learned the error of his ways. the wub "?!" 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There aren't "degrees of insults" we should be using to rank such words. Its silly. If he called someone a "fool" or an "idiot" or a "poopyhead" it should be seen as the same level of WP:NPA violation as "twat". The issue is not the specific choice of name he chose to call someone, its the very act of calling someone such a name in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a discussion. Yes, and I know he qualified the statement with the meaningless phrase "acting like a..." but still, the issue is the behavior, not the specific word choice. See WP:MAJORDICK for more on why it really SHOULDN'T matter which words are chosen when we apply our NPA policies... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Who let you out of the cabbage patch?" is funny and kid-friendly (so far as it goes), but still a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was once blocked for several days for calling people "idiots". If that T-word is supposed to equate to "idiots", then it's certainly blockable for several days also - especially given the editor's blocking history, along with his complete lack of understanding as to what constitutes a personal attack (see below) and thus his complete lack of any regret at having said any of that stuff. Baseball Bugs 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing (not LOL funny, more ironic) is that I didn't care about the word one way or another. I may use fuck rather liberally, mainly because it's fairly mainstream these days, functions as a verb, adjective, adverb, and noun so readily that it's hard not to use. But demeaning words against women show a total lack of class. That being said and not being a woman, Sceptre's word choice was immature rather than anything else. It was his unnecessary attack that bothered me, considering he has been blocked before. This was an interesting conversation however. Oh, and when I wrote LMAO in my edit summary was that I couldn't believe Sceptre would actually write something. I was being ironic. OrangeMarlin 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Sceptre

Moved by MBisanz

Can someone post this on AN?: Regarding OrangeMarlin, that was hardly an insult. In that context, I was using it analogous to the word "dick". You don't need to get into hidden long-past grudges; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I left OM alone after he agreed to the parole, and only brought the matter up on ANI precisely because it's the behaviour he exhibited pre-parole that he admitted wasn't the best of attitudes. Maybe "twat" wasn't the best of words, but I'm using it in the context of "bleedin' idiot" instead of "fucking asshole". So as it stands, a 72 hour block for one non-insult and one relatively tame insult where I've arguably been provoked, even given past history, and with no-one just to point it out and say "dude, what the hell?", is way way overexcessive. As I wasn't planning on doing any major editing tonight—a book I've ordered hasn't come yet (why should it? It's Christmas)—I'll be fine with a 24-hour, or even a 31-hour block. But really... 72 hours is reaching into the bounds of punishment rather than prevention. Sceptre 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't want to buy into that, but there's also still the outstanding problem of OM's User_talk:Orangemarlin#Warning vicious ranting against User:Skomorokh. Granted this was initially because of apparent problems/miscommunication on Sk's part but OM's continued abuse of him (after everyone else had worked it out) was way over top. Misarxist 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not on parole. This is about Sceptre. I'm done here. OrangeMarlin 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that Sceptre made baseless allegations about me on the workshop page of WP:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, repeated on the talk page. He was asked by the clerk Daniel to either justify these with diffs or withdraw his attacks. He replied, "Ugh, fuck this for a game of soldiers." Daniel refactored his comments and archived that part of the talk page. Sceptre's behaviour seems to have been purely disruptive; his comments (on scientology, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein) made it quite clear that he had no interest in contributing to the ArbCom case. As a fellow Briton, I can confirm that "twat" is an insult used by British adolescents; if used to an adult, it would usually result in being sent to bed early without hot milk or, in extreme cases, a clip round the ear :) Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I find it somewhat bothersome that Sceptre doesn't realize that the issue is that "twat" and "bleeding idiot" and "fucking asshole" are all equally bad personal attacks. Its not the word choice, its the act of using namecalling as a part of discourse. Its just not right. If you wanted to say "Dude, What the hell?" then say just that. But don't try to back-justify namecalling, especially given the past history. If there had been no massive explosion a few months ago, and if there was no history of this, there may not be the severity of this block. But for 72 hours, Sceptre is not calling anyone names. For that reason alone, the block seems purely preventative. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How should this spam be dealt with?

This page: punjabinri.com/ is continually being added by various editors to articles. It's clearly spam but there is no point in dealing with the editors as they are often one-off IPs. Another page, punjab.punjabinri.com/ is also added which I think is basically there to lead to the financial services page.

