Misplaced Pages

What do you mean "It simply looks wrong,"? What looks wrong? It's either within the 255-limit or it isn't, and mine is. And I agree with Xeno, I don't know why you've changed your signature so that it obscures surrounding text, but it needs to be reduced again. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 12:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The 255-chars limit includes markup. Xeno's ref to "final product" is the product, in wikicode, produced by ~~~~. TreasureyTag's signature template may be complicated, but once subst'd, is within the limit. Launchballer's original signature is not. Tim Song (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And a signature could still be under 255 characters of wikimarkup yet be distracting. KoshVorlon, you should really retire that garish sig. I notice that it has seemingly grown so that it's obscuring the tails on letters once again. In this ANI thread you agreed to keep the padding at 2px, but you've increased it back to 5px. That is unacceptable. –xeno 12:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adjusting the widths back to the way Xeno put them originally, and incidentally stumbled across this copy of my signature in Kosh's userspace... strange. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines about including at least part of or at least some some connection one's actual username in a signature? Kosh's sig is both awkwardly long and has nothing to do with the actual username. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So long as there's a hyperlink to the user page I don't see a problem in that specific regard (it's handy for those of use who sign pages using our real names). It would, of course, be nice if people didn't fill their sigs with ASCII junk and bad poetry, but that's an Internet-wide problem really. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." I must say, I am entirely unimpressed that KoshVorlon chose to go back on the ANI thread. I can only assume he forgot that it was agreed that a 5px padding was disruptive. In any case, I've pared his signature down to meet the length requirements and issued a formal warning as to his signature use. –xeno 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TrueColour

Could somebody please block or firmly admonish this user? For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean. Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away. TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? I prefer not to block the user myself as I am Portuguese and his disruption has mainly affected articles on Portuguese municipalities and districts. All such articles, to be precise. A lot to clean. Thanks. Húsönd 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is in progress. I've asked TrueColour to stop his moves pending the outcome of the discussion. Can you hold off on moving any back yourself, Husond?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you offering to move hundreds of articles back after the discussion ends, plus redoing the changes made to those articles by other users while the discussion was taking place? It was an undiscussed non-consensual mass move, everybody discussing with this user agrees that it shouldn't have happened. If the user persists, it's disruption. The longer it takes to fix it, the harder the task will be. Húsönd 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving after edits doesn't remove those edits, so that argument doesn't apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case it does. The editor didn't just move the articles, but also edited the first paragraph to have them conform with his moves and the subsequent duplication of the subject. Cleaning will involve moving+reverting. Húsönd 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't necessarily need to match the article title, though it's generally desirable. As long as he discusses and doesn't move anything else, I don't see that further action is needed. I've hinted that editing articles to match his desired naming scheme might be a Bad Thing as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that, but also insertion of sentences directing to new articles that the user effectively split and which shouldn't exist as separate. Hundreds of them. Again, the longer the changes stay in place, the harder it will be to fix. You can't protect hundreds of articles while a discussion is in place. If you really want to help, check the magnitude of his edits, investigate what he did and what needs to be undone, calculate the work that will take for that, and then maybe you'll realize that leaving everything as it is while a non-discussion takes place (because nobody else agrees with what the user did) is probably not a good idea. Húsönd 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if bots, redirects, and WP:AWB can't clean things up effectively enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to bring them on later. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't need to be blocked and I'm not sure what you mean by admonish (sounds like some sort of official warning or reprimand, I'm not aware of anyone on here with that sort of authority short of going to RFAR). The move issue is a name (read "content") dispute. True Color's responses were a bit defensive and difficult but the comments that led to them were a bit bitey. Both sides should back off, cool off, and discuss the naming convention. A third party, maybe Sarek, may be able to help the two sides see each other's points of view as both sides have merit and deserve to be understood before anyone goes further or reverts all. The fixes are relatively simple in the event everything eventually needs to go back the way it was. Recommend close this thread and consider WP:MEDCAB if Sarek can't break the deadlock.--Doug. 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB? Sorry, fixing this problem is already too much work, I don't think I would need a week of unproductive and insanely boring discussion on top of it. No, let's reach this compromise instead: I will not bother with this "content dispute" anymore, and Misplaced Pages has just gotten a few hundred disruptive-useless-split articles that damaged the original ones. All happy. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with Husond's opinion (I assume he asked me as somebody who does not cooperate with him, most of the time). This seems a remarkably useless series of splits, which move the articles on the actual towns to such unEnglish forms as Resende Municipality, Portugal, to make some point about there being an administrative division of the same name on a different level. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug, you found this to be "bitey"? Really? Maybe if you are going to go to the trouble of commenting here, you could be a little more specific about exactly what you are talking about. --John (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not find that comment bitey. I did find bitey: ignoring that editors are charged to Be Bold, listing a half-dozen or more places that the editor should have gone for consensus, most of which are rarely used for such discussions (I've never heard of posting an idea for a rename at the Village Pump), etc. But most importantly, my point was that ANI is not the place for this discussion. This is not the place to debate whether page moves were necessary and proper, even if they were were against consensus, past practice, etc. This is a WP:Dispute resolution matter and should be closed and taken elsewhere.--Doug. 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a dispute resolution. All users are welcome to be bold, but when the boldness is damaging and reported as such, persisting in this boldness counts for no less than plain disruption. Disruption that needs to be halted and fixed, not to be hindered by bureaucracy and complacence. Húsönd 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been halted, without blocking or admonishment. TrueColour has created Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names to discuss the subject, but I haven't seen you there yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

a) I got a life outside Misplaced Pages; b) I'm not joining any discussions unless his mess gets reverted. You can keep hundreds of damaged articles for as long as I care. Húsönd 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest that next time you look with a bit more attention because I'm actually there - Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names, on the thread right above the one you linked. Two seconds it would take to notice, but I admit that I should know by now that the time conceded by ANI peers is strictly reserved for deliberations. Húsönd 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that first, and in enough detail to see that you had not yet addressed the issue you're urging that TrueColor be admonished for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another evidence that you treated this case like a dead raccoon. Next time I won't bother to come here and I'll just get the job done. The WP:MEDCAB part was funny though. Húsönd 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:PORTUGAL#To-do_items states be bold. That I was. And I think that the established article style is not the best for future growth. I am now harassed by Pmanderson. It follows a more detailed statement:
• The Portuguese class identifier "distrito" is usually translated as "district". The districts are referred to normally as "distrito de Something" which in English yields either ""district of Something" or "Something District". In enWP the format "Something Classname" is widely used. Apart from usage in article titles that format is mentioned in WP:NCGN#Administrative_subdivisions: "so if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved.". The existence of that example in WP:NCGN indicates that the use of "Something District" is accepted.
• The reasoning for the article titles of the municipalities of Portugal is similiar: concelho is translated as "municipality", the entities are called "concelho de Something", translating to "Municipality of Something" or "Something Municipality". A recently performed research shows that this format is used for several other sets of municipalities within WP and that this format is the one that is overwhelming used by those sets that use the class identifier in the article title.
• Misplaced Pages:MOS#Geographical_items states: "Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". "Something District" as article title allows one to write ] while "Something (district)" cannot be directly linked. Articles titled that way are instead often referred to as "district of ]", which in fact is misleading since the link under "Something" goes to "Something (district)".
• When User:Husond wrote on my talk page first time he asked for reversion of "page moves and content removal" insinuating that I removed content while I only split some pages. He further wrote "Your district moves are also against the manual of style, please move back." In his message he wrote " Please put everything back and then improvements can be discussed. I further bring to your attention that titles such as "Braga Municipality" or "Braga District" are against the Manual of Style. The subject type for geographical entries goes in parenthesis - "Braga (municipality)" or "Braga (district)". " When I asked where this is written he didn't bring a link. He also was very pushy to revert the moves, I told him that the districts moves can be reverted without problem at any time. Nevertheless he started reverting the page moves, knowing that "Something (district)" is disputed. This is kind of Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is. I told him to this. He also had Pmanderson stating " this might be up your street. Mass moves made by a new user. MoS-related.". Moving the articles of the 18 districts of Portugal are certainly no mass moves. And I think what matters are the actions, not the age of the account. Old and new accounts have all to respect the same rules and shall adhere to MoS.
• In the case here it seems that I knew the MoS better then them.
• Following the invitation by Husond, Pmanderson for the first time in my talk page. I didn't see why s/he came and I thought s/he might be interested in solving the content dispute. But since s/he brought up the notion of silliness and wrote in a very commanding tone I pointed to WP:NPA and deleted the comment. Pmanderson is trying to play a power game, and wrote: " our guidelines are guidance, not rules; they record what is customarily done, and are not intended to be comprehensive "rules" forbidding all silly notions which anybody might come up with until the heat-death of the universe." Followed by "As it happens, we have already considered this question, not at any page of the Manual of Style, but at WP:NCGN, a naming convention. Our first rule, and our last, is call things what reliable sources call them, unless there is some good reason, like disambiguation, to do otherwise.". See again the usage of "we", same way as User:Husond did.
• After Pmanderson invoked the rule of "what reliable sources call them", I asked back what the name in Portuguese is, so that Pmanderson could find out her/himself that the classname is part of the object and translated into English this would lead to "Something Municipality".
• Now after having posted "Our first rule, and our last" Pmanderson in a very patronizing way another rule: "read WP:NCGN and find that, this being the English Misplaced Pages, what matters to us is what these towns are called in English".
• I asked where I did not use English, is starting to talk about my dialect of English. That the question "Where not?" is not correct English and correcting it. To further state: "Resende Municipality, Portugal is one way to distinguish the municipal government from the old town; but it is not the natural and idiomatic way.". This shows that the topic is missed by Pmanderson, since the articles "Something Municipality" are not about municipal governments but about geographical entities. It further shows lack of knowledge what article titles are for and that for articles on toponyms they are often not "natural and idiomatic": Deposit (village), New York is one example and you find many more at Category:Villages in New York.
• I then how s/he in his/her dialect of English would call the articles. The started with the notion that "First, we don't need two articles (and it's not helpful to have them); we need one article on Resende, Portugal, which distinguishes between the town and the municipality". Which is a shift from her/his only slightly older comment "Probably the best would be to have one article for both, and differentiate.". It more and more seems to me that Pmanderson is only into the dispute for a power game and not much interested in the articles on the geography of Portugal as I am. The reply goes on " If we had to have two , the natural name for both would Resende; since that's ambiguous, the simplest course is not to make something up, or to translate as English does not, but to add a parenthetical disambiguator to the less read one: Resende, Portugal (municipality)". Pmanderson now made up a method of disambiguation I couldn't find anywhere else, violating her/his own statement "the simplest course is not to make something up".
• I think it is harmful to the development of Misplaced Pages that people like Pmanderson play power games with users and make up rules out of nothing.
• Pmanderson should be de-admined for her/his harassment and her/his power game playing. At 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Pmanderson unveils her/his attitude how to solve content disputes. "Speaking of which, this may be the solution for the disruptive True Colour. Let me know if you do - it would probably be unwise to block him yourself, but he should be blocked.]. " This shows that Pmanderson wants a solution /for a user/ and not a solution /of a content dispute/. I strongly recommend that what Pmanderson wants to be performed on others should best be applied to him/herself.
• User:Husond and Pmanderson should learn how to respect MoS better and also to respect WP:OWN, WP:AGF. Only that Husond comes from Portugal does not make him to own the pages related to Portugal.
• Husond writes : "For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean." Nice to see the notion of "likely against MoS". Seems Husond is not so convinced anymore that it is against MoS. But then I wonder, why he is so sure that all needs to be reverted. Also interesting that stuff that /one/ user can do in several days will take several users to take ages. It seems Husond is exaggerating to get his agenda through.
• Husond: " TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? " - To call the edits of other people a mess is against WP:NPA. And I guess the best way to stop the accusations of "unconsensual page moves and edit warring" is to stop the underlying actions.
• I want to send a big thank you to User:John, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Doug for their strict but friendly involvement. If anyone of these people is not an admin I recommend to make him/her an admin. Keep up your work! You are, as far as I can see, good examples for how to apply WP:AGF.
• To end my statement with something positive I would like to say that related to articles on the geography of Portugal, I:
  • imported the river list from pt WP, see List of rivers of Portugal.
  • created an overview about the subdivisions of Portugal.
  • turned the lists of municipalities that were split by district into one big sortable list of municipalities of Portugal
  • improved Aveiro District: turning a simple the list of the municipalities into a sortable table, incl population and area data, numbers of parishes, cities and towns for each municipality.
  • for the municipalities in that district I started to import population history from pt:WP
  • disambiguated several false links
  • when I came across badly formated DAB pages I converted them to adhere to MOS:DAB, esp. link targets
• TrueColour (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Kudos to Sarek and Doug. Now we have disruption AND unsubstantiated wikilawyering. Good job. Húsönd 06:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thank Sarek of Vulcan for his advice, both here and on TrueColour's talk page, that TrueColour hold off on his moves until discussing them and receiving consent; as he said there "let discussion conclude before you move any more. Continuing might be classed as disruptive and blockable."

• TrueColour has not stopped; this is the burden of his complaint. He should read WP:BRD; boldness is fine, until you are reverted - at which point you should stop and discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors PhilthyBear and ScottRios being disruptive at Toronto

After a lengthy (2+ month) discussion involving pretty much every editor that showed on the talk page, a new skyline photo was chosen by an almost unanimous consensus (Though few editors participated, there was plenty of time to do so for those who chose not to). Upon attempting to change it, two editors (User:PhilthyBear and User:ScottRios have repeatedly undone the edit claiming it against consensus (which they did not participate in). I have reverted twice, and am temporarily withholding a third at this point until I get a go-ahead (Though I feel strongly that this should count as vandalism and not 3RR). The editors have failed to even comment on the talk page, and only revert the edits despite both my edit summaries mentioning the talk page discussion.

Diffs

• My addition of consensus per talk page discussion
• first revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "No one agreed to this picture. It's terrible"
• first revert by myself with summary of "Actually all but one person in the talk page did. Please take comments there."
• second revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "Actually it was only 3 people discussing the change. Hardly a consensus." (and continued to not participate in the discussion)
• second revert by myself with summary of "Stop reverting against CURRENT consensus and take this to the talk page please. You don't discuss, you don't get your say." (which is true, if they will not discuss on the talk page then their say should be ignored as undemocratic)
• revert by ScottRios with summary of "This is not a dictatorship User:Floydian. You have been reported for 3R's" (a rather snappy summary, without any comments on the talk page (the user did not report me for my 2 reverts)

• User:PhilthyBear has not participated at Talk:Toronto, and very few other talk pages, which shows a lack of cooperation with other editors
• User:ScottRios has only participated in discussion at Gangs in Canada, and never at Talk:Toronto

I am notifying these users now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:Floydian has committed 3R's and is disrespectful to other users. The Toronto page main image has been used for some time and is perfectly good. User:Floydian removed the picture after a lengthy incoherent discussion with 3 other editors most of which was personal chat. The image which he replaced the good quality image looks of poor quality and resembles a 1982 family photo quality. A coherent conversation on the talk page should take place and not personal chat with dozens of images posted. PhilthyBear (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After having a quick look through the talk page I'd like to say that it appears that User:Floydian is in the right here. There is clear consensus (it's not his fault only a few users took part in the discussion) and despite anything else, that trumps all. There's no point in coming on to this noticeboard and saying he engaged in 'personal chat' when one can go to the discussion and see that is simply not true, I think there was a good quality, in-depth discussion about the subject in hand between editors that seem to take a keen interest in it, I think if anything it is one of the better talk exchanges I have seen. Also, if User:Floydian did revert the 3rr rule (I would argue he didn't, he was combatting vandalism, i.e. editors going against consensus) or was disrespectful then don't simply make that your response to this post because it simply looks like you're grabbing at straws, if he has played unfairly then start a new thread about his conduct. In summary, there is concensus to change the picture and what it should be changed to and therefore PhilthyBear and ScottRios should accept that and take any concerns to the talk page. RaseaC (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was also to draw more conversation in to the talk page, a point which PhilthyBear clearly missed (and given the quick removal of my post from his talk page (which is technically against policy I believe), has no interest in persuing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is (although this is a source of controversy) acceptable to users to do anything they like with their talk pages, there's not much that can be done about it. However, it is gernally the sign of a poor editor. The user in question seems to have a history of clearing his talkpage due mostly, it would appear, to other users raising concerns about his questionable behaviour, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. RaseaC (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also possibly not entirely relevant to this discussion, but are users ScottRios and PhilthyBear the same user using sock accounts to get around the three revert rule? Yes they are both Canadian editors so do share some article editing history, but their manners and turns of phrase sound identical, especially when it comes to mistakes. For instance ScottRios's edit summary here is more than a little similar to Philthy's edit here where they both accuse him of 3R's (erroneously I must add.) I think this bears looking into, though I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and go with AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Try to keep your points clear, the issue is disruption through multiple reverts and apparent refusal to discuss. Consensus can and does change and the fact that a perceived consensus existed is only important for supporting the need to discuss; in other words "we've had a discussion, so BRD isn't an appropriate method for editing here". A discussion between a small number of people does not "trump all". Also removal of comments on the user's talk page merely means that the user has read them.--Doug. 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that if you don't speak, you don't get your say. Reverting is not a method of communication, and trying to have your say through reversion summaries is totally inappropriate behavior. I also feel I was pretty clear as I make the claim of vandalism and lack of communication in the first paragraph, before the diffs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify two of my points you raised. Firstly WP works on consensus, and therefore if a group of people reach a consensus, then we work with what that group decides (in most cases). Simple. Secondly, an established, respected editor blanking their talk page of valid comments (lets forget vandalism here) is one thing (I personally would still consider that person a poor editor and not give them the time of day, but I would bare in mind their experience) an editor who devotes most of his time on WP to be disruptive and incivil who then goes on to blank their talk page is obviosuly a different matter alltogether. RaseaC (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While it would have been perfectly legitimate for PhilthyBear and ScottRios to question the consensus that had been reached, they instead took the bully approach with unilateral reverts and unfortunate came-out-of-left-field name calling (both of them throwing around the word "dictator"). They both clearly had things to say, but acted on them in a really inappropriate manner. Until they choose to become involved in the manner in which they did, the discussion on the talk page had been lengthy, with some differences of opinion, but had remained civil the entire time - sadly, now we've ended up in this forum, which is really disappointing. Ironically, had they both bothered to chime in on the talk page (assuming for a moment that one of them isn't a sock puppet), I don't think there would have been consensus for the change that so infuriated them. But while consensus is not immutable, it doesn't get changed through actions like those of PhilthyBear and ScottRios in this particular case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of {{discussion top}}

