Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 3 November 2009 (Manually adding two threads that got missed by the bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=323428673). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Something wierd at the article Mullazai

I came to this article via the recent changes page. A new user, AurangzebMarwat (talk · contribs) has been making large amounts of edits to the article Mullazai. There is also an IP, complaining and opposing AurangzedMarwat's edits, 119.153.78.131 (talk · contribs) When I reverted one of their edits based on an incorrect blanking tag here, they asked me to intervene and stop the other user. There is something wrong with these edits, but I can't quite put my finger on it and I don't want to become any more involved. So what's going on and what should be done about it? Logging off now- A little insignificant 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably some kind of spillover from Marwat. There's a few eyes on the article now. --NeilN 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at List of online dating websites

See the edit summary of this diff. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy avoiding sanctions

• Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After reviewing a 3RR report filed by Radiopathy against me, it was discussed between two admins that RP should be sanctioned to 1RR, in that he had previously been blocked for 3RR, and had agreed to avoid edit warring on contentious articles, only to begin doing so again once he was unblocked on different articles. See the 3RR report(it ended as no vio, btw). Following the alert of this sanction, the user retired, stating that they plan on returning when the sanction is over. This, to me, entirely defeats the purpose of the sanction. Radiopathy does not seem to understand why he was blocked(re: edit warring). This is troublesome to me. I do not think that users who have been blocked for edit warring, are unblocked with a promise not edit war, and then edit war again should be given the ability to evade sanctions intended to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Given the lack of alternatives, I propose that this sanction be either extended to indef until the user shows he will not edit war. If any of you have any better ideas, please, state them.— Dædαlus 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) User notified.— Dædαlus 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest just leaving him be. The conclusion he's arrived at is only going to be reinforced by any further sanctions, and given that he appears to be abandoning Misplaced Pages, there's no damage to prevent. If he does return in six months, and edit wars to the same extent, we can deal with it then. But I don't see that he's evading anything, except the project itself, which he is free to do. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some users have a strange relationship to the concept of retired. This one went directly from adding the retired template to his talk page, to reverting edits in article space. This was not the first revert there had the edit summary "1976 is correct asshole". i wouldn't take the user's declaration at face value (especially as he lied about not edit warring to get unblocked). Extending to indef would force the user to at least confront his behaviour in an unblock request, rather than returning later to exact revengeYobMod 11:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If Radiopathy abides by 6 months of 1rr through not editing at all for 6 months, that's ok, it's not "avoiding sanctions." Meanwhile he can put up and take down "retired" tags in his user space as he pleases, they're harmless, their meaning is drawn only from the ongoing contribution history of whomever posts them. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR limit was applied to prevent further disruption to wikipedia. As such it does it work irrespective of whether Radiopathy is active or not, or acknowledges the problem with their editing. Also, many users lash out at being blocked or sanctioned, and their conduct in the immediate aftermath is not necessarily reflective of what they'll do later. So unless there are further disruptions, lets see how the user edits over the next six months before deciding whether the 1RR limit needs to be modified or extended. Abecedare (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oki doke. It seems to me that declaring oneself retired, then calling an editor an asshole but not getting any warning is problematic. But maybe it was a last gasp, so doesn't need action.YobMod 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy didn't get a templated warning for that, but both User:Master of Puppets and I did make it clear that such edit-summaries were inappropriate. See the conversation at my userpage. We always have the option of tightening sanctions and imposing blocks if needed, but usually we are better off if we try to de-escalate such situations, and giving the user some space. Abecedare (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If he comes back and starts edit-warring off-the-hop, we can deal with it in turn. Master of Puppets 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for the opinions and eyes. I'll hit either of you two again if I spot him edit warring.— Dædαlus 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And by hit I mean hit you up.— Dædαlus 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of Jacurek

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

Wrong forum. Since the block is labeled as an arbitration enforcement action under WP:DIGWUREN, any appeal discussion must take place at WP:AE, as directed by Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people might remember that 2 days ago I filled a request on this page against user:Varsovian for edit warring at the London Victory Parade of 1946 article against myself and Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The discussion is now archived here: To my total disbelief I have now discovered that administrator user:Future Perfect at Sunrise issued a 1 month block to Jacurek!? Since nobody in that discussion felt that Jacurek should be even blocked I think it's a highly problematic block to say the least, and specifically:
a) IMO it was the user:Varsovian who was causing problems on that talk page by refusing to compromise on the issue on the lack of Polish participation in the parade. In any case if Future Perfect thought that Jacurek's actions were problematic he should have warned him first, giving the editor the chance to change his behavior
b) IMO, Future Perfect could have indicated in that ANI thread that he intends to block Jacurek for 1 month seeing if there is consensus for such a drastic measure. IMO there would not have been any.
c) the length of the block, 1 month, is IMO opinion a complete overkill, if I'm not mistaken usually admins block for 24 hours first
d) Future Perfect inexplicably completely failed to address Varsovian's calling Jacurek an idiot
I request some non involved admin re-examines the situation and possibly reverse the 1 month block to Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Jacurek requesting an unblock? If he does not contest his own block, why should anyone else care? --Jayron32 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion loosing a good editor due to an unjust block is bad for the project. Loosmark (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A perfectly good and necessary block IMHO. We gotta be cracking down on this kind of nonsense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the length of the block, AFAIK, there is no set scale. It is down to the blocking admin to set the length of time. This can be from 1 second to indefinite, depending on circumstances. If Jacurek requests an unblock, the request will be dealt with via the usual channels. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could the blocking admin please provide some diffs please of the inappropriate comments and of any discussion that took place regarding them? I didn't see anything that looked blockable. Also, Jayron deserves a trouting for suggesting that improper blocks can't be discussed by concerned third parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Varsovian's comment at 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC), along with the number of bad faith assumptions/accusations I read along the way, suggest that there were some chronic problems here. My preliminary view is that I am inclined to agree with Deacon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Admin's comment: I blocked Jacurek principally for this exchange (with beginnings in the immediately preceding thread), where I believe he was engaging in serious harassment of his opponent. This in connection with the observation that his edit-warring behaviour on the article and his conduct on the talk page over the preceding weeks was an expression of a stubborn "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"-type refusal to engage in meaningful discussion, that it was distinctly less constructive than that of his opponent (although Varsovian also got a warning from me), and that he showed an overall hostile battleground mentality. The length of the block is also influenced by his prior block log, with several blocks even longer than a month, by prior observations of aggressive and unconstructive conduct in other related disputes, and (secondarily) by my knowledge of the disruptive role he played in the EEML fiasco. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Varsovian got oh so harrased by that question and he was making big drama about it. But now that Jacurek got blocked for a month suddenly Varsovian doesn't feels so harrased anymore by questions and in fact even ask Jacurek on his talk page to ask him more questions!!! .