I'm not clear how to get this blacklisted (if that's the solution), and whether this should be done only locally or over all Foundation Wikis. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Talk to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist folks. They R smrt. They can figure out how to add that to their regexes and what-not. :) They can also probably answer the foundation vs. en-wiki question. Protonk (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that page first, and it seems that is only for the en version, but I'll have a go, I can only learn! dougweller (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

KOAVF: Community Sanction, editing banned pages

Despite the http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Koavf/Community_sanction of October (which stated, among other clauses "Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construe. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions) yesterday 29 Dec 08 KOAVF returned to start editing, and immediately started out with stealth edits to Western Sahara pages. The edits themselves are merely minor, if irritating, semi-POV edits to stable language, but right out of the gate from his return to editing, it appears, he violates a clear ban (based on this discussion for exactly the same behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals ; scroll up for discussion of ban etc).

KOAVF Edit History: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Koavf

Immediate (upon return) W. Sahara Edits: SADR: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic&diff=260640377&oldid=246168664 (Comparison is merely w my last revert from some vandalism, highlighting he removed stable language, not a new addition, never mind he's specifically banned from editing W Sahara; I would note the deceptive "edit description" note marking it as spelling, when in fact it was POV on content).

Sagui El Hamra: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Saguia_el-Hamra&diff=260639740&oldid=257753630 (Editing again, rather more defensible insofar as he restored information, however as he is banned and already changing stable but to him controversial text, I would suggest he could have editing a talk page and asked a neutral party to take the same action, without violating his ban.)

I have not included some minor edits related to Western Sahara on non-W. Sahara pages, insofar as they would cloud the issue.

The key reason for this complaint is (i) of course it is a clear violation of the ban, but (ii) much more importantly edits such as to the SADR page (mislabelled as spelling, overturning stable consensus language to his preferred version, after months of quiet) are precisely what used to set off nasty edit wars between himself and the Moroccan partisans. As noted in the ban/block discussion of September / October above (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals) KAOVF has long edit warred over W. Sahara were it is more than evident that in the end only his POV is "consensus" to him, as Admin FaysalIF laid out in the original conversation, which has invariably touched off endless edit wars even with the most reasonable of editors. (collounsbury (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Ban has clearly been violated, I am not sure if I should suggest a final warning or a block though. — neuro 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Per neuro. Given this is the first time he's edited since 27 September, I'm not sure either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eyh, given that the edits are not that disruptive, and given that there has been some time elapsed since that case, I'm going to issue a final warning here. If he continues to edit these pages, any editor has my support for another lengthy block. Lankiveil 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Good call. Any repeat is an unambiguous block, so pay out the rope and let him decide what to do with it. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may, first whether Kaovf gets his 20th or 21st block seems almost inevitable, but with respect to the triviality of the edits, I agree except for example on the SADR editing, as it was this kind of stealth editing (mislabelled, overturning phrasing that had been arrived at - to no single parties' pleasure, obstinacy as noted in FAysal's original discussion of a site ban) that has set off multiple rounds of edit wars with respect to Western Sahara & Morocco. The highly party political editing, and the habit of going silent for periods and then coming back and stealthily overturning consensus phrasing was well attested to before. I do not believe for a minute he was not aware of the ban, given how it arrived. I found it remarkably telling that the very moment he returned to editing, he snuck in the POV (minor to be sure, without a 'history' I would have ignored it) edit, under a mislabelled (as "spelling") minor edit. It is extremely difficult, taken a long history of such, to see this as merely a mistake in good faith, and it is exactly the sort of habits that set off edit wars with other editors. (collounsbury (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

This shows how Justin (Koavf) is so keen to blatantly close his ears to all calls. He clearly knows the reason why he decided himself to be off for all those few weeks. I'd consider this as 'him testing the waters' and suggest we leave it there for now. -- FayssalF - 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface and WP:NOT#PLOT

• Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not
• Pixelface (talk · contribs)

is removing WP:NOT#PLOT *again*

I've reverted it twice and would like out; some more people, please.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted it to the wrong version (the version before the edit war) and suggest that you both take it to the talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm done here; it poped-up on my watchlist. He also hit Misplaced Pages:Plot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is like the fourth time that Pixel's done this now, the last time only being about two weeks ago (see my report here about that). The issue has been talked to death on WT:NOT, with the consensus generally in favor of keeping PLOT, so discussion isn't an issue. While the last time, it was suggested to take to a user RFC, I don't see exactly how this would result in something beneficial - Pixelface simply edit wars over policy pages, and that's flat out not acceptable. --MASEM 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• The editor who first created this disputed section has since disavowed it. I support Pixelface's actions in continuing to challenge this source of trouble. Note that interminable discussions of fictional guidelines rumble on elsewhere and the matter seems generally far from settled. It is a peculiar way to run things - that anyone can make up policy as they please - but our overall policies - WP:NOTLAW, WP:BURO and WP:IAR - indicate that all policies are contingent and secondary to our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Protected the policy for a month, policy changes are discussed, not edit warred over. Next time there will be blocking. MBisanz 12:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the last AN/I discussion, the idea of a user-conduct RFC was floated. Rather than see this come back to AN/I once or twice a month, I'd like to see that user conduct RFC happen, because I think that's really the crux of the issue. A user conduct RFC may make it clear to Pixelface exactly how close to the edge he is. My suggestion is to get that underway. Nandesuka (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Working on that now. --MASEM 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I support a user conduct RFC here. The user is obviously misinterpreting IAR - it is meant to avoid situations where applying the rules would lead to a nonsensical result, not to allow users to make potentially controversial changes to policy without consensus. Lankiveil 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I support a user conduct RfC as well. Pixelface has gotten away with this behavior for months, now it's time to stop hoping he reforms on his own, and take more severe measures to (hopefully) put an end to the recurring drama. – sgeureka 13:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea; reserve your seats now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sooner or later we're going to have to help Pixelface learn to accept good-faith disagreement and consensus, he displays a consistent pattern of refusal to accept consensus when it's against him. This is at least the third such dispute in which I've seen him involved as a major party. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to reach out to Pixelface, albeit unsuccessfully. It's not the fact that he disagrees with certain policies and guidelines, or even that a few people support his views. It's that after he tries to make a change, and there's no consensus for it, he comes back a few weeks later and says WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and tries to push through the exact same change again. I've heard that consensus can change and sometimes you can push through an old proposal with a new audience, but Pixelface has pushed that loophole to the bounds of ridiculousness. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The RFC/U for Pixelface is now active: here. Hopefully we won't have to both ANI regarding this user for a while. --MASEM 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gp75motorsports is requesting unblock

Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting unblock from an indefinite block I placed on him in June. I won't be around for a long time today, so please see the talk page, his contributions, and reach a consensus here about an unblock. Thanks, either way (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He's banned or blocked? His userpage says both. Majorly talk 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, that looks like the kind of editor where a second chance is likely to yield good results. The tone is apologetic, he makes no attempt to hide or deny past misdeeds, and has given examples of the contexts in which he has learned the error of his former ways. I am inclined to accede to the unblock request. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A rare example of contrition on the part of a blocked user. It would be worth a try, to unblock him. He knows he'll be watched, and could always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock, Gp75 seems to be willing to contribute constructively. Hermione1980 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My inclination would be to give him a chance, with the caveat that the projectspace topic ban that was previously imposed be re-instated (it can always be removed later if he shows himself to have reformed). Black Kite 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what Guy found, whats the harm or the worst that can happen? --Tom 14:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on last time, being a massive time-sink for a lot of admins and editors. Hence my suggestion that he concentrates on article-space for a while to see how it goes. Black Kite 14:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to support unblock, but the contents of his user page over at Simple worry me a bit. The actual editing looks to be solid and drama-free enough, but the fact the page is still there gives me pause. Lankiveil 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I'll support a conditional unblock. 90 day projectspace restriction. I won't translate activity on other projects to this one, I would not want that done to me. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Could we maybe get a checkuser run before deciding to unblock or not. This editor did have issues in the past and it would be a pity if we went through the whole unblock process and then realized he was still socking. MBisanz 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