I believe a note needs to be made in the edit notice for this page, along with other noticeboards. I just finished cleaning up a mess created by improper use of this template. It is placed below the section title, not above it, as if it is placed above it, then when the archival bot archives the thread above where the template was placed in, it takes the template with it, basically disrupting how the archives for the page look. Because the discussion top template was removed by the bot, we now have several unrelated threads hatted together as if they were related. This cannot be stressed enough.— Dædαlus 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Making a note here so that this doesn't get archived. It needs to be addressed.— Dædαlus 23:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600: continued problems

Between 20 March and 21 June, ArbCom took on a case examining the Obama articles in detail, and ended up finding (among other things) that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s edit-warring was problematic, and as a remedy, imposed a revert limitation (1RR) for 6 months on him here. On 25 June, the community were still finding problems with Grundle2600's disruptive conduct, which resulted in the community imposing a 3 month topic ban on him from all articles relating to US politics and politicians (although explicitly allowed to comment on talk pages). Unfortunately, his conduct has continued to be a problem, particularly after the topic ban has expired.

He was making test edits on his talk page to measure to the minute when his topic ban would expire ( ) which was deeply concerning. The moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. Since then, he's reignited old battles, and continued to disruptively edit war, making pointy edits along the way too:

• 25 September 2009:
• 26 Sept 2009:
• 26 & 27 Sept 2009:
• 5 October 2009:
• 12 October 2009:
• 13 October 2009:
• 19 October 2009 (even after the request for ArbCom amendment/clarification was filed, reinserting contentious material previously removed and discussed):

He has also continued tendentious editing in its other forms, like refusing to get the point.

Clearly, further sanctions beyond 1RR is necessary, and those sanctions would need to be greater than 3 months (somewhere between 6 months and indefinite). ArbCom have suggested that the community use its tools to sort it out. A single uninvolved admin can end this disruption by invoking Obama probation. However, I can also draft something that goes beyond the scope of that probation, if the community needs to impose a broader remedy on him that covers all articles/pages relating to US politics and politicians. Based on the above (and any further evidence that comes to light), any thoughts on which way to go? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no point putting up with such crap when there are plenty of other good editors actively working on the same subject. Impose a permanent topic ban as broad as you see necessary. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. If the editor has shown that they cannot work under the restrictions imposed, then it is better that the are not allowed to edit in that area. An indefinite topic ban is in order, unless the editor would prefer to be blocked indefinitely as an alternative. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first alternative would be "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing pages related to US politics and politicians." The second alternative would be the same as what's written here, except it would read as "indefinite topic ban - he is" and would omit the "for a period of three months" part. Can you (and others) explicitly clarify whether you prefer to include or exclude talk pages in the ban? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I should allow this to be entered here but for the record, here goes... I'd rather lose one capable gung-ho staff (but he is always late) than to lose a bunch of average performing staff (but they take their work seriously and are always on time). It's bad for morale if that one gung-ho staff is allowed to carry on misbehaving and I risked that fact affecting the others due to my oversight or turning of a blind eye to. Having said that, Misplaced Pages is a community and as such is a collaborative effort by many individuals, its time to stop such nonsense once and for all. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban including article and talk pages on all articles reasonably seen as related to current United States politics. John Carter (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite politics topic ban (including article talk pages), if only so we don't see him counting down in a year to see when he can start making problematic edits again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all US politics topics-related issues as I did previously. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, ban to extend to talk pages. PhGustaf (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on politics related articles, and temporary ban from related talk pages.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics related articles, and I think including talk pages is a must (the problems—particularly in terms of extreme tendentiousness—continued under the previous three-month topic ban when Grundle2600 was allowed to comment on talk pages). If agreed to this should be implemented as a community imposed topic ban, not something done under the terms of Obama article probation, since the latter does not allow an admin to ban an editor from all political articles, but rather only from those relating to Obama. I have no idea whether Grundle2600 is actively trying to be disruptive at this point or whether he is simply incapable of "getting it" when it comes to the problematic nature of many of his edits, but by now is doesn't really matter since this is a very longstanding pattern which is disruptive either way, and since there have been at least a dozen or so editors who have spent many, many hours trying to work with him and explain the problems with his editing, but to no avail whatsoever. Finally, while at the moment there appears to be a developing consensus for a topic ban, I think this thread needs to stay open for another day or so to allow further comment, and we certainly need to give Grundle2600 a chance to reply here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the love of god, support, and please make sure it is for article talk pages as well. We had to put up with this behavior during the only-banned-from-article-page topic ban, and it wasn't pleasant. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. The never-ending disruption wasting countless hours of other editors' time must stop once and for all. Newross (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Suppore indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. About a year ago, I used to edit some of the articles in question. Don't imagine I ever will again. Failure of the community to deal with this kind of ongoing nonesense was one reason why. He may think the well-meaning naif persona suits him, but no one should be asked to deal with this stuff (of course, people have to here every day). But this is fairly far beyond the pale.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. I checked some of the above diffs which show that Grundle2600 will never voluntarily pass on an opportunity to inject POV into articles and talk pages related to U.S. politics. As an example, see this talk where Abrazame gives several long and interesting explanations why some Grundle2600 edits were not helpful, only to receive a change of subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen that, but any outsider looking into this situation should read the talk page thread linked to by Johnuniq—it's a textbook example of Grundle's editing pattern. Abrazame slipped too readily into minor incivility, but that editor laid out in exhausting detail the problem with Grundle's proposed changes. And how did Grundle reply? He didn't, he completely ignored Abrazame's lengthy post, and simply wrote "You have not answered my questions" (which Abrazame absolutely had done). I can say from experience that this is a common practice for Grundle, who often blatantly refuses to hear the point being made and will persist in the face of objections or temporarily change the subject and then come back to the original issue at a later time. Collaborative editing with an editor who approaches editing in that way is simply not possible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The political articles are a maelstrom that is too easy to get sucked into. The user should "boycott" those articles and focus on something that he would find more satisfying to edit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Repeat problems, repeat warnings, repeat offenses. There's a group of editors involved in these topics that really need to be reined in, and this is definitely one of them. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Exact wording

Since we have a rough consensus here, I'd like to nail down the exact wording for when consensus is clear. Following on NCM's comments above, I propose the following. Please only comment here if you support the community ban and have a problem with the below -- if you oppose the ban, comment in the thread above, please. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an indefinite community ban from editing articles related to US politics and politicians. He may not participate in discussion on talk pages, unless this sanction is modified later. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks. (See terser version below)

Please change a indefinite community ban to an indefinite community ban. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.

I made a strikeout above; the struck words don't help clarify anything. PhGustaf (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was meant to be a strong hint that if he can prove on other subjects that he can participate constructively on talk pages, this ban could be modified, rather than being a never-darken-our-door-again thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. But any sanction can be modified later; no need to spell it out. PhGustaf (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter wording:

Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under an indefinite community ban from editing articles or talk pages related to US politics and politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Grundle2600

1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want be banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles.

2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me.

3) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government.

4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student?

7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable?

9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?

In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The less nefarious explanation is not that people are "censoring" you, it's that the content you try to add often does not conform to our policies about NPOV, undue weight, reliable sources, original research, etc, and that your editing really is problematic (hence sanctions from both the community and ArbCom in the past). You have provided no evidence whatsoever that you are being "censored", while there is clear evidence (see some of the diffs above) that at least some of the people reverting you are giving policy-based reasons for doing so. If you assume good faith you'd have to assume they are not out to get you, but rather that they genuinely believe your edits are not appropriate. As you are well aware, there have been numerous times in the past where you proposed some addition and then, upon objection from other editors, even you came to admit that adding the content was a bad idea, so there's a precedent for this "good faith" reading of objections to your edits.

Also while I've had no involvement with your editing since you've returned from your topic ban, I know you are framing some of the issues/questions above in a rather biased manner. Finally, I know part of the problem in the past is that you often simply do not get your facts straight. That is evident again in number 6 above in a rather egregious fashion. The incident in question was not statutory rape since the minor in question was at the age of consent (16 not 15, see this), and furthermore said minor has come forward and said there actually was no sexual contact at all (see again the linked article). So not only are you wrong, you are actually defaming a living person (without naming them explicitly here). Editors who attempt to put in only negative or positive information about a given subject tend to run into those kind of problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, when I added that info about the (since likely debunked) statutory rape, it was backed up by reliable sources. When people deleted it, no one mentioned your article as a reason to delete it. I agree that this new information may justify not including the info - now it depends on different reliable sources that contradict each other. Since this is about a living person, it's better to err on the side of caution and not include the info at this point in time. As more info becomes available, it may or may not justify putting the info back into the article. That being said, the info about his past frequent illegal drug use is true - he even admitted to it in his own autobiography. How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion of ban

• Strong oppose block. Grundle's explanation and the discussion above makes clear that this editor is acting in good faith and seeking to have the encyclopedia abide by the core NPOV policy. Editors should be encouraged to work with him to make sure notable content is included appropriately in the appropriate articles so as to abide by our policies. The content he's discussing is certainly notable, so it's really a question of how and where to include it with the proper wording. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Having your personal history in mind you should (and probably do) know that you're not helping Grundle but again trying to start another drama-thread that is about you and not the editor in question. Could you please restrain yourself from doing so for the good of Grundle? Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the reasons cited by CoM. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We sure pay attention to anonymous socks that don't have their own reasoning.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you obviously know so much about me: who's the sockmaster, Clean-keeper? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blablabla. You're repeating yourself already (and in the wrong place).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the people who want me blocked or banned have answered my questions, with the above exception regarding one of my two questions in point number 6. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of why your editing pattern is problematic is that you have a tendency to start multiple threads (and/or ask 9 questions at once) and then chastize other editors for not responding to you, which often then leads to you making certain article changes simply because no one directly told you "no." I think many editors are sick of interacting with you because you bring up the same issues over and over again and have admitted in the past that you are editing with an agenda (i.e. that you want to add "negative" material), and thus unsurprisingly they don't respond to your every point. I also know that at least some (if not all) of the issues you bring up above (twice!) have been discussed to greater or lesser degrees as you are undoubtedly aware, and thus it's unsurprising that people would be reluctant to revisit them here on ANI in a thread that is not about content but rather about your editing behavior on political articles. I think it's telling that you throw out all these content questions while saying nothing about the fact that you are (again) making ridiculously pointy and disruptive edits, engaging in slow-burning edit wars when you have already been specifically warned against that, and generally treating editing on political articles as though it were a battleground. You have been doing these things for at least six months by my count, and in the process you have wasted an extraordinary amount of other editors' time. Your last community topic ban was basically unanimously imposed, and with one predictable exception that seems to be happening here, which is, again, rather telling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace - I have responded to your comment about me having an "agenda" in the "updated" section of my comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated statement by Grundle2600

This is addressed to everyone who wants me blocked or banned:

1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want me banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles.

2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me.

3) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government.

4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable?

9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?

In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace - I didn't say that I had an "agenda." What I did say is that all editors are biased. I am biased, and so are the people who remove the info that I add to the articles. I said that I wrote in Ron Paul for President last year, and I asked if there were any editors who removed the info that I added that was critical of Obama, who were not themselves liberals, Democrats, political leftists, supporters of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, etc., and no one answered. I think that every person who has been erasing the negative info that I add about Obama is on the political left, but none of them are willing to admit it. So yes, I am biased, but so are all editors. The only difference is that I am willing to admit that I am biased, and they are not. Also, wikipedia's official policy actually agrees with me on this. NPOV states, "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." Before I possibly get banned, I think that all editors who support my ban should be required to state which political candidate they most favored in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Even editors who live outside the U.S., or who are too young to vote, can still tell us which candidate they most supported, even if they were not actually able to vote in the election. This information about the political views of the editors who want me banned would expose the huge systemic bias that exists at wikipedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for bluntness, but it is none of your goddamn business what the political leanings are of any user is here, unless it is something they willingly choose to discuss with you. Pulling a McCarthyish witch hunt on people who hold a different opinion than your own is not a wise direction to take this. And you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Compare its "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" with your reach-out-to-Jimbo message of "I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles." There is a world of difference between "significant" and "all", and your inability/unwillingness to get this is what is leading to this topic ban. You do have an agenda; trying to jam in fringe criticism and minority points of view into political articles. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to your characterization of what you said Grundle, but it makes no difference. Not only have you admitted that you have a bias, you admit that you intend to edit with one, and that the way articles should be built is for everyone to give free reign to their own personal biases (which, you are correct, everyone has). You've previously articulated this point here and here. Many have tried to explain to you that all editors need to edit in as NPOV of a fashion as possible, but you obviously seem to reject that, rather envisioning an article development process whereby editors put in all manner of biased material and somehow we end up with a good article in the end. That approach would be a disaster, and the fact that you still subscribe to that view is central to the entire problem here. Note that this was a point I first made to you five months ago today (see here for the complete thread which makes for instructive reading, including the 15:46, 26 May 2009 comment by Grundle which says among other things "I will never, ever, erase anything if it's well sourced, no matter how unbalanced it may be. I wish that other people here would show the same respect to me"—an attitude still in evidence here). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, I said what I said, because when I see that something is unbalanced, I fix it by adding another point of view, instead of erasing the info that is already in the article. I wish other editors would do the same. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish you could "balance yourself", at least a little bit. That could you keep you (potentially) out of "trouble" in the long run!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for that discussion. These point should be, and have been, addressed on the relevant talk pages. Grsz 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember this sockmaster

] (talk · contribs) is a sock, but I don't remember the name of the sockmaster. He has recreated wikiprojects that were deleted at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Small_Pakistan_wikiprojects as POINTy creations of a sock. A clear WP:DUCK case. Please look at the deleted versions and post here the name of the account. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I know which case you're talking about, but I can't remember the name either, let me search through my watchlist and archives and such.— Dædαlus 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Investigations concerning the above conducted by myself and mainly Redvers(mostly Redvers) have turned up five accounts, all blocked by Future Perfect. I however need some sleep, but I'll be contacting him, and filing an SPI, tomorrow.— Dædαlus 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the account you both have in mind is Teckgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No comment as to the question of whether Yousaf is a sock puppet. AGK 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the account I had on my mind was a similar sounding username.— Dædαlus 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22.— Dædαlus 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Found the name of the sockmaster, please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11.— Dædαlus 06:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Various IPs are blanking user talk pages and replaceing them with "YOU ACTUALLY THINK I SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR RETALIATING AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S LIBEL AND HARASSMENT? YOU TRULY ARE A BRAINWASHED IGNORAMUS.".