Loosmark (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LotLE violating WP:EDITWAR and WP:CANVASS

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

This is about Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and his conduct at Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation . Engaged in edit warring here: When he realized he had reached 3RR, he then canvassed two like-minded editors to join the fray. This is a violation of WP:CANVASS and, while not technically violating WP:3RR, it is a violation of the spirit of WP:EDITWAR. There has been similar conduct at another article, ACORN. I believe this conduct has earned a block. Since he has already experienced 24-hour and 48-hour blocks, this one should be a seven-day block. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently left out the fact that you've been edit-warring too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that my edits seek to restore WP:NPOV, while LotLE is POV pushing; and when I attempted to engage him in discussion on his User Talk page, he deleted my comments and went canvassing. Every quote in the article that is more than three words in length supports Churchill. We have extensive quotes from socialists such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, but none from conservatives such as Ann Coulter or Eugene Volokh. It gives the inaccurate impression that the entire academic community believes his firing was a miscarriage of justice. Policy even trumps consensus here, and NPOV is a fundamental principle. I did not violate WP:3RR nor did I violate WP:CANVASS. Rather than be drawn into a continued edit war, I came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have edit-warred, and NPOV does not excuse your conduct. Therefore, any sanction on the others will require a sanction on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)WP:NPOV does not mean that every perceived "positive" entry must be matched by a perceived "critical" one. This is a fundamental error that trips up far too many editors these days, especially in political articles. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have not violated WP:CANVASS. LotLE has violated WP:CANVASS. I never even tried to match "every perceived 'positive' entry perceived 'critical' one." If I had, I would have had to introduce about six or seven quotes rather than just one. I'm just trying to satisfy WP:NPOV. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as the article stands there are three lengthy direct quotes from Churchill supporters and zero from those who though the decision was balanced. This certainly seem to go against WP:WEIGHT. WVBluefield (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There are more than just three, Bluefield. Look higher on the page for quotes from Emma Perez, a supportive Colorado University faculty member, and from Noam Chomsky. Aside from the findings of the investigation and the judge's ruling in the lawsuit, this is a Ward Churchill hagiography. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on its own does not become excused because of edit-warring and other conduct issues by another party; any sanction on the other side will mean you too will be sanctioned - that you feel satisfied you get less charges of misconduct on your list than the other side suggests that you are battling. Sorry, that is not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick review of your edits indicates you've supported LotLE's POV pushing in the past. As a like-minded editor, I'm surprised that he overlooked you in his canvassing expedition. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're adding gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith to your list. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others, who have not supported LotLE's POV pushing in earlier cases, to make that determination. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Supporting or not, edit-warring is edit-warring. There's only one excuse to break 3RR, and that's vandalism. We have a bold, revert, discuss cycle ... note, it's not a bold, revert, keep frigging doing it cycle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true. In particular, "but my version is NPOV" is one of the lamest excuses for edit-warring ever. I don't think the relatively mild warring by both sides so far merits blocks, but if this continues, WP:AN3 is thataway. And please stop discussing the content dispute here, that's what the article talk page is for.  Sandstein  17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree that we have a "bold, revert, discuss" cycle but when I tried to follow it, my attempt to discuss the matter on LotLE's User Talk page was deleted. At that juncture, I chose not to continue the edit war, and came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Article alk page, IP. Got to settle content disputes at the article talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)LotLE has also engaged in edit-warring and other misconduct at the ACORN article. This should be investigated before dismissing this matter. I suggest we give it some time for others to step forward. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just put the stick down. Either. Or. Whatever "ip." Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in light of Ncmvocalist's distaste for "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith," I will observe that LotLE has also engaged in "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith." Specifically, he's accused me of being a sockpuppet, with no evidence other than this content dispute. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. I'd bet my last dollar that you're either a returned banned user or a sock for an ongoing user too. Your behavior has convinced me of that. You'll just have to live with other people's suspicion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And you'll have to live with my suspicion, without even checking your edit history, that you're another like-minded editor who has supported and defended LotLE's edit warring in the past, like Ncmvocalist. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This complaint by a sock puppet is silly. But I would note one minor thing that editors may not have noticed in 64.208.230.145's mischaracterization. S/he posted an article content matter on my user talk page, so I moved the comment (verbatim) to the article talk where it made sense to appear (and noted my action there). After this notice, I saw that WVBluefield made a good edit to the article in question to provide balance to the section the anon was trying to edit. I mention on the article talk that I agree with that improvement. LotLE×talk

It is exactly as I suspected, LotLE is the "attack dog" for a large group of editors who have been POV pushing for years. They eliminate negative material from WP articles about progressive (and radically left-wing) persons and groups such as William Ayers, Barack Obama, ACORN and Ward Churchill. I suspect User:Ncmvocalist and User:Bali ultimate are members of this group. It is painfully obvious that User:Scjessey, now serving a one-year topic ban from all politically related articles, is another "attack dog" for the group. They provide cover for each other at WP:ANI and ArbCom. They use tag team tactics to avoid WP:3RR violations during edit wars. User:Noroton, a respected and long-established editor here at WP, has gone into great length on his User Talk page regarding this group. Admins evidently ignore misconduct by this POV-pushing group, while harshly punishing anyone else who speaks out against the group. I urge any admin with any sense of self-respect and genuine NPOV to step forward and join me in fully investigating this matter. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Everyone knows there is no cabal! HalfShadow (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Noroton was very thorough. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is rather chilling given Noroton's history here, his attempt to intervene in the Obama arbcom case, and 64's attempt to wake him from the wiki-dead. Let's nip this sock in the bud before it causes a real fuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC) stricken in light of subsequent statements by all concerned - Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... tangential point - Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, not a socialist. Furthermore not all lefitsts support Ward Churchill. The guy is a plagiarist. That he is saying correct things doesn't make that less academically dishonest that he claims credit for it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) I agree with the 64 sock's POV here regarding article balance so I can't quite say I'm "like minded". However, I find LotLE's argument persuasive that the specific content 64 wants to include is redundant and not pertinent to the section. All this can and should be discussed on the article talk page. For anyone who needs context, Ward Churchill is an incendiary subject both on and off Misplaced Pages, one of the most militant Native American rights supporters who accuses the US of ongoing genocide and wrote an essay basically saying that American policies caused 9/11 and that the victims at ground zero deserved to die because they were agents of financial imperialism. Alas, he was by most serious observers' accounts unmasked as a fake Native-American, and found to have fabricated much of his most noted academic research. That he has supporters at all in the US is interesting, and they are very strident. Some of the content that gets added to the article in support of Churchill seems very pointed and fringe-y. It's a good article to avoid if one values one's wiki-sanity. Against that context we have an IP editor who has edited a number of high-profile political articles lately, jumping into the fray of accusations, and who is clearly familiar with many old Misplaced Pages disputes and the players in those disputes. They seem to be carrying a grudge from past interactions with LotLE - rather than AGF we have escalation and complaints. Many to most of the editors who were antagonizing LotLE in months past are on permanent involuntary wiki-breaks for socking and/or tendentious editors, so it is a reasonable question whether this editor is a sock. Further, established editors getting together to ask each other whether an suspicious IP account is an old sock is not canvassing - if editors couldn't compare notes on socks we wouldn't be able to deal with them. I've edited the Churchill article before, it's on my watch list, and I'm no pushover for requests made on my talk page - in fact, I initially agreed with 64. And here I'm solidly on 64's side regarding the POV of the Churchill article. But this page is not for POV battles, it's for administering the encyclopedia. If 64 is going to hurl accusations, edit war contentious articles, and start administrative complaints, we're going to have to settle sooner or later whether it's a legitimate account. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(after EC) - 64's latest post is WP:QUACKing. Nearly all the accounts that wrote in those terms about that particular group of articles, and who made those accusations against that group of editors, are all indeffed as parts of one sock farm or another. Most are logged at the Obama article probation page sanction list. We let them troll far too long during the election and wasted thousands of hours of productive editing time. We shouldn't let them cause so much disruption this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, go ahead. Your attempts to shoot the messenger, like the criticisms against the Colorado University investigation of Ward Churchill, do not invalidate the complaint I'm lodging. There is a group of editors who are POV pushing. Several of them have block histories for edit warring, so I'm not making this up. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, as do others who have apparantly resorted to socking. Grsz 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The solution is simple. Stop edit warring on both sides, and work out any POV problems on the article's talk page. I'm actually on 64's side here and would support their attempt to update the article, if not that specific proposal. My comments go to a different issue that is relevant to this page, that we have an old-timer editor ("sock", "messenger", take your pick) aggressively attacking other editors with the same sweeping accusations that caused so much disruption among the sockosphere in 2008 and early 2009. If 64 is willing to go to the talk page and work things out in a civil way without edit warring I think we should just close this thing as not actionable at this time. But any more stirring the pot on either side and we're going to have to deal with 64 as a likely bad hand account of another editor who may or may not be restricted from editing under their main account at the moment. I hope we won't have to deal with other old timers getting too rambunctious in their anti-sock patrols, though, that only flames the fire. Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being falsely accused (again) of being a sock, I'll add that LotLE's behavioral problems at ACORN and elsewhere are profound: hostile and needlessly abrasive edit summaries, edit-warring, and a generally combative demeanor ... except with his friends, who are accurately described by 64 as "like-minded." I suggested a six-month topic ban for LotLE on the article Talk page days ago. I go farther than 64 in reviewing not just edit histories, but also block logs and Talk page histories and archives; and I've been around long enough, using different IPs, to watch WP:ANI and WP:3RR (and take a peek at a few ArbCom proceedings when my curiosity is piqued). LotLE is a problem editor. His misbehavior has occasioned no less than nine 3RR reports, three ANI reports and six blocks. One thing that WD is correct about is a need for everyone on this thread to stop assuming that all IP editors are socks or SPAs, that we have ulterior motives, or that knowledge about problem editors is conclusive proof of sockpuppetry. Currently I'm using three IPs (work, school and home; to anticipate your question, 64 is not one of them) to edit three different subject areas at Misplaced Pages. No malice is intended. I just like to keep them separate (and I have some other personal reasons to keep my real life ID concealed). I'm not banned or blocked. This is the worst controversy I've encountered been involved with at Misplaced Pages. LotLE's behavior is far from collegial or collaborative, and he hasn't learned anything from his repeated blocks, except how to push the envelope (and his POV) without getting blocked. A block and a topic ban are well-deserved here. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The value of an anon IP's call for topic bans or blocks or whatnot is precisely nil, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worth a million razzbuckniks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, you made them stop and think for 11 hours, 71. In much the same way that BU shut up and ran for cover when I mentioned the possibility that he was part of LotLE's posse. Thanks for your support. For the record, LotLE's comment above was originally posted while he was logged out. I checked the edit history of his IP address, and found a previous post he'd made in response to one of the many, many 3RR reports that have been made against him. That, in turn, led me to the person who made the report: Noroton. And to his User Talk page. Noroton's contributions over the years have been nothing less than spectacular. Everybody at WP should be ashamed to lose him. And his diagnosis of the systemic bias here at WP is deadly accurate. LotLE and Scjessey are the attack dogs for a large group of editors who WP:OWN the political articles, POV-pushing on behalf of the left. Admins are POV-pushing through them by proxy, by letting them get away with murder while quickly coming down like a ton of bricks for minor infractions by anybody who stands in their way.