While I respect my fellow editor, Mbisanz, I do not support any preemptive checkuser without evidence of socking. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I generally was going off Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gp75motorsports which as a positive confirmation, but okey. MBisanz 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had not seen that. Then a check would not be preemptive. There was already an issue, I'll support a check in that case. I'm not a checkuser however. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support a check too; I thought it was standard when any banned user with a history of sockpuppetry requests a second chance. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked Deskana to look into the possibility of a check, in order to prevent disruption. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while, but IIRC, Gp75 was indeffed for his social-networking behavior and his disruption outside of the project space. He was under a restriction to editing ONLY the article space, and not user name spaces or wikipedia name spaces, if memory serves me right, and as such if he is returned, I think that those restrictions should remain in place for a limited time (say a month or two) while he proves himself probationarily. Given the socking problems that led to the June block, we should seek out a checkuser to give us the "all clear" on this one; that is standard procedure (I can think of 3-4 cases where we did exactly this and then unblocked them in the past few months) before issuing the unblock. However, if the restrictions stay in place, and the checkuser comes back clean, I would support an unblock... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with this caveat of him only being able to work in Article and Talk spaces. NuclearWarfare _{My work} 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser result  Completed: I can confirm that, for at least the past month, Gp75 does not appear to have used other accounts and has made a single logged out edit (and uncontroversial typo fix). — Coren  15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, I propose an unblock with a restriction to editing in (a) article-space, and (b) usertalk and talk space only where it relates to article editing. If there are no major objections I will go ahead and do this shortly. Black Kite 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Go for it. A grand and noble AGF experiment. Baseball Bugs 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds fine to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okey dokey. MBisanz 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• OK, done. Black Kite 16:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who came to the consensus. I had no problem with this action, so long as others are willing to stand by this restriction and enforce it. In the past, Daniel and I were the only ones really willing to make the blocks based on the topic ban and would often get attacked and questioned by others because of those actions. Every time we'd point back to the original ban discussion, people would object to the original ban. So, can we all agree to stick to this this time? Thanks, either way (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have suggested to Gp75 that we give the restriction a month to see how it goes. That's not necessarily saying it will be lifted at that point; that would be down to the community to decide. I think he is quite aware that any more silliness will result in a community ban. Black Kite 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Need history check for Matt Lee

Are either Matt Lee or the historical, pre-redirect versions of Matt Lee (musician) substantial copies of deleted versions of either article? If so, please speedy-delete them and look into the possibility of sockpuppetry with the current version. If not, especially if it's about another person altogether, please say so. Thanks. See also: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 28. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article, as it stands now, seems to be marginally compliant with WP:N requirements at a first glance. A recent speedy-G4 request was denied as the article with a recommendation for a new AFD. It looks like the same person as in the deleted articles, HOWEVER, the article appears to currently be substantially expanded from the September 17th version deleted via AFD (I checked), which would indicate that, if deleted again, it should be handled under a new AFD. Any sockpuppetry issues should be handled seperately. If you could perhaps list some diffs to compare between different accounts, that would help us see if there are sock issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, it needs to go, it is the same vanity autobiography, the WP:SPA and IP that are the sole substantive editors are clearly the subject, who was also the creator and pretty much sole editor of the various previous deleted versions. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. My main concern was that it was mere re-creation of deleted material. Since it's not, I'll treat is as new. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See Joeyboyee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matt Lee(musician) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.94.31.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these are all one and the same individual beyond any reasonable doubt. It's a G11 job, blatant self-promotion, or G4, since it's blatantly gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Matt Lee and Matt Lee (musician) have been deleted and doused with sodium cloride. I was probably going to AFD anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Best I can reconstruct, following the brief discussion at WT:CSD#Redirect question about the same article, it was userfied after the last AfD and expanded by User:Spartaz, who is neither banned nor an SPA. It seems to be beyond both G4 and G5, and AFAIR it had a number of references so I don't think it's a G11 that can't at least be stubbified. Can someone please review this article? I've tnulled removed the {{resolved}} for now.
  Thanks, Amalthea 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I see now that Spartaz didn't work on it, but the editors listed above did (at User:Spartaz/Musician – was it moved per copy&paste?)
    Nonetheless, none of the editors listed above is banned, it's not a recreation, it's not blatantly promotional if the userfied article is any indication, and he certainly has an assertion of significance. Enough, in my opinion, to earn the article at least an AfD. --Amalthea 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• And my bad: should have been G4 and IAR a bit, not G5. Nobody is banned, it's just a point and click issue with somewhat diminuitive dropdown text. Either way, it's a long-term campaign of vanispamcruftisement by the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, OK, I could have guessed that.
    Nonetheless, that's a little too much IAR for my taste. If someone works on a userfied article for three months and tries to address the problems from the last Afd then I'd give him the courtesy of an AfD, even if it's worked on only by the topic himself. After reading it, I see that the article certainly still has deficits, in particular since the sources don't support all the facts in the article. The topic *might* pass WP:MUSIC however since he allegedly worked with The Divine Horsemen and X (American band) – probably not though since he wasn't a member, so it'll only be redirected.
    Amalthea 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)