• 141.209.57.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.156.98.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 206.116.6.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 198.189.57.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 141.151.201.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.229.2.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar vandalism also by 98.168.193.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

One talk page has been semi-protected by another admin, I've asked Fred Bauer if he wishes to have his semi-protected. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted the above, further IP vandalism has occurred to DarkFalls talk page. Not sure what is going on, but it seems to fail WP:NPA at the least. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just grawp having his daily fun. Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis —Dark 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jarl tends to target not articles, but users. Just say the three magic words, though, and he'll scram. (You may only need one, but make sure I'm not on the page as well.) -Jeremy 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged all the IPs as suspected socks. Also semi-protected DarkFalls talk page as I feel that the vandalism is now excessive. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now DarkFalls unprotected the talk page, but it's his decision to do that as "the idiot might decide to vandalize the mainspace instead". He "would prefer to keep the theatrics in one page, and on a page where it does not cause much damage". Quotes from my talk page.  Merlion  444  10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, how best to deal with this then? An immediate 1 week block for all IPs who perform such vandalism? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page Mjroots (talk) Commenting here because ANI is protected: you should know that you are apparently dealing with a bunch of 4chan idiots , i.e. there is more than one vandal. I don't know what to suggest doing about it other than letting the recent change patrol know what's up, so they can make sure to revert it all. I don't know who "Dark" is. Maybe it's worth finding out, maybe not. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

69.228, "Dark" is User:Darkfalls. Until It Sleeps 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Channers? Semi all associated articles; don't bother tracing the IPs because they're all one-offs. Wait until they get bored, and then unprot. One thing /b/ is not known for is a long attention span. -Jeremy 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing /b/ers are not known for is intelligence. I advocate harsher sanctions, such as directly contacting the IP address owner, and telling them that their client is getting out of hand. /b/ers enjoy vandalism, and won't go away with anything short of being forced to.   Nezzadar ☎   05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Childish kids with nothing better to do than vandalise. I do believe Grawp is behind all this, but yeah, I couldn't really care less what some kids from 4chan has to say about me. I get my share of death threats, and laugh about them. —Dark 06:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I can, if you want, make a phone call to a friend of mine in the Secret Service and have the IP investigated. The Special Task Force on Computer Crimes takes death threats very seriously, (considering that they are feds, they take everything seriously.) You want?   Nezzadar ☎   17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on English Defense League

I am reporting this here based on my understanding of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and in particular Dealing with disruptive editors.

In the English Defense League article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: . There were clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group.

Verbal has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (Snowded) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus . The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "far right" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent.

Today Verbal maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,”

He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a taut rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob.

If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise.

Leaky Caldron 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following WP:DR before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. Verbal chat 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. Dealing with disruptive editors point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to WP:AN3 if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Misplaced Pages doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.

Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the WP:BRD process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Misplaced Pages doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. Verbal chat 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the benefit of doubt I have refactored the section concerned. It is here . In that section 5 editors concluded that “political” should be dropped. They are: Gabagool, Ghmyrtle, BritishWatcher,Snowded and me. Each one made the comment “support” or “agree”. No editors joined to say they did not agree. You obviously would have and have now done so. 5 editors supported the change which Snowed then implemented, not me.

The new material is not supportive and I’m not obliged to discuss it at anytime, much less when there is a dispute bordering on incivility. Last week you forced a reversion to consensus during the “far right” dispute. I agreed and eventually supported the consensus. Why am I in error following your good example and insisting that the new consensus should be adopted while discussion takes place? Snowded has just made a commendable suggestion and you should consider it. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its a content dispute and should not be at ANI. The EDL page is controversial and for some time Leaky C attempted to argue against both the right-wing and the political labels. The claim has not been reduced a bit to accept right-wing but avoid political. Some of us think that the political label is not the most important - it self evidently is political but its not vital to state it. If a direct citation can be found then its use is uncontroversial, for the moment organisation should be good enough. However the history of this article is not good, and Leaky C has been edit warring and using drive by tagging at times. Best to cancel this thing from ANI all together, issue an RFC and let everyone calm down a bit. Its meaningless and unnecessary escalation to bring it here. Oh and Verbal is not edit warring against consensus. I made the change based on a talk page discussion before he had a chance to get involved. He is thus fully entitled to revert it - I was being bold. Leaky C is just wrong there and the blocking threats are silly and provaocative--Snowded 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant "now" not "not" (4th sentence). I haven't made block threats - the other user has against me - let's just be clear here. As for consensus - how is 5 editors agreeing something not a consensus? I have not edit warred. I have made 13 edits including tags and have reverted the other user 3 times over 2 separate aspects. Lets not throw stuff around not supported by the facts. I'm no bandit. The other editor has done many more reverts than I have. Leaky Caldron 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually its two editors (of that 5) being prepared to accept a compromise but not agreeing with you, now with some new editors its changing. Whatever, you should not bring basic content disputes to ANI against another editor who acted properly. I was bold (in support of a compromise) they reverted. That is fine, they are allowed to do that. I meant "not", he is not edit warring against consensus he has restored it, as he was not happy with my compromise edit. --Snowded 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke using wikicleaner to bypass redirects contrary to WP:R2D

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've brought this up with the user directly and was seemingly unable to successfully explain to them why it is generally unhelpful to "fix" redirects that are not broken (especially en masse and without regard as to whether the redirect might one day become an article - this is explained at the WP:R2D guideline). However, they continue, and often use a misleading edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". I invite additional scrutiny and comments as to how best to proceed. –xeno 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using misleading edit summaries is disruptive. Can you provides diffs where the user has done so?--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

as an example, but pretty much every edit they make with this edit summary: WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! - as they are bypassing redirects, not doing WP:DPWL work. They are also bypassing redirects on talk pages and in archives (e.g.) which should really never be done. –xeno 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Example:

There is at least one actual disambiguation fix (South Park Elementary), though it's questionable whether it should have been fixed like this, in addition to the redirect bypasses (some just useless like Earshot (Buffy episode) to Earshot (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), some actively harmful like Lunchlady Doris to Springfield Elementary School). If he continues, block him. If this "WikiCleaner" is unable to be set up to not bypass redirects, it needs to be fixed or banned. Popups is a nice replacement that will disambiguate links, and bypass individual redirects when desired, such as on navboxes.

If the triviality of this pop culture example disinterests you, imagine one like Brattleboro and Whitehall Railroad to Central Vermont Railway, where the former is definitely a valid topic for a separate article (). --NE2 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your bypassing in this very thread. --NE2 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't use misleading edit summaries on purpose, I just sometimes forget to change the default edit summary (the majority of times my summaries are correct). I don't get Xeno's problem, I am not doing anything wrong. Instead of wasting time attacking me and going around reverting my edits for no reason (which is NOT acceptable, reverting valid edits that improve an article), maybe he could be constructive for once. TJ Spyke 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no vengeance here. You are making edits contrary to the WP:R2D guideline. If these edits have consensus, then the guideline should be changed. –xeno 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's a policy, just a guideline. I see plenty of other people fixing redirects as well, so why you seem to focus on me makes no sense. Even if you disagree with my edits, you have no rights to revert them (and if you do, I have the same right to revert right back, although I have not done this for articles). The only reason you seem to be going after me is because once in awhile I will fix a bunch of articles in a row. As for your earlier comment, the majority of the links won't get separate articles (for example, changing ] to ] or ] to ]. Even though it's just a guideline, I do agree it should be changed so that you would stop complaining. TJ Spyke 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines should still be followed absent a good reason not to. To do otherwise is disruptive.

FYI it's never a good idea to continue with edits under dispute while they're being discussed at ANI.

The Duff beer change is ok (actually beneficial) but these Superintendent Chalmers changes are not. These are exactly the kind of redirects you should not be fixing. Why do you feel redirects need to be fixed in the first place? –xeno 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 2 examples are moot as the guideline you love some much specifically says that templates are exempt from it (and userboxes are considered templates). As for redirect fixing, it depends on the specific link being fixes. It could be something like making sure it's spelled correctly (fixing Super Mario RPG so that the link goes to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or episode names (like $pringfield to it's full name). The vast majority of those Simpsons minor characters have consensus to be merged into one article (do you see Scott Christian ever having a article? He's had speaking parts in 2 episodes and both combined are about 6 lines, he hasn't even appeared on-screen in over 10 years). TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline speaks to navigational templates. Userboxes are not, and users may have linked to the redirect for a reason, you should not change it. –xeno 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is not with the edit summaries; it is with the bypassing of redirects. Stop. --NE2 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT delete my comments like you just did, that is vandalism. TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is deliberate. You're 0 for 2. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you may have read WP:R2D but you don't seem to understand it. "That GUIDELINE says templates ARE allowed to have redirects fix (and userboxes are considered templates)" gives this away; please read it again and understand why bypassing redirects on some templates can be beneficial. --NE2 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. At least while this is still a issue, I will not edit a article just to fix redirects. If I need to edit the article anyways (like to revert vandalism or add to the article), I don't see the harm in doing some other fixes at the same time. As for your last comment, fixing links on templates is allowed, so I will continue on that (especially fixing "D'oh" to "D'oh!". TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section at WP:R2D, "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" makes it plain by using quotes around fix that what you consider beneficial fixing is not actually beneficial, so as long as you claim you aren't doing anything wrong by "fixing" things, there is a problem. Sswonk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not enough. Unless you understand why redirect bypassing is normally bad, do not do any. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are doing something wrong and you've got several users here telling you that. You haven't given any legitimate reason to ignore the guideline other than you want to. In addition you're using misleading edit summaries and editing other people's talk comments and archives which you have no business editing ever, except in a few rare circumstances for things like vandalism, personal attacks, or perhaps someone putting a fair use image on a talk page. The fact that you're continuing with disputed work while a discussion is on-going is rather disconcerting.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make this stop.

PennySeven (talk · contribs · count) has just has just left this long series of messages on my talk page. They are, in my opinion, personal attacks, eg. 'Have you lost your head or what?', 'Whats wrong with you', 'You deserve to be banned from Misplaced Pages'. I would like someone to talk to him and ask him to stop.

What started this all was this message that I left on his talk page, where I informed him that I was planning on reverting his changes to Inflation, and why I was going to do so. I left this message as Pennyseven has a history of pushing those exact same edits on the Inflation article, but I had hoped that he had stopped. He transferred my message and his reply to the Inflation talk page and then left a long complaint there about me.

I left this reply on the Inflation talk page, and then removed his recent additions to the Inflation article.

PennySeven then left this series of messages on my talk page. I left him a short reply on my talk page, thanking him for his message.

He then went on the article talk page, and left another long series of complaints, with my name featured prominently in the section headings (against guidelines I believe), accusing me of various wrong doings.

I did not reply to his talk page posts, as I did not want to further provoke him in any way, and hoped that he would stop by himself. But I did leave a Wikiquette alert , asking for someone to please talk to him and ask him to stop putting such posts on the talk page.

Since then, even though I have not replied to him at all, he left again this series and then this series of posts on the talk page of Inflation. This is what the talk page looks like now.

Which brings us to the present series of posts on my talk page. (I may have left out some other posts made by Pennyseven, he's so prolific, I can't be sure.) As far as I can tell, I have not in any way provoked this last few series of posts. I'm not sure if this is just his personality, or if he's losing it, or if this is calculated to scare me away, or calculated to scare anyone from contradicting him in the future – at this point, I don't care. I would just like him to stop.

I hope someone will take appropriate action. Thank you, --LK (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does seem a bit over the top.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted content discussion pasted from Talk:Inflation

And this has to do with the current discussion how...?Abce2|This isnot a test 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article. No-one disagreed. I changed it. PennySeven (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)~

Yes, but this is about your behavoir.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I also added new content to the article. No-one disagreed.

Now, weeks later LK disagree with changing erode to destroy. He told me right from the start that he bans me from changing it. He stated he will take any disagreement from me as edit warring - right from the first disagreement. That will be edit warring - that is what he stated. PennySeven (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your content disputes with LK, spamming him with dozens of one-line posts on his talk and on the inflation talk page is _not_ acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my example instead of telling me how to put the link.

Yes this is about behaviour: LK´s behaviour in telling me from the first moment that he will not take any disagreement or discussion from me. He will regard it as edit warring. That is his behaviour. He also threatened me that he will take this to higher authorities if I disagree. Then he deleted all my current contributions - even examples I added to his examples.

Do you agree that I should start this discussion with you stating that if you disagree with me I will regard it as edit warring immediately and take it to higher authorities? Is that what I suppose to do? Follow LK´s example? PennySeven (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, that was wrong. I admit. Do you agree that it was wrong for LK to state that I am not allowed to disagree with him? More exactly, do you agree that he can state from the beginning that ANY disagreement, right the first disagreement - one sentence - will be regarded as edit warrring and will lead to further disciplinary actions? One sentence is edit warrring? Are we allowed to tell other editors what LK told me? Do you agree with his opening statement to me?PennySeven (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven found LK's message rude. That's understandable. But the spamming of LK's talk page and the Inflation talk page was a completely disproportionate response. Under normal circumstances, of course PennySeven would be able to discuss disagreement on substance on the talk page, but this hasn't been helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, yes, I do agree with his opening statement. His exact words were:

I've just noticed what you have been doing on the Inflation page this last few weeks. I'm here to inform you first, but it's my intention to change back many of the things you have changed. You should know that many of the revisions you've made :

1. Are against consensus. Many editors have reverted similar edits by you before.
2. Violates neutral wording, which is a basic policy for Misplaced Pages.
3. Is not consistent with proper weight - it overemphasizes issues not mentioned in a standard textbook presentation on inflation.

I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this. The outcome eventually will not be much different, but it will cause much wikidrama if I have to call in the members of Wikiproject Economics to review the article.

So, since you're claiming he said things he didn't actually say, I'm going to have to ask you to stop this discussion right now and focus on content, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the response was disproportional. I did that in response to the disproportional removal of all my subsequent contributions to the Inflation article after he changed destroy back to erode. His actions in deleting additions that were previously discussed, changed and correcte and then finally added to the article, just because I was that one who added them, was disproportional and had nothing to do with the discussion about erode or destroy.PennySeven (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-read what Sarek said.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this." So, it is abundantly evident, fact, clear and logical that I was going to edit war with LK? Please explain that deduction to me especially with reference to the fact that I have not changed one of his reverts in the article. PennySeven (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so he must be wrong because he said that. What does this have to do with it? Abce2|This isnot a test 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*reads Special:Contributions/PennySeven* Um, yes, actually, given your past contributions, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

His wanton vandalizing the rest of my contributions to the article which had nothing to do with erode and destroy was the main reason for my disproportional response on his talk page and on the inflation talk page. You all ignore this very important fact. If he had simple changed destroy back to erode I would not have responded as I did. When he deleted an extra example to the item cars to which I added inventory I realized he was not editing in good faith. He removed quotes that were corrected and edited by Arthur Ruben, etc. You ignore that. I responded as I did because he deleted everything I contributed - not just destroy in place of erode.PennySeven (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, re-read what Serak said. Your contributions were not nuetral, against consensus, and others. Abce2|This isnot a test 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

...and PennySeven, there is never, ever any valid reason to react the way you did towards any editor whatsoever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is not neutral about inventory being the same type of economic item as cars? Who disagrees that inventory is a non-monetary item like a car? Do you disagree that both cars and inventories are non-monetary items?PennySeven (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the content itself. Even though you may not agree, please realize that other editors view things differently (see this), and, though it may be admittedly hard to accept their views sometimes, you must respect them all the same. There's no reason to slander LK and call him a vandal, in any case. I'm sure LK doesn't have anything personal against you; you're welcome to take this up with him, but please be sure to maintain a civil manner. Master of Puppets 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. So, what do you do when LK not just reverts the word destroy 3 or 4 times back to the word erode, but in the same token deletes other statements agreed by other editors besides me as well as deletes two full paragraphs in the article with about 10 lines of script - especially when he has already taken it for granted that I am going to edit war with him : I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this."?