It's despicable. And all of you should be ashamed. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Not ashamed here. You're pushing your version of The Absolute Truth, which is not what Misplaced Pages is for. Tone down the melodrama and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

cmt it's blindingly obvious at this point that the ips are connected to this banned user .Bali ultimate (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of socks

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for a week for operating at least three alternate accounts:

• JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CountryDoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reconsideration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are nearly a year old, and collectively have made well over 10,000 edits, not all of them innocent, at least one of them contentious.including during periods when Noroton was blocked or supposedly retired. I note that Noroton posted a long screed here similar to the accusations made above, shortly before announcing his retirement, and shares with the 64 IP editor a fondness for Goya. What to make of this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What to make of it? That I may have been wrong in my guess as to who the ip socks belong to. Does any of it really matter? 86 the lot of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You can whac all the moles but the game won't stop until the machine is good and done, or you find the off switch. At least the mechanical moles don't mess up Misplaced Pages articles then file AN/I threads accusing the players of being a POV-pushing cabal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess in light of 64's subsequent statements and registration of an account after all these years, and Versageek's statement that 64 is unlikely to be Noroton, is that editors of like mind about what they perceive as Misplaced Pages bias and other editing problems tend to borrow each other's turns of phrases, explanations for what's going on, and Misplaced Pages iconography... In real life two people having the same talking point seems to convince people. On Misplaced Pages it's seen as evidence of socking or meatpuppeting. Anyway, I've modified my comments above somewhat based on assurances from these editors, and I'll assume good faith here.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oof. JohnWbarber was the initiator of the eDrama that is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/David Shankbone. That may throw a kink into the works. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. It would've probably been initiated by someone else otherwise. –xeno 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the blocking admin to help us understand what's going on there. Wasn't there another incident lately of a long-time content editor around the American politics articles who created sock accounts in response to a block? I'm trying to recall. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from this, but Noroton is not a friend of mine and made that clear. -->David Shankbone 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Given Noroton's intense antipathy to David Shankbone and the actions of the JohnWbarber account, I wonder if a longer block for Noroton is not in order. It's also intensely ironic (and telling) that the account most prominently supporting the retention of the David Shankbone article and the overturning of its deletion is a Wikipedian who is "appalled" by the article subject and who, I'm forced to assume, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing those supporting deletion were worrying about—agenda based editing in a barely notable BLP of a Wikipedian which we as a community could probably not do enough to protect. I would again suggest to David that he simply ask for the article to stay deleted, both for his own good, and also to put an end to the endless discussion about this, but of course that's up to him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum. There's too much of an assumption of bad faith here on my part toward Noroton, and as I noted here I accept as true his statement on his talk page that he did not intend "to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept" as I suggested above. It would have been far better for me to wait to hear Noroton's side before posting speculative comments like the preceding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any recognition I have received has come from work I did on this website. I believe in its ability to adhere to policies and guidelines to determine notability, to write NPOV articles and to protect those articles. Out of thousands of photos, I took a handful (most of which are deleted) that show nudity; whereas some people don't like my politics. I am aware I have hardcore detractors for whom nothing else I have done or will ever do will change their opinion of me one bit. That's fine. You can't live life without crossing somebody's line. I believe in this website, its policies and its people. I don't see how I could possibly argue otherwise. -->David Shankbone 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