Beside changing the word destroy back to erode LK at the same time deleted all this:

You say I must just quietly accept that and accept that I cannot disagree with him since it will be called edit warring?PennySeven (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don´t you think removing all the above is vandalism?PennySeven (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the forum to discuss the content being disputed. However, you could have disagreed by discussing it with him. Edit warring is different from discussion. Master of Puppets 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, we don't. Pasting it here, on the other hand, is disruptive, and since I warned you previously about continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, you have been blocked. Since your block log shows a previous 2-day block, and immediately afterward, you continued edit warring and accusing editors of off-wiki collaboration, this block is for one week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And PennySeven, would you learn how to use quotation marks? When you wrote above "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article", I was baffled for a few minutes (how the heck can one "change a word erode"? & what is a "word erode"?) until I realized you meant to write "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word 'erode' to 'destroy' in the article." -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch, its not really necessary to belittle him on his grammatical skills. Spitfire 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it wasn't my intent to belittle anyone; my comments were offered in good faith. I actually suffered a comprehension breakdown when I read that sentence, which could have been avoided with a bit of punctuation. I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't use quotation marks in that context -- especially when their absence makes the writer look like a kook. (Maybe this was another instance where I should not have clicked on the "Save page" button...) -- llywrch (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch seemed to be belittling PennySeven on the basis of his punctuation skills, not his grammatical skills ... though both could use a bit of work. :-) 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer checking in. Was a block warranted in this case, as it seems to be an editor simply trying to plead his/her case? Perhaps redirecting the discussion was needed, but there did not seem to be anything other than WP:PUSH and a bit of tendentious editing at play. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Several editors, me included, tried to redirect it. Not only did they continue to argue content in a behavior discussion, they posted several paragraphs of removed content here after I had already removed an earlier posting of several paragraphs of content discussion. The combination of missing the point and flooding ANI with irrelevant content was what caused me to do a preventative block, and the history of similar behavior was what determined the length. I'm open to further discussion if you still think there's a problem here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Might be missing something here? the "they", especially? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

That's the singular "they" -- I try not to use "he" unless I'm sure it's correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My "take" is that this was a content issue and should probably have been left on the discussion page of the affected article or at most on the associated editors' talk pages. Bringing it here to ANI appeared excessive as the remedies could have been applied at an earlier stage. I know that a tedious, and drawn out defence was involved but was the editor in question skirting into the areas of civility? disruption (of the original article)? vandalism? If these issues were not the deciding factors, then a good dose of "ignore" may have been appropriate, rather than playing "wap a mole". (FWiW, last statement entirely facetious, LOL.) Bzuk (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a content issue, but much of this is about a problem that has arisen with this editor before - a tendency to misinterpret and arguably overreact to comments. Lawrencekhoo wasn't assuming the best of faith, but the two editors have butted heads on that article before, so perhaps this is understandable. However, PennySeven then misinterpreted what was said by Lawrencekhoo, and entered into what was verging on harassment of the other editor. Indeed, I was about to warn PennySeven of the potential for harassment when it was brought here, having noticed similar responses to criticism from other editors. Given that there were constant posts by PennySeven attacking LK for over 24 hours, outside intervention may have been necessary. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good enough, I probably didn't sense the frustrations that were involved as it matured into a full flap. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Reversions at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization)

I'm posting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard as it's a wider issue also concerning an RfC. Following this RfC I made this change. As the RfC had been stale for a week I closed it and made the change proposed despite it only being agreed by one other editor as both of us agreed it was a fair representation of the wider consensus (where there had been several comments). User:Francis Schonken has now reverted my edit, originally it would appear because it contradicted Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (precision) despite both being guidelines and neither having primacy. I pointed them at the RfC and they have now said they don't think it's a fair reading of consensus. I both opened and closed the RfC (as no one else was coming along to do so) and so am afraid of a conflict of interest despite closing against my preferred option. Both of us are now close to the three revert rule so would appreciate someone else to take a look at the whole situation. Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at this - it could really do with an admin looking it over. I'm trying to avoid an edit war here. I sometimes wonder if the only way to get admin attention is to actually do something wrong. Help in trying to avoid problems seems rarely to be forthcoming. This isn't a go at any individual admin as I realise they're all volunteers who have other things to be doing but more a comment that the system seems to be failing in this regard. Dpmuk (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a content dispute; you don't need an administrator action here, you need both parties to back off and outside opinions on what the consensus of the RfC was. WP:30 is well-staffed, so I suggest that a posting there would be a good way forward. See also dispute resolution. Sincerely,  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree it's a "content" dispute what I think is at issue here is the process not the dispute itself - and this is what I'd like some admin comment on. An RfC was held, comments received and a consensus reached. Yes the consensus for the exact wording was small but it was left open for a week without any further comment before the RfC was closed - discussion have to be closed at some point, we can't wait for ever for more comments. At this point, in my opinion, the version with the change agreed at the RfC becomes the 'stable' version. If an editor then disagrees with this new 'stable' version it's perfectly in their right to start another discussion about changing it but the 'stable' version should remain until consensus is reached to change it. As an analogy we don't allow editors to recreate an article deleted at an AfD just because they disagree with the consensus (such article would be G4'ed), we have DRV for discussing the issue. Without respecting previous decisions reached until consensus is reached to change them wikipedia would fall apart. I have no issue with discussing the issue further but I think it's a dangerous precedent to let the version from before the RfC stand just because someone disagrees with how it was closed - what happens if they hadn't come along to a month or a year later? Additionally attempts to find out to have a discussion about why they disagree on what the consensus was have so far not met with success with them just saying they disagree with no reason. Given User:Francis Schonken's irregular editing habits discussion could take some time and until such time as we agree on a way forward what version should remain? This is a clear process issue and not a "content" dispute. I don't want to get blocked for reverting to what I think is the "stable" version so want admin opinion on this issue. I am then quite willing to discuss the issue. Dpmuk (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And yes I am aware that this probably isn't quite the right forum but there isn't an admin assistance forum. At the moment there is currently no place to ask for an admin opinion so it ended it up here. Yes there's places like WP:EA but, IMO, editors there may not be best placed to answer questions like "would this got me blocked" as they probably don't have experience of blocking. I think there should definitely be a location to raise issues that look like they're heading towards needing admin action (e.g. blocking) before they actually do and this forums obviously mainly needs admin replies as they'd be the ones that actually would use the tools if it reached that stage - this would hopefully avoid the need for some admin actions. Dpmuk (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the page needs to be protected, and perhaps one or more of those involved in the editing dispute ought to be blocked, but I do not think so, and I don't see what other administrator actions are needed at this point. I'm not going to criticise your choice of venue under the circumstances, but one does not need to be an admin to close an RfC, to give good advice or to judge consensus – such a situation would be a deplorable move to a hierarchical system. I think you are more likely to get input from knoweldgeable experienced editors by asking the members of the Manual of Style WikiProject that the battlegrounders who frequent this board. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I realise that - I closed the RfC having, I thought at the time, gauged consensus correctly (the only other editor who commented agreed with me). My question is that if I revert back to the version agreed upon at RfC, the version I think is the "stable version" and I reported to the edit warring board am I likely to get in trouble for my actions (either by being admonished or blocked) and as such action would be done by an admin it seems reasonable to seek an admin view before it happened. If I am in the wrong and it would be considered edit warring then I'd like to know this so I don't make the change (although as I say if this is the case I have serious concerns about how wikipedia operates - so much so that I'd probably start an RfC on the RfC process).

I also realise that my edits, in particular this one, may not look the best. In hindsight I am possibly shouldn't have made it but the other users reverted my revert so quickly I hadn't even had time to explain my actions on their talk page so I redid it as they obviously couldn't have understood my reasoning. Also with hindsight I should have said in my first edit summary that I was going to leave them a message. Once it became clear that they disagreed with me even after being aware of the RfC I didn't revert again and brought it here to see if it would be considered edit warring if I continued to revert back to what, in my opinion, is the stable version. Dpmuk (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that admin's aren't superusers and are button pushers, but they have to decide when to push the button and so they seem the most logical people to ask when it comes to finding out exactly when that button will be pressed in cases which aren't clear cut. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I would not be inclined to block anyone at this point, or to protect the page, as you seem to realise that reverting is not going to move the matter forward. One of the ideas behind WP:3RR is it removes the warriors from the article – one way or another – so that decisions are left to uninvolved editors. To be crystal clear: If you revert back, I think you would be justly blocked; that is my advice as an administrator. I re-iterate, it would be best if you refrained from editing the page and instead find outsiders who know enough and are impartial enough to make the call. A neutrally worded request at WP:VPP/WP:VPR might do the trick. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear. Personally I disagree due the points I raise above and the fact that leaving it as it is, in my opinion, effectively makes the RfC pointless (and by extension, in my opinion, nearly all RfCs) - I can see how others will disagree with that view however. That said I'll have to accept that's how admin's may interpret another revert and will raise this issue at the forum you mentioned. As for the wider point about RfC and indeed all such discussion (for example requested moves) I think we need a wider policy on what people should do if they disagree with a closure, something similar to WP:DRV maybe Misplaced Pages:Disputed closures and a clear guideline that the closure should stand until the new discussion is finished. However I accept that's a separate issue and will think about raising it separately - possibly as another RfC. Dpmuk (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Boovaloo

Please ban this user indefinitely. It is a vandal. ----Jack | 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Boovaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 3 edits. After the third edit he recieved a level 2 warning. I don't see any edits after that. With a few exceptions we usually give users a chance to respond to warnings. If he continues he should get a at least a final warning, if not a level 3 warning first. Then if he continues WP:AIV would be the best spot to report.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I post that he earns himself a final warning...---Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked by accident, thinking there had been another edit past the final warning, but unblocked when I saw that wasn't the case. The autoblock is still active -- I figured if they wanted to get in that badly, they could follow the instructions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review of User:Nipple37

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

See User talk:Beeblebrox#User:Nipple37 for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would also appreciate feedback over whether this constitutes wheel warring or not as that is also a disputed point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not. Even if a declined block counts as an administrative action, someone has the right to revert it. (Now if somebody reverted over that, it might be a wheel war, depending on the first premise.) See WP:WHEEL. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not wheel warring. There is only one administrative action done afaict with respect to this account. Syrthiss (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. (still it would've been nice if they'd discussed it with me before blocking, but I see how it does not constitute wheel warring) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not technically wheel warring, but also a fairly bad block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Wheel warring, however I disagree with the block At least wait till (s)he edits and then discuss the name on their talk page?--SKATER 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something technical here... but is this really hardblocking? They are blocked with autoblock active, and with account creation blocked. IIRC that means that if they try to access the wiki with the account it will also autoblock the ip for 24 hours, and that they cannot create another user account while logged in with this account. If they come back after 24 hours autoblock as their bare IP shouldn't they be able to create an account if they wanted to? Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a moot point in this case; the block was 10-11 hours ago. After being blocked for this long, much less with no explanation, I doubt they'll ever return. HalfShadow (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wheel-warring, though I think the rule needs work and have brought this up in the past. It is so, but a bad block in my view, unless little cloth coverings for piano legs are on their way back. This is 2009. Nipple is not an offensive word. It just is not. I don't even think nipple was, back in the day, but certainly it is not such a word today. Even John Ashcroft probably wouldn't have a problem with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Anthony Comstock? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Between here and my talk page, it is apparent that there is a strong consensus that this was an overly harsh block. Although the damage is likely already done, I think it would be a good idea for some uninvolved admin to undo or at least reduce the block. That is, unless Rschen would care to acknowledge this consensus and undo it themselves... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an over-reaction, especially the hardblocking. Changed to a softblock; see User talk:Nipple37 for my message. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a softblock in this situation is "That's not how I'd do it, but I wouldn't override it" sort of thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad block all around. Toning it down to a softblock and leaving an explanatory message on the user's talk page is a step in the right direction but blocking these sorts of things on sight is a hypersensitive reaction to what might be offensive. This is precisely the sort of scenario in which engaging the editor personally is the proper way to go about things. At this point there isn't much to be done about it, however; the damage is done. Shereth 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious what ought to be done about, but equally obvious that nobody's got the balls to do it. The block should be reversed, the blocking admin given a serious talking to, and if (s)he persists with these kinds of blocks then (s)he should be summarily desysoped. Easy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with "The block should be reversed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too soft. Administrators who make blocks like these chase editors away, when they ought to be chased away themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Malleus, I left my Draco (lawgiver) hat someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. I found my uniform though. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked, left welcome message fwiw. Hope all parties are okay with this course of action, and hopefully all is settled. Let me know if not. -- Samir 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm rather disappointed in rschen for blocking User:Ádmins masturbate to linux recompiles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO! Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Samir. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, he should at least be told to change his name? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? Everyone else says that it is fine. Keegan (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nipple 37 might be a half inch galvanized pipe fitting in bin 37. Even if it refers to an anatomical nipple, there is still nothing wrong with it. It will be disturbing to some who have body-taboos, but the wp:NOT-censored is pretty important. *shrug*- Sinneed 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what you need to understand about this. Nobody but you sees this name as even marginally offensive. If it was User:I bite nipples or User:Showmeyournipple you'd have something, but there is no context here that makes it offensive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there were people on your user talk who could see asking him to change the name. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, User:Penis is acceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And by a "no body parts" reasoning, User:BigToe43 is unacceptable? There's a difference between a penis and a nipple. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And a difference between a nipple and a big toe. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really -- you see both of them exposed on every single beach in the world. Granted, you only see about half as many nipples as big toes...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict)If somebody is such a dim-wit that they want to be called Penis (talk · contribs) all the (idiotic) power to them. It's just a piece of anatomy. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• This admin needs to be whacked with a trout. Right on the nipples. HalfShadow (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm finding ironic here is that if they hadn't come to my talk page and made an issue of it, I probably wouldn't have noticed the block at all since I had declined to block it already. And if they hadn't rejected the arguments of everyone on my talk page and said I should report it here, I probably wouldn't have done that either. What's next my friend? Would you like to go to RFC or ArbCom with this? How far do we have to go before you will acknowledge that you made an error? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't acknowledge that I made an error because I honestly don't believe that I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ok, how about "acted against consensus?" I think it should be abundantly clear that you did by now, given that there is unanimous agreement that the block was an overreaction. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus at that point when I made the block. I still believe that the username is grossly inappropriate. Do I believe it's worth bringing it any higher? I don't have the time for that (picking my fights carefully). But I refuse to admit that I made a mistake when honestly, I don't believe I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't serious about ArbCom, but it's important that you understand why so very many users object to this block, whether you agree with them or not, and that you not be so hasty to instantly hardblock such cases in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You hardblocked for a username offence. Really, unless the name is "Killallniggers" (which does warrant an instant permanent block) you discuss first, and block as a last resort. (Of course, if the person goes on to edit and is a vandal you're in luck, because it's easy to block them then. ) And when you block you give a soft block, with a link to username policy, and ask them to come back with a different name. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. At around the same time this was reported last night there was a user with "kkk" in their name. At first there was nothing solid tying them to the Klu Klux Klan, so I held off and watched for a few minutes, and bam, they made several racist edits inserting the initials "KKK" into Black Panther Party among others, and I could justify blocking them as a vandal and an inappropriate name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this so hard for Rschen7754 to understand? Is he a new or inexperienced administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2005. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you have no excuse for your poor judgement and response here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lets face it, if something has 37 nipples, chances are it's a steam locomotive Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And still Rschen doesn't give up . I'm sorry, but this is seriously in need of a trouting. As a woman, I'm actually getting quite offended that someone could find nipples so offensive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We all have nipples Elen, even us blokes. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinks...actually, I do know this. Duh! That makes it even dafter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the rules ought to be changed so as not to allow any body part to be used in a username. After all, there are (apparently) many who find even feet to be erotic, although I just find them to be smelly. Perhaps best to make everyone have randomly generated usernames, like User:Ahgfditr76. That way the only other editors likely to be offended are those who speak gibberish, like ... well, fill in your own name here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest...as a user, after reading this thread (and seeing the notice at the top of User Talk:Rschen7754 I will have a hard time accepting that this admin considers any position other than their own, and doesn't have the ability to admit they made a mistake. This makes me very nervous as nobody is perfect and even the most experienced admin will make mistakes from time to time. An admin should be held to a higher standard, and have the maturity and judgment to accept when they have made a mistake, and attempt to rectify that mistake instead of just digging the hole deeper and deeper. Frmatt (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you say, I believe that we should all be held to the same standard, whether we're admins or not. The problem wikipedia has to face is that at present regular editors are held to a higher standard than administrators. But I digress. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus on that one.--SKATER 23:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Malleus. This is a pretty disappointing situation as both a user and a person with nipples.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and say what I lot of people are implying or at least thinking: Someone who as hardheaded as Rschen shouldn't be an admin. How many valuable contributors has he chased away with his overzealous blocks? How many people have left the project in part due to his rude comments and I'm always right attitude? This kind of behavior is not acceptable from an average user, let alone an admin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviewing Rschen's admin log, I see he always hardblocks everyone & never templates any of them. Some of these people shouldn't have been blocked at all, and barely any all hard block worthy. Every single one deserved messages explaining the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say they are the most stubborn admin I have ever come across, and I'm staggered by their continuing denial that there's any problem on their side. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's an identical situation in the blocking of Nipples63. No contribs whatever, indef hardblocked, no message informing them of the block. It seems this is not an isolated incident, and we have an admin who is out of touch with current policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardheadedness is not an admin criteria, and isn't everyone in different ways? Sure I don't agree with the "I'm always right" attitude, but lately there are a lot of so-called "noobs" or disruptive editors driving down Rschen's skull. Remind me to bring this up when it happens again.Mitch32 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... and in the meantime let's push it under the carpet. Quite typical. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user could select another user ID and try again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just like many, if not most, blocked users already do. The problem isn't with this user, it's with this administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user knew that name would be trouble. There was nothing wrong with the block, although it might have been better to wait and see what (if anything) he intended to edit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user chose that name in order to stir up controversy, then he succeeded. I, for one, was looking forward to seeing what he would upload to his user page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that we've let that user win. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's even more sad that you still don't 'get' what you've done wrong here. You actually physically embarrass me. HalfShadow (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice there isn't anything on User talk:Rschen7754 about this. It seems that some pretty serious problems have been brought up regarding this administrator; not only of this block, but of their general blocking practice. It seems he always uses hardblocks, and fails to notify the blocked users? I'm not sure what would be a good example of a problem of similar degree that an ordinary editor might have, but it seems like that editor would at least get a "formal" warning for it. Blocking is serious stuff. It's a sensitive issue and can drive people away. We need to watch this person, and when it happens, it must be determined whether or not he's aware that he screwed up. If he's in disagreement on that, further actions may need to be taken. Equazcion (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy to review administrators if a concern is brought up like this. This username is obviously one example, but ThaddeusB brings up a potentially troubling series of actions by this admin. I would rather have this dealt with immediately than wait until another violation happens. I see and respect Mitch32's point, but an inability to remain civil, follow policy and procedure, and to always AGF until proven that there is bad faith involved indicates to me a serious question of impartiality by the admin. I will admit that I have edited in frustration, and freely admit that I am not always civil, but I do admit when I'm wrong (this being a perfect example!) I'm starting to feel that this is not necessarily the place for this conversation as it is no longer simply about the block, but has become more about this admin's record on the name policy. But...I could be wrong on this one too!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmatt (talk • contribs)

Response from the person

Wow, I go to class and come back and find this mess. Rather than mess with indenting, I'll try to write a summary here:

• I find the username User:Nipple37 offensive and believe it inappropriate to be used as a username on Misplaced Pages. I cannot back down on that opinion.
• That being said, it is not my intent to wheel war over it.
• Some concerns have been presented regarding my UAA blocks. Honestly, after this debacle, I'm staying away from UAA for a while.
• As far as my comment on the was-blocked user's talk page, I was fully within my rights as an editor to make those comments. Does an editor have to follow comments like that? No. Just as I can make comments on anybody's talk page. I believe Malleus Fatuorum should not have made the revert. That being said, I won't readd the comments; it prevents further fighting, and I think the user may have a clue that their username has been called into question.
• The colored box on my user talk page relates to users complaining about their pages being deleted. Occasionally there is a legitimate complaint, and I will be happy to address those. However, whenever I make a journey into CAT:CSD I get messages saying "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE!@@#$#$~??" for the next few days, complete with excuses as to why their page should exist. This is an attempt to cut down on that. This is a reason why I don't go into CSD anymore.
• If anyone has other complaints regarding my adminship of nearly 4 years, please bring them to me and I will be happy to address them. I do have a midterm tomorrow and a homework assignment that I have done very little of due tomorrow, so there could be delays. I am on IRC on #wikipedia-en-roads, and I have a user talk page and have email enabled. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you a very simple question. What is it about the username Nipple37 that you find offensive, as you seem to be in a minority of one on this issue? What's offensive about the number 37? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• It refers to body parts that sometimes are not appropriate to be displayed. These parts also have a sexual connotation. The question about the number 37 is not constructive. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see. So you're a puritanical prude not yet out of school who intends to hardblock anyone who doesn't share your tight-assed view on life. Got it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The above comment is inappropriate and personalizes a policy discussion. I recommend its retraction or redaction. It appears to be highly unhelpful and counterproductive. —Finn Casey * * * 06:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Be nice to the user, as he's apparently a bit calory-challenged: His user ID, roughly translated from the vulgar Latin, means "Badly Overweight". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I randomly checked some of the hardblocked users. Of those that had a couple edits before being blocked, about half appeared to be in good faith. This clearly demonstrates that people with questionable usernames can be good faith. It is not really surprising that people unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages might create bad names in good faith - after all on many websites one's username is rarely or never displayed anywhere. (Even ignoring that several of the names weren't clearly offensive to begin with.) By hardblocking these people you prevent them from creating a legitimate name as autoblock will prevent them from re-registering. By not informing them of the problem, they will remain ignorant of what happened, and may well assume Misplaced Pages is a place filled with tyrants and never return. If you are not willing to take 15 seconds to template a blocked username, let someone else do the blocking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What good is templating User:I HATE WIKIPEDIA AND WANT TO VANDALIZE EVERY SINGLE PAGE3432424156246246!!!!!!!!? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we deal with an actual username you hardblocked w/o explanation rather than some theortical name. User:BATSHITDOOLAYODAJA's only edit was this: - not the best edit in the history of the world, but clearly a good faith attempt to improve the article. I do not question that their username was inappropriate, but since you didn't bother to explain why they were blocked they will likely never edit again. Even if they figure out the block was b/c of their username, they won't be able to create a new account because of autoblock. Because you couldn't spare 15 secs to drop a template, we've likely lost this editor for good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Regarding the comment on their talk page, you may have been within your rights as an editor, but when you make a comment like that as the blocking admin, it can seem unduly authoritative to the user.
• Part of using the tools is dealing with individual complaints, many of them repetitive. Your red box remark amounts to "my decisions are final", which they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't be saying it. Besides which, if you don't handle CSD anymore, there should be no more need for that box.
• I find lots of things offensive on Misplaced Pages, and can do nothing about them. Just because you have the tools to do something doesn't mean you're allowed to. Offense is not a reason to act. Policy is. Equazcion (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have rephrased the part of the box you refer to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To rschen7754: I have three questions, all of which are sincere:

• You seem to be saying that your personal definition of "offensive" should be more important than consensus. Why, specifically, do you think that your definition is superior?
• Why, specifically, did you not communicate with the user before hard-blocking him? (And the answer is not "it was offensive". That's why you blocked the user. my question is why you didn't communicate with him or her first.
• Which outcome would be worse for the encyclopedia: you receiving a number of unfortunate comments on your talk page, or a new user abandoning the project because his article was inappropriately speedily deleted and there was no obvious way to get help?

Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

At the point I hardblocked, there was no consensus that I could see on the matter. Consensus is a large factor in my not reblocking.

But why did you jump to the conclusion that the word "nipple" was offensive? That is what I cannot, cannot understand in this. I'm sorry, I suspect it's obvious to you, but "nipple" is not that offensive. Really, no: it's not. And the idea that it is so offensive that a user who has that username has to be a vandal? Is so far in left field I can't even understand it.

Typically users who use "Nipples" in a username are disruptive and just going to vandalize.

Can you provide diffs showing that people with that word in their username are particularly prone to vandalism? If not, it's just your assumption, based on your personal (and I'm sorry to say, idiosyncratic) idea that the word "nipple" is inherently horrible and could only be used in order to shock or disgust. It's simply a body part.

Well, what answer do you want? Is there any way to say otherwise? My question is, is the scenario that you describe likely to happen?

--Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it can happen, and I've seen it happen a dozen times. Imagine a new user who doesn't know about the sandbox or user pages. Now imagine them building an article, saving it as he goes, but he hasn't got to the point where he's added the references. Suddenly in between his saves the article is speedily deleted. Then he goes to the closing admin's user page and finds a comment like yours. He'd probably think he had been run out of Dodge by an admin who won't lift a finger to help if he asks for it. Put yourself in a new user's position and remember that your words may seem harsher and more arrogant on the page than you mean them to be. --NellieBly (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well good grief! I really do think you should stay well clear of WP:UAA if you find the word "nipple" offensive. For a little perspective, check out our very own article on the subject. There's actually nothing that could be construed as salacious or 'offensive' there. It talks about lactation, breastfeeding, areolae - even 'male nipples'. I seriously think you massively overreacted here but what really concerns me now is your obstinacy to recognize that you may be somewhat ... unique ... in this perspective and against the clear opinion of so many others, can see no issue with using admin tools in enforcing your opinion on newb editors. Not good in an admin> I need to know that you're not going to drop the almighty banhammer again for something as trivial as this. As someone else points out, watchlist the marginal cases and wait for them to step out of line - then act - Alison 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there's obviously some limit to how offensive I find the word nipple if I'm typing it in right now. I don't believe it appropriate in a username however. But you miss the point - when I blocked, there was no consensus against my position. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes there was, it just wasn't demonstrated. We can't convene a committee prior to every administrative action. That's why we have to carefully choose people to trust with tools who can make adequate judgments on their own. Your capacity to make those calls is being called into question. Equazcion (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) You've not commented on the suggestions that you massively overreacted, nor have you answered my concern regarding your not doing it again. Yes, there was nothing voiced against your position at the time as nobody but you and the blockee were aware of it. This is separate to the matter of consensus, which clearly existed before you acted. IMO, you're not addressing the concerns here now in any meaningful way - Alison 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, the admin made a decision. Consensus disagreed and the admin has agreed to abide by the consensus. While I personally agree with the consensus viewpoint, I would greatly prefer that the public flogging be done via a webcam, as I just can't see the blood fly on wiki. Manning (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'd prefer is a little bit of honesty, not administrators closing ranks over issues like this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "closing of ranks". The arb made a decision he believed (and still believes) was correct. Nearly everyone else (including me) disagreed and the arb has fully cooperated with the consensus viewpoint. We are not (and cannot be) required to all agree with each other. We ARE required to not be disruptive and abide by consensus. As this admin has done just that, then there is nothing more to discuss. Manning (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that this administrator even recognises that his block was wrong, much less agreed not to do something similar in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please (re?)read the thread. There is far more going on here than a mistake on one username. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in this particular incident. But as someone pointed out this has occurred in more than on incident which often points to a larger problem. The sarcasm doesn't aid in discussing that issue. Instead it looks like someone trying to brush the discussion under the carpet. If there is a defense for his behaviour in these cases or you agree with him hard blocking without any templating, then you should make that point without the sarcastic attempts to shut the discussion down. There seem to be concerns raised about this incident, further incidents and the tone on the talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin is under NO requirement to admit he was wrong. He believes he was correct and he is perfectly entitled to do so. He IS however required to acknowledge that his viewpoint is not the consensus viewpoint and to thus abide by the established consensus from here onwards. This has been done to my satisfaction at least. Manning (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Where has that been done? I haven't seen that. Though I may have missed it. Equazcion (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you're rather too easily satisfied. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

what now?

Honestly... what more do you want? I am not going to copy and paste a statement saying that I admit my guilt, because I do not believe my decision was wrong. But I have said repeatedly that I will not make UAA blocks for a while, and I am leaving this user in question alone. If you want to see my judgment, how about looking at all the stuff I did right, for a change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of hardblock: wrong. Hypersensitivity to usernames: wrong. Not templating: wrong. I don't want a signed confession in blood here but I'd at least like to see some sort of acknowledgement of these three basic issues here. All of them are really bad practice for an admin. Staying away from UAA is a good thing, IMO, but can you see how the rest is problematic here? In particular, I have a major issue with the redlinked talkpage. It's not okay to simply stick the template in the block message and it's not okay to block ACB for anything other than the most blatant cases. ACB is too harsh for most username probs - Alison 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Alison, but this adds to what she said) I'm not all that comforted, personally. If you don't understand why this was a bad block, what happens when you start making UAA blocks again? I don't even see this as a problem that's necessarily confined to UAA blocks. You could take undue offense to other things and find them just as blockable, and I'm also concerned that the not informing users of important things (like their having been blocked) would also carry into other areas. But that's just me, I don't want to speak for everyone else. Equazcion (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we really having this conversation? If you don't trust my judgment, your only option is to go to ArbCom right away. You can't just give good judgment to someone. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we're really having it. I'd (we'd?) prefer to engage you in an open discussion, to determine the likelihood of this or something similar happening in the future. You don't seem too thrilled with the prospect of taking criticism to heart or subsequently easing our minds though. Equazcion (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... and if it turned out that I had bad judgment, ArbCom would need to deal with it anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt in your mind that many believe your judgement to have been poor. Repeatedly. Why is that? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I personally think societal sensitivity to the topic is peculiar and backward, but I would happen to agree that selecting it as a username is probably not the best judgment. I would agree that a block (let alone a hardblock) is probably not the best response. But I also agree with User:Manning Bartlett that the ongoing flogging is not productive. Are there additional hardblocks that need to be softened, or blocks that need to be removed altogether? If not, then I don't see anything further that can be addressed at this noticeboard. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say at least 90% of Rschen's blocks should have been soft blocks and 99% templated, but the damage has already been done. These people aren't going to randomly log back on weeks later and see the message. What I want to see is 1) an agreement not to hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances and 2) an agreement to template blocked usernames. Neither of these things have been done. The current promise to "stay away for awhile" moves the problem into the future instead of solving it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

^What Thaddeus said. Though I wouldn't mind seeing template notices for all future blocks. Equazcion (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now it sounds like you are asking us to take this issue to ArbCom instead of coming to a reasonable compromise here in open conversation. Do you really think that you are so right that ArbCom would uphold what you've done, and are you ready to run the risk that you would end up desysoped? I've looked at your contributions and for the most part you make good edits, so why are you being so stubborn on this issue? Why not take the compromise that ThaddeusB just offered, admit that you were wrong in your actions regarding usernames, and lets just move on? Frmatt (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer Arbcom over vigilante justice. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Call it what you like, but the community is trying to compromise with you. You're pretty much saying you want to retain your right to hardblock people, and to block without adding template notices, and if we don't like that we'll have to take it to ArbCom. If that's the case, I'm not seeing any other choice. Equazcion (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I only don't template my hardblocks and block evasion blocks. I template everything else. And I've practically given up my hardblock right, since I said I wasn't doing UAA for a while, and I dunno where else you can hardblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"for a while" doesn't solve anything, see Thaddeusb's comment above. No one wants to go to ArbCom, it's a lot of typing. We'll do it if need be, but how about this compromise? Would really make it easier on everyone. Equazcion (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think ArbCom would take the case? (Background: I have been involved in 2 cases before. I know what it is like. ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy for you, two for me also. It sounds like you're trying to use the fear that arbcom won't take the case as leverage to continue doing what you like despite the community's opinion. Equazcion (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... I said I was staying away from UAA. What more do you need? You want me to resign, don't you? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps stay away from newbies altogether? You don't seem to understand what it means to not bite them, despite that you're okay at other areas of adminship. rspεεr (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had concerns brought to me before in the roads area, and I am working on being more friendly to them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he said about 9 paragraphs back exactly what he wanted to see, and "resign" was not in the list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know as well as everyone else here that ArbCom doesn't take cases this obvious, so don't hide behind them. Just admit you made a bad block, upon the realization that you are the only person here who is offended by the word "nipple", and back down. rspεεr (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... in summary, no, no, and no. I'm willing to let this go and end the discussion, but *some people* won't let it end... --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If your intent is to end the discussion with the firm conviction that the way you handle newbies is appropriate... no, it's not actually acceptable for it to end that way. We have policies about this that are more important than your reaction to the word "nipple". rspεεr (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Newbies" with disruptive names and who vandalize. Yes, it's appropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So every single person you blocked was an incorrigible vandal? It seems others have already refuted that idea. rspεεr (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2...because you refuse to recognize that consensus is against you here, and just staying away from UAA for a while and then going back to exactly the same pattern of behavior is not going to work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I've never seen an admin hold out as an "army of one" for this long before. rspεεr (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The block was maybe not handled as well as it could have been, but it was appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to your opinion, but nearly everyone who weighed in here seems to feel otherwise, save for the blocking admin. Equazcion (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why, because supposedly we have rules against provocative user ID's. Now, if he didn't have a proper signature, then you'd want to block him for "disruption". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the hardblock riled people up more than anything. It's banning the user based on his or her choice of username. Evil saltine (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it could have been handled better. Typically a user with a provocative name is intent on provoking. It would have been interesting to see what sort of "contributions" that editor would have made and/or given them a chance to defend themselves. Or still could do, now that it's unblocked (pardon the ironic dairy-related metaphor). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly concur with Baseball Bugs. The user name in question was clearly provocative. While many users evidently find the name unoffensive, current policy deprecates the use of borderline names where even a minority might be offended, as they unnecesarily distract from the encyclopedia-buidling project. Regarding the "everyone disagrees with the blocking administrator" comments above, it is important to remember that a local majority at this noticeboard (of perhaps five or so editors) does not override consensus policy, which the blocking admin appears to have appropriately understood (albeit with imperfect execution). Thanks to all for the good editing, —Finn Casey * * * 05:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Finn and Bugs miss the point: A bad username combined with poor edits (even just a few) is uncontroversially blockable. And you've blocked a vandal, for vandalizing (with a bad username as part of the evidence), rather than blocking a newbie who might have been wanting to help the project but who picked a dumb username. Saying "they can pick a new name and try again" misses the hardblocked, account creation blocked part of the block. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the intensity of this discussion, why was the blocking of User:Nipples57 uncontroversial?