←I just stumbled across this thread that appears to mention me. I don't believe I am familiar with this IP, but he/she is making attacks upon my character, and also incorrectly stating I have been topic banned from all political articles for a year. That's "complete cobblers", as we British like to say. I'd appreciate it if this obviously-socking, POV-pushing liar was blocked/topic-banned/nuked from orbit post haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the language of the posts above, and the style of edits, it would not surprise me at all if it turns out that Bali ultimate is right and this IP is User:BryanFromPalatine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey wasn't topic-banned for a year from all politics-related articles. Instead, he was topic-banned for a year from all Barack Obama-related articles. Since the 64 IP editor wasn't seeking any additional sanctions against Scjessey at this time, a notice on his User Talk page was not required. ("Nuked from orbit"?) 71.57.8.103 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is also inaccurate. I was topic banned from Obama-related pages for 6 months. If someone is going to come to WP:ANI and make false statements and accusations against me, they should have enough common decency to notify me so that I can defend myself. And "nuked from orbit" is a reference to the movie Aliens. And why are you defending the socking IP anyway? Are you also a socking IP? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Scjessey. You do retain the right to edit articles about the politics of Kyrgyzstan and Sri Lanka, if you don't pick any fights or violate WP:3RR. But it wasn't "complete cobblers," was it? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are still wrong. I am free to edit any article that isn't related to Barack Obama. In addition, I self-extended that to cover articles that were somewhat tangentially-related to Obama, but did not mention the man by name. This was a purely personal choice, and not mandated in any way. I made this choice because I edit Misplaced Pages for fun, not for a political agenda. I don't know who you are, but it is clear that you should be blocked for not assuming good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I posted at Noroton's talk page saying that I believed his accounting, at least as it relates to JohnWBarber. Good times. -->David Shankbone 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Versageek stated that (s)he does not think Noroton and the 64.xxx IP editor are related; Noroton has said he did not mean to violate policy. Opinion seems to be running in favor of unblocking Noroton, but other than that we're done here, right? Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

<-This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. I leave it up to the community to decide how they want to handle the issue. --Versageek 06:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reason why BLP's on arguably non-notable subjects should default to delete. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The technical violation of WP:SOCK is clear. Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Some of the edits under the Noroton account were very controversial - long term disruption to the Obama articles and extreme incivility (often against me, in the spirit of disclosure) leading to a series of blocks. That abuse was intentional, and assuming good faith about them is not at issue. Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. But all that is water under the bridge. Accepting Noroton's statements at face value, he violated the sock policy unintentionally in the sense that although his intentional actions were against policy, he was unaware that they were against policy. In real life ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. But on Misplaced Pages the goal is to avoid future disruption, not to punish for past acts. Assuming that Noroton sincerely believed his actions were okay at the time, and accepting the assurances that he will not break policies he is aware of, an ongoing block serves no purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover the misbehavior of an abusive editor ... named LotLE. False accusations are made against the reporting editor, and enormous amounts of energy that could be devoted to improving articles are instead wasted by investigating these false accusations. People become discouraged, and start cutting back on the time they invest in editing (or abandon editing entirely). The damage done by LotLE spreads outward and intensifies exponentially. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just created this account. All edits by 64.208.230.145 are mine. Let's try to AGF and move forward in a constructive way. There are a lot of articles here that need all the attention we're investing in Noroton. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now we're extra-done. A little rocky but a good outcome. Move to close? Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Both LotLE and the Misplaced Pages project deserve, at the very least, an extremely stern and very unambiguous final warning to LotLE: his next display of tendentious editing or accusations against any editor, for anything except provable WP:3RR and/or provable personal attacks, will be interpreted as prima facie evidence of WP:DIS or WP:AGF respectively, and result in an immediate seven-day block and reconsideration of a topic ban. This warning should be in template form and placed on LotLE's User Talk page by an admin he trusts and respects, with instructions that it must not be removed, until the admin agrees that LotLE's misconduct problem has been resolved. This is not punitive. It is for the protection of the project and other editors. Agreed? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to do anything but laugh at your pot-stirring here. Put a sock in it sock.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that certainly is an interesting form of punishment. Tell us more, Nathaniel Hawthorne. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Love these two responses. Not. Please review WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Regarding the sock accusations: I cordially invite you to post your smear campaign at WP:SSP, followed by RFCU, which are the proper venues for smear campaigns of this nature. You'll be thrown out of there with a reference to fishing expeditions, and neither 71 nor I will ever get an apology from any of you. Regarding 71's suggestion: it is constructive. It protects WP articles from the many edit wars started by LotLE. It protects new users, particularly IP editors, from being unfairly attacked by LotLE. And it doesn't impose a block or a topic ban (at least not immediately), so LotLE can keep pushing his POV if he's more careful about it and stays well within WP policy and guidelines concerning his conduct. Win-win-win all around. Regarding the cute little reference to The Scarlet Letter: unlike Hester Prynne, LotLE deserves it. It won't be on his User page, unlike the SSP template which I'm sure several of you are preparing for 71 and for me. And he can get rid of it, just as soon as he's proven that he won't misbehave again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Look -- you've edited under another account before, one i'd bet my eye teeth is banned (User:BryanFromPalatine is my bet -- every time his socks are run to ground he comes up with this "topic ban my enemies to protect the encyclopedia from them" shtick.). You and your "friend" the IP are on a campaign against an editor you disagree with here rather than discussing content there and you won't put the bone down. Assumptions of good faith are replaced, in time, with evidence of faith. The evidence here so far is that you're yet another MMORPG game player with an agenda, nursing old grievances. CU? What the heck for? It can't do anything to clear you. And the quacking gets louder still.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP is not a newbie, and AGF is not a shield for what is perhaps the most absurd form of wiki-punishment I have ever seen proposed here. We're not going to hang a template around LotLE's or anyone else's neck until some appointed admin decides he's been punished enough. And in case you haven't noticed, not a single person has voiced support of your calls for LotLE's head over his editing. Safe to say that this An/I report has been rejected, and it should be marked as such so we can move on and stop making up fantasy punishments against users we don't like. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree that an indef block under WP:SOCK for "users we don't like" is a "fantasy punishment," and I trust that you won't be seeking one. Thanks for that at least. LotLE continues his false accusations and his incivility here, so doing nothing only means that his abusive behavior and edit-warring will continue indefinitely. I'm convinced you like it that way, as long as it doesn't target you or your friends directly. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Response from JohnWBarber

I need to respond to some things said about me in the subthread just above about my supposed "abusive" socking. My block led to a ton of abusive and incorrect statements about me here and elsewhere:

1. When I set up this and the other accounts, it was not forbidden by WP:SOCK to do so. This is the version of the policy at the time: It's my fault for not keeping up better with the changes on that page, but I wasn't purposefully going against policy or being abusive in any way by doing what I did, and any statement to the contrary should be checked for wikilawyering. If anyone had just told me I was violating the policy, I'd have looked at it and fixed it, no block necessary.
2. Versageek says: This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. No, Versageek, actually it didn't, and if the line is that "fine" it calls for questioning the person you suspect, not blocking that person for a week on a policy you've misapplied and which you should know has been changed greatly in the past year.
3. V also says: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, The weakest word there is the one in capital letters. I was mistaken in using the JohnWBarber account instead of the Reconsideration account, and therefore violated WP:SOCK policy, but unintentionally (I didn't realize that would be a violation -- again, because I hadn't kept up with changes in WP:SOCK policy; my bad -- Reconsideration was my main account after Oct. 5). Also, "aggressive" debating is only disruptive if it's the type of thing that falls under WP:DISRUPT, and that just doesn't characterize my edits with JohnWBarber.
4. V also says: and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Given Versageek's definition of "disruptive", that just isn't policy. Period. See WP:CLEANSTART. Versageek's statement is simply incompatable with it. If I'd made the same edits under the User:Reconsideration name, there would not even have been a technical violation. There's no other way to look at it. Facts are facts.
5. V also says: IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. In general, yes. But it matters that I wasn't uncivil, and JohnWBarber clearly wasn't and isn't a throwaway account.
6. V also says: I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. That's an odd statement for someone who imposed a one-week block. Perhaps that's why it got no support.
7. Wikidemon says: Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Actually only one account is allowed to engage in controversy -- the main one -- when you have more than one; any others are necessarily segregated from that. One thing I did wrong was contributing to AfDs with two accounts instead of one (explicitly disallowed by WP:SOCK since Oct. 3). Oh wait, there was 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. That was an experiment on a controversial page where User:Reconsideration edited sections that were hotly disputed. My edits stuck and seemed to calm the disruption, and the article still looks not much different from the way I left it, I think. It was a controversial subject, but my edits don't seem to have been all that controversial. I'm pretty proud of that one.
8. W also says: Some of the edits under the Noroton account were in response to outrageous behavior by editors including Wikidemon, but it's water under the bridge. I resigned from that account on Oct. 5.
9. W also says: Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. Incorrect, unless some rather innocuous edits by Reconsideration in a few recent AfDs are "controversial".
10. Tarc says: Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. There comes a point, even at ANI, where an editor should be blocked for constant incivility. I never attacked Tarc, and he has no reason to be spewing out most of those adjectives. It's time an admin looked over his recent history of comments on his talk pages and give him a civility warning. He's constantly over the top and lowering the level of civility in the discussions he participates in. Notice that there's nothing for me to refute here because the entire sentence is hot air.
11. Sorry this is long, but so was the amount of abuse hurled at me for being wrongly labeled an "abusive sock" by Versageek. I made some technical violations of WP:SOCK because I didn't monitor the changes to that policy enough over the past year. Not one of those violations was intentional, hurt anybody, harmed the encyclopedia or avoided legitimate scrutiny under the terms of that policy. My edits at the Shankbone DRV included some sharp criticism of the closing admin for the AfD, but they weren't uncivil. You need something more than expressing strong disagreement to be disruptive.
12. I don't think anyone has brought up the idea that some of us on Misplaced Pages have a WP:COI problem regarding David Shankbone. It probably hasn't occurred to anyone because we think about the WP editor, but the article is a subject that we can have a conflict of interest over if we're either very close or very antagonistic to Shankbone (or somehow would benefit or be hurt by the existence of the article, although I don't see how). It's worth thinking about in these cases. I may have a COI for the DRV and I'll post a message about that there. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• My comment at the Shankbone DRV is here, although it might be moved to the talk page there. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

User:Zencv harassing anyone who prevents the vandalism of the article Love Jihad. According to the consensus reached over the edit war here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yusuf.Abdullah/Archive, both me and User:Zencv should refrain from editing article Love Jihad. I complied with the request, but was still blocked for one day as see here: User_talk:Yusuf.Abdullah#Talkback. But the real vandal User:Zencv continued his page blanking even after the warning and no action has been taken against this. Further he has been constantly harassing me by putting up two sockpuppet allegations and one block request in the space of two days. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I have notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The first sock investigation(started by me) had a merit on its own and the user Yusuf.Abdullah agreed that he had edited with an IP account here. He was pardoned there(after he confessed it was a mistake here) and the admin who pardoned him mixed the sock case with an ongoing edit war. The second investigation was NOT started by me and you have been dragging me there and have been engaging in personal threats as here calling me names like "Jihadi" and another respected user a "radical". The edit war investigation had a merit on its own and you were blocked, but another admin again pardoned you again after you apologised. The latest investigation was NOT started by me, rather by User:Sole_Soul. Take your issues with him and stop abusing me in these forums. I recommend the admins to look into the edit history of this user Yusuf.Abdullah to see how disturbing the edits that he is making with blatant disregard for core policies of Wiki and how blatantly he violates WP:NPOV, WP:EL, WP:CIVIL and WP:CANVASS Zencv 08:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I will also say that your claims are not entirely accurate, Yusuf.Abdullah. Nobody stated that the two of you should refrain from editing the article. What was said by NuclearWarfare was that the two of you should refrain from participating in an edit war in the future. That rule applies to everyone in Misplaced Pages on every article though, not just the two of you, so there were no special sanctions given. If you voluntarily refrained from editing the article that was your own choice. You claim to have been blocked incorrectly, and that seems to be true, but you were also unblocked early so there seems to be an acknowledgment of that mistake by an administrator. Zencv has reverted the page after the warning, but has not even approached three reverts in one day and so seems to have complied with the admonishment made by NuclearWarfare. Your claim that Zencv created two sockpuppet reports against you is incorrect, the second request was initiated by Sole Soul. That investigation has yet to be concluded, but Checkuser has been endorsed so it clearly is not a baseless claim. Your accusation of harassment, on the other hand, does seem to be a baseless claim. -- Atama頭 23:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User re-uploading images under different file names to evade deletion

User:Frickintony00 has uploaded a number of images to Misplaced Pages that have been tagged as being potential copyright violations. He is now replacing all these images with identical images with slightly different names. See , , , and . (There are others.) All images are identical and have the same copyright problems; most don't have any ownership information, and the ones that do have no information other than "Photobucket". He has been warned about uploading non-free items; if he hadn't, I'd have simply warned him.

At first I assumed his edits were blatant vandalism as he appeared to just be putting a "1" in front of file names, which is something vandals do. Looking into it further, though, it appears that he's not actually vandalizing but he does seem to be trying to prevent these images from being deleted in a less than upfront manner. I've removed the vandalism warnings on his talk page and I've notified him of this message.

Let me know if there is a better place for this. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any. Even if they're not committing deliberate vandalism, they ARE being highly disruptive. And you'd think they would notice something was wrong considering their talk page is loaded to the hilt with deletion notices. I have issued a final warning but I think this account needs to be blocked until they demonstrate they understand our copyright policy. I'm tagging the uploads for no license. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

These are all obvious copyright violations. I've tagged them for no license and removed some of them from pages, but the sheer number of them is really too much for me right now. Someone else will have to deal with it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a bit of time; I'll remove them from pages. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They're gone from article pages (at least they all appear to be orphan files). I'll put the articles on my watchlist. --NellieBly (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few images and they are taken from UFC, Myspace and other websites and are all copyrighted. I have blocked the account till the user is willing to comply with the WP:Image use policy, and will delete the uploads. Thanks for bringing this up here. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost every article he edited had either free or CC licensed images which he replaced with copyvios. I'm restoring the free/CC images now. Thanks for your help. --NellieBly (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:193.200.200.64

193.200.200.64 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user is the same person as Njirlu, who is being blocked for long-term disruptive editing, threats and personal attacks (and blocked also on other Wikipedias for similar behavior). Now he edits anonymously and keeps vandalizing the same pages as before, with a vengeance, since now he adds jokes in articles such as claiming that Romanians are in fact Chinese who speak a dialect of French.

He has already been reported here twice, , , and was blocked on both occasions. Obviously he has no intention to stop this disruptive behavior, despite promising several times that he understood what Misplaced Pages was and that he reformed himself. On the contrary, he displays a blatant disregard for Misplaced Pages rules and a total lack of civility.