As an outsider coming upon this lengthy discussion, I'm baffled when I see that the blocking of an almost identical username went, so far as I can tell, completely unremarked on. I'm clearly missing something significant, and would appreciate some guidance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandahl, on that earlier block, provided an explanatory template. Besides that, we just didn't happen to catch it. If we had, some discussion might still have ensued, but probably not the flamefest we're seeing here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That and, there's no reason to think anyone noticed the block at the time. We can't catch everything. Had people noticed it, and voiced concerns to Sandahl, hopefully s/he would have reacted very differently. Making occasional mistakes isn't a problem; how you handle them afterward is what matters more. Equazcion (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(...which I now see post-edit-conflict that Sarek already mentioned, sorry). Equazcion (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification -- was this a hardblock, as I originally stated? I know that's what it says in the block summary, but I can't tell for sure if that's what was done. All the log says is "Account creation blocked". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user was able to add the rename request to their talk page, it probably wasn't hard, I think. Equazcion (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm asking about Rschen's block here, not Sandahl's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Account creation blocked" is a hardblock, "autoblock disabled" is a softblock. Evil saltine (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Night, all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

← To get back on track here - no, I personally don't want to see User:Rschen7754 dragged before ArbCom and certainly not de-sysopped. Absolutely not - and this isn't anything about that. He's a good admin in the main and I've seen his work before on dispute resolution (and on Troubles issues :) ) and have no problems there. I just want to ensure he handles usernames a little more carefully, uses templates and lays off the ACB blocks except in extreme cases. If he says, Yeah, I'll do that. I see where the problem may be now", then we're done and it's over. We admins have a ton of stuff to deal with and none of us get it right all of the time. Hardblocking plus not templating is the ultimate repudiation to an editor (banhammer, then turn your back on them) and we really shouldn't be doing it. It makes us all look bad in the long run. That's all - Alison 05:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to err more on the side of softblock rather than hardblock. However, I will hardblock if I see a name that is disruptive (i.e. personal attacks, isgay, *on wheels, etc.) In these instances, I don't see the point of templating, as the user knows what they are doing wrong, and the page will get trashed within a month. That all being said, I still consider the original username that started this mess to be inappropriate. It is very provocative, and most of the time I see users like that just vandalizing away if left unblocked. I still stand by my hardblock of the user (and I believe that that is what they deserve) but in the interests of resolving this discussion, were I to come across a similar username again I would probably softblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In summary, I still don't agree, but I'll do more softblocks to pacify people. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* - this is really the wrong answer. You just don't seem to find anything wrong with the generality here ('nipple' aside for a second). WP:AGF and WP:BITE pretty much mandate the use of templates, at least for those borderline cases where we're left with a confused editor who doesn't know what just happened. When in doubt, just pop a template down. How long does it take? It's a basic courtesy. The word 'nipple' is not "very provocative" - honestly - and I believe you should rethink where your threshold lies re. usernames. And when in doubt, don't hardblock. Keep that for the Grawp accounts and the WoW ones, but very little else - Alison 06:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I always leave templates for softblocks, and if it's not obvious why, I usually provide some sort of hint why the username is inappropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, some people don't template: You going to go after the admins who blocked those users, subject them to the same sort of cabal? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"going after", "cabal"?? Puh-leeze. Lookit - I'm throwing my hands up at this stage. I need to sleep - Alison 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one is saying that you cannot take action against names like FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke. I think it's weird that you think names like "IHateWikiediaAndWillVandalizeEveryPage" or "FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke" are the same as "Nipple37". NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point - these users' talk pages are redlinked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No. You missed the point. There are some names that are so offensive they deserve an instant, hard, block, with account creation disabled. There are some names that demonstrate enough bad faith that you don't need to wait for any edits before you block them. No one is asking you not to take action against usernames like those. But then there are names that are borderline. When you see a name that you think is bad faith, and you think belongs to a vandal you have a few options. i) Wait for edits. As soon as there's vandalistic edits the account is blockable, and uncontroversially so. ii) Wait for edits. If they are good faith edits welcome the user, then talk to them about their username. iii) Talk to the user, and if they don't change the name take it to RfCU. You've treated someone with a daft name (Nipple) the same as someone with a grossly offensive name (HitlerWasRight). Can't you see that's sub-optimal? You, and Bugs, say that "people with names like Nipple37 are usually vandals" - but people with names like nipple37 get locked before they make edits, so we don't know that they're vandals. I'm disappointed that you have a wide range of approaches to take to usernames but that you appear to default to "instant block, with out discussion, with no opportunity to change name, with no opportunity to return with a different name". This is incredibly bitey. And about other admins doing it: Please mention them, here or on talk page of UAA. We don't want a witchhunt, but we do want to stop biting newbies. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

90% of what you said was stated above in some form. I don't need a lecture. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have understood the point of the lecture then you have not been particularly good at getting the fact across. When you are stopped by a policeman for jaywalking but you believe it was perfectly OK to do so, you may get away with "I don't think I did anything wrong, but now I realise how important it is to you I will be more careful to observe pedestrian lights in the future." You are not going to get away with: "I did nothing wrong, but I can use my car instead, so I don't really care. I agree not to cross any roads at all in the next twelve months." Hans Adler 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for lecturing you. Do you think a name like "Nipple72" is as disruptive as, for example, "fagmanbutnotasgayasbburke", and do you think they need the same type of blocking? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Editors have pride

Read it then move along, please. Icewedge (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The conditions we've outlined above fall under the "Suggestions for what to do instead" in that essay. Personally I also tend to hold admins to a slightly higher standard than other editors, in terms of the acceptance of responsibility and swallowing pride. That's part of what makes a good admin. Either way I'm not asking for an admission, just a promise for the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that EHP fully applies here, because I believe that I am in the right. I cannot make an admission under a clear conscience because I do not believe that I am wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I just said, and I can only speak for myself here, I'm not asking you to say you were wrong. I don't care about that. ThaddeusB laid out a specific compromise for the future. You could end all of this by just agreeing to it. I thought it was rather reasonable. Equazcion (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This all amounts to a difference in Misplaced Pages philosophy. You're forcing me to conform to your philosophy and methodology. (As if I *could* be forced... right now, we're just administrators talking and it's not like you have special authority or anything.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "I'll do whatever I damn well please and you can't stop me". It's more than just a difference of philosophy at work here - Alison 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... I looked through the UAA history and saw some things you might not approve of. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(after multiple EC's) It may be a difference of opinion, but not between you and me -- it's between you and the community. The offensiveness of the username is being debated, but the opinion on your general blocking practice has been fairly consistent. No one likes it too much. And I'm not an admin, FYI. Equazcion (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would do more softblocks. What else do you want? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"More" isn't terribly assuring. From ThaddeusB above: 1) an agreement not to hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances, and 2) an agreement to template blocked users. Equazcion (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Templates, please (a bare minimum of interaction), plus a little less sensitivity re. what's "very provocative", that's all. No need for apologies, no mea culpas required. Just a little undertaking to ease off (esp. of hardblocks) - Alison 07:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're adding *that* too? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding what? I've said here from the get-go that the redlinked talk page was a problem - Alison 07:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"less sensitivity." --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, less sensitivity. You're hardblocking usernames that shouldn't be, then turning your back on them. Don't do that stuff. Whether you think it's the worst word in the English language is neither here nor there at this juncture, it's clear that many disagree. Rather than assuming everyone else must be wrong, maybe just maybe you mightn't be, here. No? - Alison 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nipple" in a username is inappropriate. I'm not backing down on the last sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) Rschen, as someone who shares with you the (apparently) minority viewpoint that the username could potentially be disruptive, it's clear that the consensus here is that users with usernames of this variety should not be blocked, and certainly not hard blocked. I agreed earlier that this thread was taking the shape of a flogging, but I also find it baffling that you have within your grasp the ability to resolve the matter and have chosen not to do so. It appears clear that the consensus disagrees with your opinion on the matter. Multiple administrators and editors are asking you to acknowledge that you recognize that in the hope that it will prevent future misunderstandings of this nature. I don't consider that to be unreasonable, do you? user:J aka justen (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me is that a) adding templates for hardblocked users is pointless, b) other users are doing the same and they haven't been contacted about it, c) in essence certain editors are attempting to force me to conform to their interpretation of policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty much everyone, Rschen. When everyone forces you to conform to their interpretation of policy, it's called consensus. Equazcion (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And also, I always template softblocks. The fact that I will be doing more softblocks means more users will be templated. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It spiraled out of control because you dug your heels in in a rather big way and refused to accept anyone (and everyone) else's opinion. This started on Beeblebrox' talk page when you suggested he take it to ANI. That's why we're here. Beeblebrox had previously requested input from the UAA talk page, which is where I came in. Intransigence in the extreme - Alison 07:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would softblock more users, that means templating more users. What else do you want? Do I need to copy and paste text? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to copy and paste text to agree to all the conditions that have been laid out. We've spelled them out nice and clear, yet you just keep saying "I'll do more softblocks". Please. Equazcion (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You and I disagree on what is disruptive. That is a serious problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant to the compromise. Keep dragging this out buddy. Either way I'll rest somewhat in the comfort that this 65KB-and-growing incident was visible enough to invite much-needed scrutiny to your future actions. Equazcion (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can quote policy to support your philosophy, then I will consider it. You have yet to do that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Others have. Remember, this isn't about you and me. Besides which, consensus pretty much trumps everything else. And yeah consensus is a policy. What we have demonstrated here is a consensus. 66KB. Equazcion (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would do more softblocks - let me clarify - if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock (as per the UAA instructions), and that means templating more users. Just an FYI, badgering someone on ANI doesn't exactly look good either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For username blocks... only because the WP:UAA instructions say to when I checked today, I will agree to that. Nobody bothered to point me to this. My position stands regarding "if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock" and regarding "nipple" being offensive. I still believe that I was in the right to block today's user. This is my final position, which policy fully supports. If you want to get any more out of me, it won't happen, and you will need to go to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've agreed to template all username blocks, even if it's "only because UAA tells you to". We'll all have to remember to just edit a policy next time we need you to do something. You could probably save yourself a lot of heartache in the future by accepting the fact that large masses of people should be listened to over policy. Just a suggestion. I'm too tired to remember if I should be satisfied with this outcome or not, so I'll let others decide. Toodles. Equazcion (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The block in this case was appropriate, but the admin should have explained to the user why he was blocking, and should have given the user (at least for awhile) the chance to respond and/or make a new, acceptable ID. The blocker should always explain why he's blocking. If it's something horribly gross (which this isn't), a hardblock might be in order. But in this case, it would have been better to give them enough rope to hang themselves, and then there wouldn't be this lengthy discussion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that hardblocking wasnt appropriate? and that it's fine to block a vandal, but it's better to hold off on a block for a username, And that asking a new user to change their name is better than blocking them? So really your first sentence ("The block was appropriate") doesn't make much sense. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How about just moving on?

This has gone further than it needs to, and to save any more issues and make good drama, let's just resolve this and move on? I mean, we have other things to do (such as expanding articles and Misplaced Pages maintenance) and its bad for our health. Decisions aren't right all the time, but we can't just drown on the problem, and this has gone further than it needs.Mitch32 10:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ali Rana, User:Yousaf.john, and User:Skepticfall

• Ali Rana (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yousaf.john (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skepticfall (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All three of these users are the same person, with Ali being the possible sockmaster. This information was confirmed on IRC through the CU Brandon, who will comment here in a moment to confirm this. Yousaf has been engaging in disruptive page creation, in that they are recreating several wikiproject pages for non-existant wikiprojects that were previously created by the sockpuppet of a banned user, and subsequently deleted per a deletion discussion. I don't know exactly what to make of the other two users' edits, so I would like more eyes upon the situation to better understand what is going on. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The three accounts were found during a different SPI and are  Confirmed . Brandon (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)This comment was mistakenly removed. I have replaced it. It was originally placed by Brandon as seen here.— Dædαlus 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, sorry that was an accident. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Skepticfall is the banned Strider11 (talk · contribs). Nishkid and I got rid of him in March but he comes back everyday because the range is so big. Creates categories everywhere, etc etc, pretty easy. Always fiddles with other Pakistani people's userpages. Also because there isn't a "delete all" button, who wants to delete hundreds of stuff everyday. Paknur (talk · contribs) also comes back everyday, with endless cats and stubs. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, one of his socks created the Pakistani Task Force of WP:MILHIST. The coords have agreed to keep it in any case. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

YM, could you hand out some blocks then, and I can start issuing CSD tags.— Dædαlus 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11.— Dædαlus 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith AfD nomination by User:FunnyDuckIsFunny

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film)_(2nd_nomination) is a bad-faith repost of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film), possibly by a long-term abuser. At any rate, this confirms the editor's intent to use the account for abuse only. --Rrburke 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Up from the dead...

I'll be brief: could someone block this guy's new sock? Apparently his first account was named "Prvi zdrug" , and when he got banned he immediately created a new account called "Prvi zdrug uskrsnuće" ("Prvi zdrug: Resurrection" :). Creative, no? Perhaps an IP range block as well? I think its very likely he'll just create a new sock. ("Night of the Living Prvi zdrug"? ;) --DIREKTOR 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, one more thing: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article infobox is being constantly "vandalized" by User:Barlo7 for days and days. I don't know what to do with the guy... at one point I even lost my temper trying to explain how the infobox works. He keeps removing Italy and Germany as predecessor states because he thinks its "insulting to the dead". He also apparently thinks I'm a fascist... :). Anywayz, I tried my best to explain everything , didn't work... --DIREKTOR 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool Third time's a charm

See previous discussions at:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#McJakeqcool_-_back_again

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

tl;dr version, he was blocked in July for disruptive editing for ignoring other editors and carrying on with "'his'" project. In september it was the same issue again, but this time he promised that "I am prepared to take both advice and guidance from fellow wikipedians and I will both take notice of & execute directions given to me from fellow wikipedians".

Yet, we now have him fighting tooth and nail to mark every single edit that is not in article space as minor, even with multiple users telling him this is inappropriate. He has notes on his talk page back over 1 year old telling him not to mark non-minor edits as minor. He was reminded again in April and I warned him again most recently because I didn't see the previous 2 warnings on his long talk page. In addition to those 3 warnings, Elen of Roads has stepped in and tried to explain it to him. So in the face of 4 editors telling him not to do that, he has a serious case yet again of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Even after having this explained and linked multiple times, he incorrectly states on my talk page that all edits to talk pages are minor edits which he also states at another talk page . He then claims that "other truly minor edits" means any edit to a talk page . It was then spelled out to him in bold with an arrow by Elen of Roads , yet Mcjakeqcool continues to make these edits (you can see his contrib history). I told him to stop editing disruptively or we'd come back here for a third go, and he persisted. He told Trey geek that he wasn't a threat to wikipedia yet refuses to listen to other editors and does whatever he wants. On my talk page he proclaimed: I will take WHAT EVER MEANS POSSIBLE to abolish talk page comments as non-minor edits and then opened this discussion at Help talk:Minor edit. To me this is an extension of his previous behaviour. He will occasionally make compromises but the rest of the time Mcjakeqcool is going to do whatever he wants and disregard the policies, guidelines and community and even expect the community to change those policies and guidelines to fit him. He has created vast amounts of work for other editors with his unwillingness to listen to other editors and follow those policies and guidelines. The user is disruptive, and I'd consider the edits made after the multiple warnings from several users to be a little WP:POINTY, and he doesn't seem to give any indication that he intends to start actually working with the community anytime soon.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. After reading the last ANI thread and skimming the first, it seems that this editor is intent on being disruptive. It's one thing to propose policy/norm change, it's another to cram it down our throats for months on end. Past history - and his stated intention - shows another warning has little chance of preventing further disruption. I settled on a one week block; I'm open to arguments against (either longer or shorter, or no block at all). Tan | 39 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a one week block will be effective. Mcjakeqcool was blocked for 31 hours during the first ANI discussion with no change in their actions. The second discussion ended with Mcjakeqcool claiming to be willing to work with other editors and make appropriate contributions to Misplaced Pages; that has not happened. I'd also like to point out the recent discussion at Talk:PlayStation_3#New_PS3_logo_means_new_PS3_casing where Mcjakeqcool is argumentative on what constitutes WP:OR. At the moment, in my opinion, it appears Mcjakeqcool has no intentions to constructively add to Misplaced Pages. Based on their history, I have doubts Mcjakeqcool will ever do so. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree wtih Trey. It has been one battle after another to get him to even do something that resembles good work, and even then he insists on pushing it on just about every single issue. I didn't see the PS3 discussion before.. that is just further evidence that I don't think a week or even a month would change his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef-block isn't a permaban, it just means we're tired of dealing with what looks hopeless from our perspective and that the ball is now firmly in bannee's court to make the move towards regaining edit privileges and convince us he deserves it. Bring on da hammer. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm frustrated by his cluelessness, to be honest. Let's stick with Tan's one-week block for now. If, after that block, there's no signs of improvement still, then indef may well be warranted. Tim Song (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't here to take part- I was getting that old fashioned thing called "a good night's sleep". I think McJ made a mistake at one point by marking a talk page comment as a minor edit, but finds it impossibly hard to admit mistakes, so he's turned it into a campaign. If you notice, he never actually takes any advice. He uses English in a really idiosyncratic way (eg describing his edits as "a commercial success" and then coming up with a really strange definition of the term User_talk:Mcjakeqcool#Use_of_English) and he often responds to comments in the running commentary at the top of his user page, rather than reply directly. I don't want to speculate on the reason for this, but to me it suggests that our remarks to him may not be being processed in the way we expect. In which case, while the 1 week block is appreciated, it is not likely to make much difference, as he may come up with some explanation for it that is not what we intended. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah. I admit this sounds elitist, but some people just don't have what it takes to productively contribute to Misplaced Pages. Despite demonstrated good faith & the best of intentions, while their edits technically aren't vandalism, they are nonsensical & require other editors (who could be doing more important things) to spend their limited time dealing with their edits. Either Mcjakeqcool agrees & cooperates with mentoring so he can more effectively edit/contribute to Misplaced Pages -- or we ban him. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the former happening. He's already rejected such an offer before he got blocked the first time. MuZemike 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet of Jeff V. Merkey - coi, harassment

Current ip

• 166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Previous accounts

• Jvmphoto (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeff_V._Merkey and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jvmphoto.

Obvious sockpuppet of these two indefinitely blocked accounts. Harassing others and using Misplaced Pages as a battleground . Jumping into the article on himself in violation of WP:COI . Since this ip has not been used by anyone else, I see no reason not to block it. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no arbcom ban anymore. BLP allows the subject of a bio to provide input and correct erroneous information. Nor has there been harassment of anyone. A complaint filed at the BLP noticeboard cannot be construed as such or such a venue would not exist. Any "battleground" was created by a variety of single purpose accounts, of which User:Ronz may in fact be one of them given his sudden interest in the subject of this bio for all this person knows. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are community-banned for attempting to harass another user in the real world. Community bans have as much force behind them as Arbitration Committee bans, and are equally as enforceable, especially in this instance. To suggest otherwise is laughable. -Jeremy 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked by an Arbcom clerk for misconduct on an Arbcom page. Block was unrelated to this thread. Manning (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinarily Disruptive Editing, removal of all references and multiple edits without a single Talk attempt

I seem to be on the receiving end of some exceptionally bold reverts by a group of editors working in collusion. Here's the stub that keeps being reverted to - and here is the product of accumulated research and reliable source references. A number of editors are happy to use alternative forums to ban me and are more than happy to discuss doing me in for g-d knows what perceived sleight -- but none have yet to express any specific objection on the talk page. Have we really gotten to the stage where such well supported good faith and verifiable reliable source edits are dismissed wholesale in favor of a stub without references? An apparently related article had this section added to by me to this stage with a similar experience. I'm genuinely not aware of how my seriously concise and well supported edits could have caused offense - nor has anyone yet to specify a thing. - 99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts would be better directed to answering issues raised at the Talk Pages concerned, instead of this Forum shopping. RashersTierney (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This does appear to be forum-shopping, and I am closing this thread as resolved. Administrator attention is already on the related articles. --Elonka 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin etiquette

This morning I blocked 69.171.160.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism and personal attacks. My talk page has just been (IMHO) vandalised by 69.171.160.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The edit summary was "wow took 5 seconds to circumvent that block". This IP has already had a final warning for vandalism today. Am I now too "involved" to block 69.171.160.55, or should I leave that for another admin to act on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

No, you're not too involved. Block evasion is pretty clear cut. Block away. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gogo Dodo. IP already blocked 31hrs by another admin. (remembering to sign this time lol) Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag

I recommend that Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) be disciplined for grossly uncivil behavior towards User:Epeefleche. I have no connection to either editor personally, but I simply must protest Rjanag's shocking behavior at the The Shells (folk band) AfD.

By way of orientation, Rjanag initiated the first AfD for The Shells, appealed the keep decision at this DRV and then relisted it 15 days later. This was quick but within his rights; the unacceptable part was his ensuing conduct towards Epeefleche, the article's main defender. Rjanag's words constantly dripped sarcasm as he labeled Epeefleche "Mr. Truth" , questioned his adulthood and insulted his intelligence . These attacks occured not on talk pages (though Epeefleeche nobly tried to direct them there to save the AfD drama ), but in the middle of AfD debates, and even when Rjanag followed Epeefleche to the talk pages of third parties.

Epefleeche pointed out Rjanag's behavior and asked him to refrain multiple times to no avail. I noticed the incivility, as did User:Kiac , User:HWV258 User:Tony1 and User:Greg_L on several occasions . When User:HWV258 observed things might have become personal for Rjanag , Rjanag spit bile his way as well .

Doubtless Rjanag has done much good in his prolific career. But this behavior goes beyond a little wikettiquette breach. It is unacceptable in any editor, no less an administrator. Gross incivility like this is poison to the Misplaced Pages project and demoralizes valuable, content-heavy editors like Epeefleche (edit profile). Rjanag did not abuse his admin powers per se, so I do not believe they should be revoked. But he should be sternly reprimanded at the least, and perhaps blocked for some time to cool his head. - Draeco (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy states that cool-down blocks should not be used, as they tend to have the opposite effect. And I would say that Rjanag's behaviour — while definitely not very polite — is nowhere near disruptive enough to justify any sort of block, at least not in my view. I've seen many other editors get away with being far less civil than that. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

After Epeefleche asked Rjanag to stop conduct which he did not want, Rjanag should have respected that request and stayed away from Epeefleche's talk page. If there were issues with Epeefleche's conduct (not saying that there were in this case such as sockpuppetry) there are alternative venues (like this one) to raise them. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Comment amended upon further investigation Mjroots (talk)

Frankly, there are a lot of editors that don't come out of that AfD looking particularly good. However, as Mjroots Master&Expert says, we don't use cooldown blocks - there's nothing that we need to prevent by blocking anyone at the moment. Black Kite 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Our rules can be interpreted in many ways, however there's no denying that Rjanag's attitude to dealing with other Wikipedians is too one-eyed, abrupt, and condescending. Attitudes such as his will lead to editors giving up in disgust. I've dealt with many editors, and many situations and know that there is no reason for the behaviour (as described above) that I witnessed. It does WP a great disservice to proffer someone with such behavioural issues as an administrator. Looking at the number of articles he's deleted, and the number of users he's blocked reminds me of the old saying: "the only people who should have power, are those that don't want it". The fact that behavioural problems are combined with power is more than doubly worrying in this case.  HWV258  09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, given your spectacularly unhelpful contributions to both AFDs, I'd suggest that it would be better for someone uninvolved to be pushing that agenda. Black Kite 11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what his number of blockings or deletions have to do with this case. For example, an admin who is active at WP:AIV may have a massive block count, but that does not mean he's going about the place blocking every newbie he sees. Let's keep the discussion focused on this instead of dragging up other unrelated things shall we? ≈ Chamal  ¤ 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, Rjanag was properly notified, but doesn't usually come online until another few hours from now. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see an effort to discuss the concerns with Rjanag on his talk page. A collegial note from a third party can go a long way in resolving disputes without the need for public flogging/ humiliation or brute force (admin tool use). :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

His talk page? Multiple editors told Rjanag multiple times at the two AfDs that his behavior in that matter was absolutely abhorrent and amounted to nothing more than a personal vendetta against Epeefleeche so Rjanag could get his “win” in that matter. The message wasn’t going to suddenly sink in because it was conveyed to him on his talk page rather than the AfDs. What was exceedingly clear is that anyone who opposed Rjanag on that matter was the instant recipient of his special style of personal love. He should simply be striped of his admin privileges (yes, it’s a privilege afforded by the community with the consent of the community) and if he wants to be an admin again, he can throw his hat in the ring and look for supporting votes. We all know what the outcome of that would be given this several-week-long display out of the guy. There were plenty of reasonable-minded editors dealing with Rjanag on the AfDs and they all can discern the difference between a fair-minded admin properly carrying out his admin duties in order to make Misplaced Pages a better product, and that of a rogue admin who has no business in the world having those powers because he inflames things everywhere he goes. Greg L (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:67.160.100.233: Disruptive WP:SPA

This anonymous editor was previously given a final warning for personal attacks, and seems to have some sort of sole purpose fascination with the David Shankbone article. Along those lines, in what I can only determine is an effort to disrupt the related deletion discussion, he began making sockpuppet allegations this evening at that discussion. He originally raised other sockpuppet allegations at Talk:David Shankbone and was advised that was not the proper forum. Even after being told the same with regard to the deletion discussion, he has continued making the allegations there, without any apparent relevance to the actual discussion. His argument appears to be that wp:spi is too slow. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user in question has been notified. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but I'm telling the truth. "After some investigation, it's my opinion that User:Huckandraz (contributions,) who created this article, has also edited under (at least) the following usernames:

User:Babyrockcontributions

User:Lyltrycontributions

User:Profgregorycontributions

User:Vanguard121contributions

See also User:Easyreeder(contributions) on Wikinews.

This biography of Shankbone is straightforwardly a quid pro quo for Shankbone's help in promoting John Reed (novelist)(history) across en.wp. Reed ("Lyltry"): "Shankbone is a gawd").67.160.100.233 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Owch! Is that a reference to n:John Reed on Orwell, God, self-destruction and the future of writing that David Shankbone penned? - Alison 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way. Allegations of sockpuppetry do not belong in AfDs. They contribute nothing to the debate. Tim Song (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please present your case at SPI, and not anywhere else, and make sure it includes more than just "it's obvious"... some specific diffs showing a pattern of similar behaviour and interests for starters. Most of those IDs are old enough that CU won't tell you anything. For the record I checked anyway and I'm not seeing any connection between Huckandraz and Babyrock (the only two checkable ones). I invite review by other CUs of course, as I may have erred or misinterpreted the data. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• After analyzing the edits of 67.160.100.233, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption. This sort of edits are unacceptable, IMO. The IP not only accused David Shankbone of "sockpuppetry", but also accused Benjiboi of trying to "cover up" sockpuppetry. The IP is being disruptive, and harassing David Shankbone. I will block the IP for 1 week. AdjustShift (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• After my block, this was the response of the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Aziz090‎

Aziz090‎ (talk · contribs) seems destined to only add copyvio material to Misplaced Pages (usually in the course of creating articles on Malaysian films). A quick glance of his talk page should suffice, but the contribution list speaks for itself. It's usually copies from other sites regarding the movie's plot and reviews, as well as uploading non-free images related to the movie. He has been warned repeatedly, and eventually blocked for 24 hours. Upon his block expiring, he just continued introducing the same content. I'm afraid this is an editor who just doesn't get it (as is clear from his earlier unsuccessful unblock request). I think at some point we have to say enough is enough, and move to an indef block. Also, earlier some editors spent some time going through his contributions to get rid of the copyright violations, but since he's been at it again, I could use some help going through his more recent contributions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Though situations in which they blank a page they recently created should be construed as them saying 'Okay, I quit' and marking the page with db-g7 instead of giving them a vandalism warning. HalfShadow (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When we have very questionable new articles, and the author blanks, we should generally consider a G7 speedy delete (although in rare cases the new article might have enough redeemable qualities that it could be turned into something that could be kept in Misplaced Pages, and the blanking should be undone to some extent). It looks like this happened a few times wtih Aziz090 (and has happened sometimes with other new editors), but ultimately it doesn't excuse the constant copyvios (despite repeated warnings and being blocked for such behaviour). Anyway, not much more to be said or done while he's on his new block. We'll just need to monitor the situation when the block expires. Singularity42 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP address trolling FEMA articles

An IP address in the range of 203.171.192.0/20 (203.171.199.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 203.171.196.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 203.171.199.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) keeps skipping his block to push the infamous FEMA death panels birth certificate controlled demolition magic bullet hollywood backlot killed and raped a girl in 1990 camp theories. I've taken the liberty of reverting of any of his contributions about it as the application of the block implies they are unwanted, but there is still the problem of IP hopping. The IP range is a mobile network, so the collateral will be low; it's generally inadvisable to edit from mobile or using a mobile connection. Sceptre 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I first noticed editors from this range making strange posts at Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency but they have clearly progressed. Here they blow away ANI while making a legal threat in the edit summary. After looking at IP contributions from this range to check for collateral I've issued a rangeblock of 203.171.192.0/20, anon-only, for two weeks. Other admins may modify this as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistant POV pushing and vandalism by user:Slick112

Slick112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a SPA has been persistently engaged in vandalism, and pushing POV edits in the Raj Rajaratnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page, , , and the Insider trading pages.

Warnings for him to desist , , , have all had no effect. He has also engaged in vandalism of my talk page too . Therefore please consider blocking this disruptive SPA account. Kerr avon (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't this have been taken to WP:AIV? Or has this been resolved already, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread it. Well, I'd say give him a firm last warning for edit warring, then block if he violates again, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR - request for Block

user hxseek reverted article, on a 1RR restricted article: Kosovo

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kosovo&action=history

(cur) (prev) 20:24, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 13:39, 21 October 2009 Dbachmann (talk | contribs) (105,200 bytes) (restoring stable lead paragraph. do not expand this. go to history of Kosovo to discuss details.) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 11:27, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (after Roman times, Dardania ceased to be an distinct regional entity) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 10:10, 21 October 2009 Hajenso (talk | contribs) (105,494 bytes) (edit refs from "Kosova" to "Kosovo" when referring to the present state) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 07:18, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,493 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 07:08, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,576 bytes) (Undid revision 321148871 by Lontech (talk)) (undo)

He was warned a couple of times. thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I should have, but I reverted his edit when I saw this. If enough editors are pushing one specific paragraph, he shouldn't do this.   Nezzadar ☎   16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...And Athenean reverted your revert, calling your revert "POV-pushing". -- Atama頭 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins do you SEE THE TIME OF REVERTS HERE OR NOT and THE 1RR restricted article-- LONTECH  Talk  20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech, Hxseek is currently blocked. If you call for a block one more time before he edits again, I will consider that disruptive editing and block you accordingly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review of User:Interpride

• Interpride (talk · contribs) was blocked with a massive template explaining they were blocked, apparently, for making promotional edits ... and maybe their

username. If they had made their edits under another username I don't think we would have few issues with edits and certainly wouldn't have blocked. Could someone have a look and see if we can't be a little more welcoming here? -- Banjeboi 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith bad block. I can't see that they were even warned. If they had been contacted with a request to consider WP:COI and they continued to edit in this manner, that would be grounds for a block. But this? No. A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. We need to assume good faith more often here. And by that, I mean assume good faith of the blocking administrator. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose/promotional account. That's clearly obvious from the editing pattern. They were slowly turning the article in question into a promo. HalfShadow (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin for explanation but have not seen a response yet, I have also notified them of this thread. Being outside the situation could you point out which of their edit was actually blockable, or even disputed? They seemed to be adding extra details that are unneeded but that in and of itself shows a lack of experience on Misplaced Pages - not an effort to cause harm. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When you start adding 'sunshine and puppies' edits like this, you're no longer being encyclopedial, you're being promotional. HalfShadow (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This block appears entirely appropriate. Aside from the generally promotional editing, the user was also adding copyvio text, with an often heavily promotional tone, cut and pasted from the organization's own website. Note that this edit corresponds to this link and this edit corresponds to this link and this edit corresponds to this link . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to persuade many people that this type of account should not be blocked. It's a problem when people's first edits are about the organisation where they work (rather than blatant spamming, these are COI edits) and they get blocked, sometimes hardblocked. But blatant advertising will always be blocked very quickly and you're unlikely to change people's minds about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block - organization name + promo edits normally translates to a hard block, and there's at least one edit that reads somewhat promotional. Nonetheless, it would be optimal if the user was contacted beforehand, since this is not blatant spamming. Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's my point I guess. Instead of telling this user their name needed to change and their editing smacked of promotionalism we blocked them with no dialog whatsoever. That seems counter-intuitive to dealing with newbies and actually a bit hostile even if intended to curb promotional-like editing. Where's the civility? Where's the effort to explain why the edits were flawed before the indefinite block? -- Banjeboi 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block. One should be expected to only go so far with regards to not biting newcomers. I highly doubt that this person (assuming this is not a role account, which is likely the case anyways) was interested in anything else except staking ownership to the page and turn the page into a mirror of its website, which is not what we're here for.