I don't have time to keep undoing his edits. Others and myself have already tried countless times to explain what he does wrong, but all that went to waste. I don't see any sign that he will ever be a constructive editor. I definitely believe he needs some more vigorous measures. — AdiJapan 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. We cannot just block an IP address because we don't "see any sign that he will ever be a constructive editor." I see edits that are misguided but not obviously vandalism or even disruptive. Frustrating, yes. Vandalism? Highly questionable. For example, this edit indicates a real content concern, and also indicates to me that English is not the native language of the editor. Perhaps we can try to focus on the content? I realize the content dispute is more difficult, and in fact the editor may be on the wrong side of that dispute, but I don't (at least on that talk page) see any attempt to determine that.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And, regarding the idea that the IP is the same as Njirlu, we may need a checkuser to weigh in here.  Frank  |  talk  15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a Checkuser is needed; reading the comments of Njirlu and 193.200.200.64, it is painfully obvious they are the same person, and Njirlu is clearing evading a current block. At the very least, the IP should be blocked; if you want a Checkuser before extending Njirlu's block to avoid a Joe job, OK, but it really, really looks like the same person, and it would take quite a bit of effort to recreate that distinctive style. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot emphasize this enough: this is far beyond a content dispute. Njirlu (like the IP) edits those pages to push notions unheard of by anybody but him - it is his POV that he defends, something extremely fringe and utterly concocted, without any source whatsoever backing any of the notions he pushes. He does not understand wikipedia policies, no matter how many times they were cited for him, and doesn't even seem to understand English to a decent level. He broke consensus so many times it's not even funny, and every time came back with mass xenophobic accusations targeting Romanians and Greeks en masse. To cite this edit as evidence of "a real content concern" is absurd. Look through it: it's an attempt to depict editors of other nationalities, who respect wikipedia policies, as his personal enemies (something Njirlu has done in the past, over and over), and claims that they oppose him because of their origin: "The Romanian State must respond for this genocide. Europe recognised as a distinct people with a distinct language, but Romania still sleeps."; "I repet to you Mister AdiJapan! Stop these criminal attitude because has no future for Romania." etc. The funny thing is that I for one don't even object to the fact that Aromanians are a distinct ethnicity, and that nothing in his edits ever added rational content that would endorse that POV, and that the POV isn't even marginalized on wikipedia - he just believes it is, because other users won't let him invent his own terminology and symbolism for Aromanians, or because they won't let him add claims of Aromanian origin to all people he admires. Dahn (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  To clarify (expand?): When I wrote "a real content concern" I meant exactly those words: the concern over content expressed by the editor is real. I didn't say it is legitimate; I'm not informed enough at this point to judge that. I do think we need to understand that, behind every edit, no matter whether helpful or not, sourced or not, correct or not...is a person. This person clearly has an agenda, and whether or not that agenda is consistent with the article(s) in question is, to me, a content dispute. Having said that (and of course I may be incorrect about it anyway), if said dispute has been adjudicated in other venues already, then a block may well be in order.  Frank  |  talk  18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, the concern is not real. Far from it. The editor in question manipulates info by introducing data which is not (not just!) incorrect, but which does not reflect any terminology in the real world. And this kind of edits is simple vandalism - "Chinezi" means, as Adi Japan pointed out, "Chinese people" (note the question mark at the end of the sentence); same here. Even if his others edits would count as "content disputes" under some definition or another (though I respectfully disagree), those show that he is being simply disruptive. This guy doesn't understand wikipedia (even though he has repeatedly claimed to have understood the rules and guidelines) and will even resort to this kind of bluff. Dahn (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the article and talk page edits of the IP and User:Njirlu, and IMO they meet the WP:DUCK test. Hence I have blocked the IP for 48 hours for block-evasion. If the user wishes to discuss a content issue, they need to either wait for the block on their account to expire, or request an early unblock. Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

admin Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

ok the previous thread got closed coz according to Sandstein this is not the appropriate board for an DIWURGEN unblock. Fine, so now i'm not requesting Jacurek be unblocked but I request review of user:Future Perfect at Sunrise admin conduct. In the thread above, now closed, he claimed that he blocked Jacurek because of this exchange allegedly because Jacurek harrassed Varsovian with questions. It is now totally clear that Varsovian did not feel harrased by Jacurek because now he went to Jacurek's talk page and asked Jacurek questions about Warsaw and now both of them are discussing in friendly tone .

Above user:Future Perfect at Sunrise also stated that of one the reason for the long block to Jacurek is quote: my knowledge of the disruptive role he played in the EEML fiasco. I find this comment highly problematic for 3 reasons: 1) The EEML case before the ArbCom is still progress 2) In the proposal decisions by Arbitrator Cohen there are no sanctions against Jacurek 3) this unjust block of Jacurek will for sure at one time or another be linked back to the EEML case giving the impression that Jacurek is a problematic user.

In my opinion admin user:Future Perfect at Sunrise was too trigger happy and made a horrible block but I'd like to hear other opinions. Loosmark (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yada yada yada. Jacurek was making a series of highly provocative comments (read "trolling") designed to unsettle and piss off the other editor in the dispute. Such misuse of discussion pages is not permitted by WP:TALK, although the violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND is far more serious. I do not such tolerate such things, nor should any admin, and FPAS has far too much common sense to do so. If this had been me, I might possibly have blocked for 3 months, rather than just one, but then I am known for being a shade draconian at times. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an opinion Loosmark. 1) We just did this conversation. 2) Admins get paid exactly tripple what you get paid for working here 3) If editors are now attempting consensus through reasoned discourse all looks good.4) Drop the WP:STICK. I'm not saying my opinion is right or wrong but you did ask for some. Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, and Jacurek is quite clearly a problematic editor, or at least one with a problematic history. This was a very good block: in fact, we should have a lot more of them, but we don't, unfortunately have enough admins enable to distinguish genuine good faith from trolling. Moreschi (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I request the thread be re-opened, so far only 2 editors had the chanche of expressing their opinion. Loosmark (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: Jacurek has not requested unblock, nor is he able to participate in this discussion. Given the nature of the dispute -- which I know well -- it will be very easy for an onlooker to spot partisanship all over. Users on side X, Users on side Y, and Admins on the admins side. All sound and fury signifying... well, it could be nothing, but it's likely just to make matters worse. Wait until Jacurek requests unblock. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1989 Rosie

User never responds to request for discussion. Did a bunch of uncited changes and unnecessary formatting changes which where inconsistent with his/her previous changes, seems to change his/her mind every time. 1989 Rosie was banned for disruptive editing only to be unbanned for wrongful naming of the reason of the ban. From the few lines that where actually typed by 1989 Rosie it't clear that the users English is really poor so maybe he/she just doesn't understand the requests. No idea what to do next as every attempt for dialog or dispute resolutions falls on deaf ears. _Xeworlebi 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The user was previously indefinately blocked and then unblocked by User:Cirt. You may want to contact him, since he has some familiarty with the case. He may see reason to issue yet another indefinate block. --Jayron32 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked after a comment by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) at my talk page. I would support a longer block. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to put some context on this, because the full story hasn't being revealed here, Xeworlebi was recently involved in an edit war at List of Castle episodes that resulted in the article being protected for three days. During the edit war both he and 1989 Rosie made constructive and unconstructive edits. While the article was protected there was no discussion towards consensus. Instead, after the protection was lifted, Xeworlebi announced that he was going to make an edit that could have started the war again, prompting further comment by another editor who had been trying to get the war stopped so he could make some constructive edits. My involvement with the article came about because of a request by that editor for assistance and I've been trying to give some advice and clean the article up a bit. Today I made some edits that I've now had to detail at Talk:List of Castle episodes#Thwarted attempts to clean up the article because I've been thwarted by Xeworlebi who seems, by his actions and words, (albeit indirectly) to be asserting some ownership over the article. The long and the short of this is that, while I've certainly had issues with several of 1989 Rosie's edits, I feel that Xeworlebi is not without blame. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted 1989 Rosie's edits because they where unconstructive and the page was fine as it was. Which doesn't count for all the other pages he changed. The announcement I made abouth changing the page was about something completely different, it was about an addition to the page under the promise of addition of sources which where never added. Eventually I did it myself, as the person in question (a different one) kept making excuses to not do it. The discussion for the new edits made by you should have been made before you added them. But nearly nothing of that has to do with his previous ban and other edits he made. _Xeworlebi 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The complaint that you've made here relates to edits made at List of Castle episodes, not anywhere else. Not only that, the complaint was made 3 days after the edit war there finished. 1989 Rosie's only edit to the article since the protection was lifted was this, which was a quite reasonable and appropriate edit to make. As for my edits, they weren't overly significant and didn't need to be discussed as they were primarily maintenance and error correction. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem on the Castle page is only a small portion. And now he/she changed the Castle page again, and again does not feel the need to engage in the discussion. You yourself placed a low level warning yesterday on his/her page, not about Castle. The reason he/she was banned was not just for the Castle page but for the unwillingness to respond to discussion and conflict resolution and disruptive/unsourced addition editing abroad. The complaint made here is that he/she was unbanned because of a formality; the wrongfully naming of the reason of the ban. _Xeworlebi 09:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot? Scam? Phishing? Just nice?

189.217.171.135 (talk · contribs) So far today, has posted this message on 50 user talk pages and counting:

<big><big>Thanks for your recent edits!! - </big></big> 
There should be more people in the world who do something constructive like this.

Seems to be running at a rate of about one ever 15 seconds. Whatever it is, it's new to me.--Dbratland (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly automated. Chillum 02:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours as an unapproved bot. Hopefully that will be enough time to allow the operator to realize and adjust accordingly. If the edits resume, a longer block will be necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly convinced that this is an IP sock of User:BACON EXPLOSION (cf. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BACON EXPLOSION/Archive). MuZemike 03:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

67.164.149.77

Could an admin look into the situation surrounding this IP and adjust the block so that it isn't indefinite? -Jeremy 09:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So done: . --Jayron32 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus inappropriately indefinitely banned.

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

I ask some uninvolved administrator to review this block. thank you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please request unblock in the usual way while logged in. This kind of evasion will do you no favours. Verbal chat 10:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i am not Ludvikus. Please stop implicitly accusing of sock puppetry. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it just so happens that your 3rd edit was reverting Loremaster, and nearly all your edits relate to his dispute with Ludvikus. WP:MEAT, anyone? Moreschi (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

hahaha. why don't you run an IP check, and you will find out we are even from different countries. (i doubt he is from serbia). let me cite beginning of meat policy: Do not recruit meatpuppets. either you think someone recruited me (a.k.a. conspiracy theory), or you know you are talking nonsense. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite plausible he did. IPs rarely jump into revert wars in their 3rd edit. Any reason why you did? Moreschi (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

because i have a dynamic IP. so previously i had other IP's. i didn't "jump" into anything. if you think it is normal for registered users to be persistent and go into revert wars, while we (anonymous and unregistered users) should simply back off, or as you put it above "shoo", you are terribly wrong. I've been editing wikipedia since 2003, and i am quite familiar with its evolving rules. if i think i am right, i am going to show it with my edits and arguments, even if you are administrator. your privileges do not threaten me. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, but I query why this article, why right at the moment when Ludvikus and Loremaster were starting to kick off. It can hardly have been on your extensive watchlist, can it? Any other IP's you've edited under "since 2003", so we can get a rough idea of your good faith? Moreschi (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

why don't you ask my ISP provider why they changed my IP at that moment? maybe Ludvikus asked them to, i don't know. and also, you might know that IP's don't have a watchlist. so what i do is i type into my Firefox browser few letters, and Firefox search suggestion algorithm brings to the top some frequent and recent pages that I've looked at. you see, a logic and reason can be found everywhere where you look for it, and no need for conspiracy way of thinking. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for the usual avenues of appeal, as I would have told you on my talk page, had you not decided it would be more dramatic and impressive to run to ANI. Moreschi (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

the blocked user decided to quit Misplaced Pages due to your action (instead of appealing the block). i am not him/her, nor can i request the usual review process the way s(he) can, so i am asking here for his block to be reviewed. i am sorry if you find the consequences of your action dramatic and impressive. i don't find it impressive at all. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock requests are normally only acted upon when made by the blocked editor. This thread is a waste of time, and I'm archiving it.  Sandstein  11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review request: JohnHistory

I have blocked JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one month for personal attacks. Even though he dropped one on my page, I'm by no means an involved editor, as I've never (that I recall) encountered him before. It seems like a wikicide to me. I'm not sure that a month is a sufficient, but I'm unfamiliar with this guy. Some of you may know him better. I have no objection whatsoever to another administrator adjusting the length of my block. The immediate point was stopping the tantrum. --Moonriddengirl 11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, his last post (and the edit summary) were particularly vile. Agreed you're effectively uninvolved, and block is valid. Although, he says he's off to Europe, so a month might not even phase him. Good block, well-deserved, sadly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since he's clearly said that his behaviour won't change in a month, I've changed the block length to indefinite. If he wants to come back and try to convince us that his behaviour and attitude has changed at any point, he is welcome. Black Kite 11:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if a connection to Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs) should be explored here. Same level of POV-pushing, though John seemed to keep it on simmer for longer than Orange did, but when it does boil over the finale language is almost a cut and paste. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Redneck

Could someone help at the article. User:74.250.13.4 is removing information, reverting edits and trolling. Repeatedly insults other editors and is making a general nuisance of himself. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alerted him to this thread and gave him an NPA warning.--SKATER 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.. I kept getting an edit conflict. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's right. It is an ethnic slur. HalfShadow (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion... - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is vandalism. Seems more like a content dispute to me, from the bits I checked. Equazcion (talk) 19:49, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Actually the individual in question appears to be purposely baiting the editors of the article, with no other purpose than to disrupt. Eastcote (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please review this case. I am in danger of violating 3RR, but the editor in question is still up to no good. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, User:74.250.13.4 and User:74.250.3.74. Obvious sockpuppetry.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that some disruptive editing has been occuring, and I've encouraged the IP to stop such actions and discuss civilly before reverting again. They're well over the 3RR, so further reverts are blockable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

After an unsavory response to Tony, I've blocked the editor. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be an ethnic slur, but is also often worn as a badge. Jeff Foxworthy is the obvious case. And I've known plenty of folks who use that term on themselves. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I believe the disruptive individual is back, this time as User:68.18.201.254. The oddball and political nature of the newest post implies it's the same person. The issue here is not whether "redneck" is or is not a particular type of slur. The issue is the disruptive behavior of the individual. Let's leave debate about the article on the talk page. Eastcote (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption, 3RR, vandalism and insult from User:Shmayo

The user has been warned before for Vandalism and 3RR , and has recently called me for an "idiot" . He does not help with anything, and the only things he does is guarding the articles . He adds "Assyrian" to all the articles. I use neutral term on Aramean-Syriac-Assyrian related articles, to get both sides satisfied. But he keeps reverting my edits. Dejwono (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read all discussion about what names we should use first, and stop putting "Aramean" everywhere. You are not neutral! You are changing everythin that is neutral! Suspected sockpuppet of User:Aramaean-Syriac. Shmayo (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely appears to be a case of WP:Hound and a WP:Civil issue with Shmayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Shmayo, calling an syriac speaking Syriac orthodox priest for "Assyrian", isnt that insult and non-neutral?Dejwono (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, Floydian and Colloidal Silver

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

Editors are aware of WP:Edit warring, and the topic ban proposal does not seem to have gained any traction. Please take this discussion to Talk:Colloidal silver unless additional issues requiring administrator attention arise. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble with an editor that is consistently making accusations against me, and turning a talk page into a soapbox rather than discussing the article in question. This is further amplified by the fact that they are now taking it upon themselves to close discussions of mine rather than addressing them. This user is not contributing anything or discussing anything, just making fly-by-edits and accusing me of verbal abuse (which though I will not admit verbal abuse, I will admit I am becoming extremely frustrated with this editor).