With that said, I haven't looked at all the contribs to check for copyvios or blatant spamming, but a softblock was warranted at the very least. MuZemike 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. This is exactly what I would have posted to WP:UAA. Sorry Benjiboi, I understand why you'd be unhappy about this kind of block but a username that indicates representation/affiliation with the article subject, combined with edits like "Members of our organization are dedicated volunteers who organize and work to put on Pride events all over the world" justify the block and are in total compliance with our policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Noleander

A thread regarding User:Noleander has only just been archived. However, new evidence has now emerged that should be brought to this board.

Earlier this month, Noleander created an article in this form which contains material under the heading Michael Medved that is plagiarised from the Neo-Nazi Stormfront site . Noleander claims here and here that he didn't know the material originated with Stormfront and says he plagiarised it from an equally anti-Semitic article at Radio Islam . He still claims that the material was not a copyvio despite the fact that not only were the same quotes used as in the articles at Stormfront and Radio Islam but also the same linking phrase "Medved continued" etc. also are used.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site. I was trying to get some quotes from Michael Medved from a magazine article he wrote. As I put the text into the article Jews and Hollywood, I failed to proof-read, and failed to remove text that was between the Medved quotes. That was a mistake, and I profusely apologize. I have no idea who originally assembled Medved's quotes in that manner: RadioIslam? Stormfront? There is probably no way of ever knowing. In any case, it is appropriate to include a few quotes from Medved's article ... that is not a copyright violation. As for using RadioIslam as a place to find material? Yes, it is a rabid site, but it does contain material that is often not found elsewhere. I did make a mistake, and I apologize. However, I must point out that I believe this ANI (and the other ANI accusing me of antisemitism) is misguided. They are attempts to ensure that certain material is not included in this encyclopedia (particulary the Jews and Hollywood article). Accusations of minor CopyViolations and Antisemitism are distractions intended, I believe, to distract from the real issue at hand. My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship. Looking at the history of some articles, there appears to be a concerted effort to ensure that some notable material never appears in this encyclopedia. ANIs like this one are one tactic (and it works rather well, I must say :-) Im willing to engage in a discussion on whether that article belongs in this encyclopedia. In fact, I have been positively (and cheefully :-) engaged in that discussion in the AfD for that article. That is where the focus needs to stay. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK Anti-Semitism is never a good idea, and these 2 articles REEK of it...Modernist (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• They are both up at AfD, let your conscience do the talking. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Avi, actually I voted delete in both instances. Anti-Semitism with a pretty new name is still nauseating...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I'm involved in that I voted to keep the relevant article at AfD. I don't necessarily think this ANI report was made in bad faith as Noleander does, but I understand his reaction, as this is the latest in a barrage of accusations, and the consensus has been that most that occurred prior to this were unfounded. He's only human. Overall I've actually been struck by Noleander's exceptional level-headededness in the face of rabid bad-faith assumptions (of the type that can be seen above). He's in fact been much more level-headed than I've been throughout this ordeal. One need only read through the AfD to see that (if one has the patience; it's pretty long). Since the copyvios have been corrected, Noleander has apologized, and the article is at AfD, I think the matter is settled for now as far as ANI goes. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, I agree we should not be discussing User:Noleander. However, we should exercise our options as participants in this project to accept or reject the article, completely independent of the original author, who may have had the best interests of all at heart. This is a referendum on the article, its content, its structure, its focus, and how it represents the project as a whole. My own opinions can be seen on the AfD page, as can those of many others, on both sides, which is why I suggest we all let our conscience do our talking. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I really must disagree with Avi in this situation. I think this thread should specifically focus on User:Noleander. I won't deny that his comments betray an educated and articulate human being. However, these same comments show someone who is incredibly anti-Jewish. I don't think this is assuming bad faith in the least. Would anyone stand for a similar article that was solely created to angrily decry the involvement of Muslims in organized crime in India? Or the petty crime committed by aboriginals in Australia? No, it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Noleander has explicitly stated that his objective here is to provide negative information about Jews in order to counteract Jewish bias on Misplaced Pages. To that end he has largely provided copyrighted information from Stormfront and radio Islam.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Im not anti-jewish, or anti-palestinian, or anti-this, or anti-that. I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world. I also think it has several "blind spots" where it is missing important material, due to political correctness. I first noticed this in regards to the articles on the Mormon church: there was no mention of they way blacks were treated by that church from 1850 to 1970. I decided to jump in and try to add some material there, and after two years of back-and-forth with some very tenacious editors, I think those articles are now balanced. It stikes me that the topic Jews and Hollywood is under-represented in this encyclopedia. So I jumped in, wrote an article, and put it in the Antisemitism category: not trying to hide anything. The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is notable, but is missing from this encyclopedia. The issue, again, is not an editor, or the editor's motivation: it is absence of notable information in this encyclopedia. Every minute we spend talking about editors motivation, is a minute we are not improving the articles. Hmmmmmm ... or is that the goal of these ANIs? --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that actually is the point of ANI. Article content is generally discussed in other places. To Moshe, I'd ask him to please provide diffs for the accusations he's made about Noleander's spoken intentions. Equazcion (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cant speak for Avi, but he may be refering to my post above, where I said "My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." --Noleander (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up a bit and also look at many of his comments here- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations and here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world." Do you really think this helps us move towards a resolutuion? Is there any reason why an anti-Semite or a racist or homophobe or sexist would not believe this? "I..." (this is me speaking, I just figured I do the Sandra Bernhardt routine first) "...I come here only because of my love for humanity." The problem is that in a few days you put up at least two articles that cut and pasted material directly from a neo-Nazi website and from an anti-Semitic Islamic (no, the two are by no means identical!) radio website, to create articles that - without any kind of scholarly analysis of framing, strung together anti-Semitic canards. If you care so much about Misplaced Pages, why didn't you create an article on gays controlling Broadway? Or on Jews controlling Wall Street? Or on the way that accusing someone of being a homophobe is a way of silencing them? Or how accusing someone of being a racist is a way of silincing them? You see, it is the highly selecteive nature of your choices that raises concerned. You view WP as an asset for people around the world? Well, okay, then why don't you work on an article on embryology? Or on urban renewal projects? Or dadaism? I mean, there are so many articles you could work on if you are motivated just by your passion for helping people, right? Why these? Now here is something strange - a number of times I called attention to the need fo ranalysis and framing, how historians and sociologists for example analyze anti-Semitic canards to reveal something about anti-Semites or about that period in time. You wrote back something like you are not an expert in sociology or history. Well, then, here is another question: why write articles on topics in which you have no expertise? I mean, we all agree Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? But shouldn't we edit articles on topics we know something about? Why do you specifically pic topics on which you are ignorant and then use Misplaced Pages to spread um, well, your "knowledge" about these topics? Why?

In fact, here you are lying about your motives. On the AfD pages you have stated that your concern is that accusations of anti-Semitism are a form of censorship and your motive is to publicize this. Well, dude, that is a violation of WP:SOAP and you already admitted to it. And of course, only an anti-Semite complains that accusations of anti-Semitism are meant to censor. Look at it this way: if someone accused of anti-Semitism is an anti-Semite, surely you would agree that there is nothing wrong with accusing them of anti-Semitism, right? And if someone is not an anti-Semite, well, all they have to do is say so right? If someone is not an anti-Semite, it is always very easy for that person (or countless others) to say "No, I am not anti semitic" and to go on talking. I know of no case in which anyone ever accused of anti-Semitism was somehow prevented from speaking. Of course, if many people are convinced that someone is an anti-Semite, they are under no obligation to listen, are they? Well, Noleander, do you thinkg that people's hands should be cufed and their ers fordibly turned to the loud-speakers so that they have no choice but to listen? You also brought up "self-hating Jews" and provided two examples. I know people who will not go to hear Noam Chomsky speak. But I have neve heard him complain that he was somehow "silenced." Can you clarif your agenda, I mean, besides wanting to sprinkle the world with sugar and make everyone happy? I mean, something specific and to the point?

If your problem is that some topics are "censored" at Misplaced Pages, creating articles to soapbox is not the solution. Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Misplaced Pages should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Macgyver-bd 896 again

Prior discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Macgyver-bd_896

Following up, User:Macgyver-bd 896 has been editing to add unsourced material to firearms articles. A few users found it disruptive but in my view, since nobody is putting a source out there (and I'm not going to be able to say if it's totally ridiculous as they claim), it's bad but I wasn't going to do much beyond this particularly harsh warning for his edit removing a source. Well, I feel like User:Koalorka has been harassing him on his talk page (with reinserting stuff on his talk page, reinserting a typo and removing a source). I told Koalorka it's his talk page but if someone else can reduce the drama, I'd appreciate it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What?! Why am I the focus of an ANI again!?! This is absolutely frivolous. I made exactly ONE interaction with Macgyver. This is harassment. Koalorka (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuthya and the David Shankbone article

Continuing on the earlier thread regarding User:67.160.100.233, it appears as though the widespread predictions at the deletion discussion that the article for David Shankbone would become a harassment coatrack were prescient. User:Chuthya has taken up the ball now, adding a (since removed, and it must be said: non-notable) photograph of a goat urinating to the article. He has stated his intention to attempt to add non-notable male anatomy photographs to the article, as well. Other of his edits pick up a common harassment tactic used against User:David Shankbone, while yet another appears to be highly questionable. I've attempted to explain to him why several of his recent edits are problematic, and not all of his edits have been prima facie harassment (but still appear to fail wp:rs and wp:blp, and apparently open the door to his other goals). However subtle, these edits and his apparent motive appear highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Chuthya of this discussion. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, all of my contributions to that article involve inclusion of CC licensed images that were contributed by the subject. These images were voluntarily uploaded to Commons by the subject. If the subject feels that these images are embarassing, he certainly has the right to request their deletion as their author. I hardly see how editing an article to include contributions by its subject could be construed as harassment. As I also stated, the subjects numerous contributions of free photographs of male anatomy could be included in the article, but undoubtably shouldn't without discussion first. Lastly, I initiated a discussion in talk regarding inclusion in the article the subject's contributions in the area of gay pornography. The article is arguably non-neutral with regard to coverage of the subject's intrests and contributions in this area. But rather than boldly including this in the article, I initiated discussion in talk. User:J's characterations of my edits, and presumption of what my "goals" are, are a woeful example of not assuming good faith. Chuthya (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you earlier, adding a non-notable photograph of a urinating goat to the biography of a living person regardless of your explanation, stretches any possible assumption of good faith past its breaking point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you feel the image is notable, it is an example representative of his work and contributions to the project. It would be prefectly legitimate to include any of his contributions in the article, though arguably some would be more controversial than others. Images from Commons don't need sourcing because they're automatically sourced on the description page. That's the purpose of Commons. If you question the attributability of Commons, then you question the project's ability to comply with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. Chuthya (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between attribution and actual reliable sourcing. Given the variety and significant quantity of his work, decisions made by you or me to include certains pieces of his work give rise to the potential for a sort of editorial original research potentially lacking in neutrality, as was the case with one of the images you intended to insert and the other images you indicated you would like to insert. This is highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp, and especially given the amplitude of not reliable contributions that could be pulled from here and Commons. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What dialect of bafflegab is that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a unique dialect utilized primarily when trying to craft a response to a wp:ididnthearthat question. It boils down to: Special:Contributions is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I should know better than to wade into this, but your repeated use of the phrase "non-notable photograph" makes me wonder if you think it means something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If it were a notable photograph that he had taken, which had been printed in or covered by reliable sources, perhaps its inclusion would be reasonable. As a non-notable photograph, the only motivation for its editorial selection would be on the part of User:Chuthya... I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for why somebody would think a urinating goat would be appropriate to include in a biography of a living person. I just can't think of any. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

J, someone seems to have reformatted several comments here, so I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but you seem to be saying that only images printed in or covered by RS can be included in David Shankbone? Is that really what you are suggesting, or did I misunderstand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of the subject are one thing. Photographs taken by the subject are another thing altogether, and, just to start with, there needs to be relevance to the subject greater than him simply having taken the photograph. I personally interpret wp:rs and wp:blp as being problematic in the instance of this biography: User:Chuthya wanted to discuss User:David Shankbone's Misplaced Pages contributions in the article. I think that's where secondary, reliable coverage becomes important... Along those lines, I'm not yet convinced using a different standard for photographs contributed to Wikimedia, as opposed to text contributed to Misplaced Pages, is going to work for this biography, given the actions undertaken by User:Chuthya and likely to be undertaken by others. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that David took the image of a goat or of Whoopie Goldberg(or any of the literally thousands of images he has contributed). I don't understand why you would think RS is relevant here. Is this something to do with the mysterious "non-notable photograph" you alluded to earlier? DO you think a third-party needs to affirm that David took the photograghs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See my response to User:Achromatic below, which also covers the questions you raised. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Chuthya, to avoid confusion) Oh for christ's sake who do you think you're kidding? AGF is not a shield for the patently obvious tactic here of picking the most famously controversial/salacious images from his commons collection and jamming them into the article to make a point. This has nothing to do with sourcing or attribution, so drop that false argument, please. On another note, this is another reason why marginal BLPs shouldn't be created. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the photos are relevant to the article content as sourced to reliable independent coverage, it's not clear why they would warrant inclusion. As far as examples of the subjects work, why not use ones that relevant to the content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT and WP:BLP violations. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this block. Looking at the article I see there is an entire gallery section of "example" photographs. Who gets to decide which ones should be included? If the subject of that BLP has contributed photographs on a range of subjects, shouldn't that be reflected? Otherwise I would think the gallery is itself improper (as may be the case).

I think continued discussion would have been preferable to a block. As long as that editor was willing to work through dispute resolution and abide by consensus, blocking someone whose position is controversial seems problematic to me. It very well may be the case that they are trying to make a point, but we are expected to assume good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't see how one can assume good faith when an editor is attempting to add a photograph of the rear end of a goat to the biography of a living person. Assuming good faith is one thing; ignoring the obvious point (at best) is another. That being said, I'm not convinced, as you highlight, that the gallery can survive wp:rs and therefore wp:blp, and this may be a heretofore undiscussed issue that needs to be addressed (as I mention above in reply to User:Delicious carbuncle). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - it seems to be your point that the WP page of an artist should only contain art/photography OF the artist, not BY the artist. One wonders why you are not at Rene Magritte, removing the imagery of "The Treachery Of Images" and "The Human Condition", after all, they apparently hold no relevance to the article. Or perhaps Andres Serrano, where no image of the artist appears, but only "Madonna and Child II", an image which shows these religious figures floating in human urine, after all, surely it is stretching past the boundary of good faith to assume that image is there for any purpose other than to discredit the artist. Or perhaps you'd care to explain to people why some artist's page should have their work exhibited, but that you are fighting tooth and nail for another artist's page NOT to have their work exhibited? Achromatic (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my position: Andres Serrano has a vast body of work with individually notable pieces which have themselves received significant reliable secondary coverage. If I may, Urinating Goat is no Piss Christ, and the image could not have been selected because of its notability within the "portfolio" of David Shankbone. Rather, it appears to have been selected editorially to make a point, as User:Cirt and others have noted above. Likewise, his intention to include photographs of male anatomy appears geared to include otherwise tangential salacious content in a biography of a living person (as User:Tarc noted above), even though said photographs are representative of a very small portion of what User:David Shankbone has uploaded. All of this to say that I don't believe I've created a double standard: if any of User:David Shankbone's images, individually, receive reliable secondary coverage, they should be included in his article. If not, any given editor selecting which to include here can become a significant editorial neutrality issue, as was proven here, and I think that's why we should look closely to wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out how to deal with this sort of situation. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullying, personal opinion influencing editing of page

I would appreciate a review of the discussion page, Transformers reference, of the F-15 Eagle page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:F-15_Eagle). One or two users are engaging in insulting and bullying behavior by blocking legitimate, valid, and relevant information from being added to this page. They are applying some kind of standard that does not apply to similar or identical information that exists for other aircraft of similar type (F-14 and F-22, for example). Then, they are threatening me with blocking.

As an example of the attitude of one of the "editors" in question, I point to his own page (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dave1185), where he says those who have the audacity to use this as a means to have an issue addressed are, in his opinion, "real jerks." Quite a display of childish behavior. Well, I'm not going to back down from this bullying from a bully without a leg to stand on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

You know the drill. Help is appreciated :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...and as quick as that, the backlog is gone. A question for the admins, could there be a bot that alerts the AN or ANI boards when there is a backlog, kinda like DYK does? It would allow the bot to put these edits here and not a user and clear out backlogs ALOT faster. Just an idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is an ongoing discussion on this at one of the pumps. –xeno 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is such a bot on IRC, in the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel. IIRC, it reports several backlogs including CSD, Unblocks, UAA, AIV, and a few others. Hersfold 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RfPP Backlog

In the spirit of reporting backlogs here, could someone check out the backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection? Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)