I will start with my post that has been used against me in place of answering the discussion:

"Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website."

You will note that though I accuse Verbal of POV pushing (the "biggest fucking piece of it"), I do not make any personal attacks on the user, I am merely using emotional adjectives.

Verbal has on occasions twisted my words, accusing me repeatedly of verbally abusing editors, and of owning the page, to which he has yet to provide a diff for at my request. (In fact, his response to this request was to threaten me again with being blocked.

I was not aware that consensus was formed by linking to the hive mind, but I have seen little to no discussion, and no answers to the points I have brought up. After the editor in question reverted back and forth with me he quickly reported me for 3RR (Which though I admit I reverted 3 times, I was restoring to a version that had actually been discussed and had consensus (Essentially any version prior to October 20th) I have made attempts to be civil, often getting a response that shows the editor didn't even read my message, or more accusations and what I would interpret as benevolent threat

I have only insisted on the changes being discussed rather than forced. The editors who have made the changes have not once addressed my questions and arguments, and now the page is locked on their version, effectively meaning that they have no reason at all to discuss this. I find this horribly biased towards those editors and feel that the pre-dispute revision should be locked to actually encourage those editors to work towards a consensus.

I ask that no actions be taken without discussion by multiple editors, as fringe theory problems tend to be jumped on without a close inspection into the root of the problems. I have not notified Verbal yet. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You can write a bit about alternative medicine applications of colloidal silver in this article, but you have to understrand that an article like this will be written from a firm scientific point of view. If there is a peer reviewed article suggesting that some treatment may work, then you could write about that in detail in an article about alternative medicine, but not in this article as that would give too much weight to a fringe issue.

Insisting to include such edits in this article will always cause trouble. Then, when that happens it is fruitless to investigate who reverted who first, who insulted who first etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing though. I'm insisting on keeping the status quo (at least until some consensus is formed amongst the editors who have been long term contributors to the article and its talk page) - It is not my edits that are controversial, its the edits of half a dozen fly-by-editors who didn't discuss anything, and now Verbal insisting on them staying without any sort of discussion. Rather than respond to me, he has made accusations, beat around the bush for a while, and now pulls out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT against me, which is ridiculous, considering I was never given a response in the first place. When i ask what point I'm not getting, I'm told to stop or risk being blocked, by Verbal (They say this, they don't threaten to block me themselves). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Colloidal Silver.- Sinneed 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its gone stale, as with the discussion elsewhere that I have attempted to spur. All of it dubious, the editors who made the changes will never discuss them, only revert back to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask for protection. If you have fly-by editors who don't discuss and who just revert, protection works to force them onto the talk page. After that, they'll either learn to act appropriately or find themselves blocked. I've gotten other articles to work similarly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, you could also stop uncritically promoting fringe theories. People might take you more seriously then. Just a thought. Skinwalker (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof for this declaration or are you just blindly categorizing me? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since when has it become acceptable to not notify the subject of an ANI thread? (I have just done so.) In any case, Floydian is in the wrong here -- edit warring to insert fringe views into an article against the consensus of other editors, and being uncivil in discussion. We should not be supporting the principle that disputes can be won by simply refusing to ever accept defeat. It is very disturbing when admins function as enablers of disruption -- this is not what content-neutrality is supposed to be. Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm only trying to show things as the sources show. Right now I am trying to get the controversial changes discussed before they are implemented. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I am being uncivil to ask for editors to discuss such edits. Yes, I broke 3RR, I have admitted to that, and I admit to it being a mistake, but nobody has assumed good faith on my part because they've instead assumed that I "uncritically promote fringe theories". I've repeatedly asserted that I'm also representing its historical usage. I do not believe colloidal silver does work internally as it is promoted to (apparently it cures cancer, who knew?), but I do believe that if no studies have been done, then the article should say that no studies have been done. I've once represented homeopathy in trying to get an article represented as a source, but still discussed it on the talk page first without ever placing it on the article.

I did not notify the author because I was in a rush at the time. I apologize for that, but I have generally notified people I am bringing up on ANI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 04:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sequence of events, you will see that Floydian was involved in a cooperative discussion of trying to solve one of the ongoing causes of problems in the article in this section: Talk:Colloidal_silver#proposal to end the constant reverting caused by the conflicting interpretation of "colloidal silver". It was during this discussion that Verbal made 3 reverts on the article with absolutely no discussion of those reverts: . Verbal's first post on the talk page was here, AFTER Floydian called him on the reverting. Verbal's next post was after Master of Puppets posted to stop edit warring. Verbal's post was to deny any culpability in the edit war, and to complain about the disruptive contributing editors, mainly Floydian. If you look at Verbal's total contributions to this article, they are all reverts., . The 2 reverts on October 22 are almost exactly 24 hours after Verbals 2 reverts on the 21. After Master of Puppet's post about discussing changes, Verbal made a couple of posts commenting about his "reverts", but most of his posts on the talk page are complaints about Floydian and threats about how Floydian will be blocked. I would call Verbal's behavior disruptive, and certainly not conducive to trying to reach any kind of consensus. stmrlbs|talk 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Recommend Floydian take a long wikibreak from this article. He's very riled up, making wild accusations, running afoul of 3RR, and generally behaving like someone on their way to a block or ban. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Stmrlbs and Floydian have a problem in that their version of events is misleading, and their preferred version of the article has several policy issues and is opposed by consensus. I have asked Floydian to stop his disruptive behaviour and abusive, off topic, comments. Master of Puppets has warned Floydian that if he continues with this behaviour he will be blocked. We tried to unprotect the article, by Floydian insisted on his preferred version being restored against consensus. Any discussion is quickly hijacked and taken off topic by verbal attacks and insults (telling others they are behaving like "scum" and should "fucking" do what he wants, for example.) He also twice broke 3RR in attempting to force his preferred version, against multiple editors. The actions of these two editors, their general behaviour, and misleading comments as evidenced by this ANI report do probably deserve attention and possible admin action. In reply to the complaints that I have not entered discussion, I have been involved on the talk page discussing edits, and at the NPOVN post. I have acted properly, as have all editors on the "other side", despite extreme provocation, baiting, and disruptive behaviour from Floydian. Verbal chat 09:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a note that I address all of these accusations already in my first post. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you misrepresent those in your first post. You were warned by an admin that further abuse, including a personal attack aimed at me and one at SA, or editwarring would lead to your being blocked - after you had already broken 3RR. Verbal chat 16:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Provide a diff of my personal attack at you, pointing out where I make the attack on you. I have provided diffs for every accusation I've made, I do not see you providing any proof. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• The revert behaviour across the article is unacceptable by both Verbal and Floydian and I'm inclined to propose a revert limitation on both; this would also act as a warning for all other editors who have involved themselves less aggressively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Care to point out which policy my behaviour broke? I can see quite clearly which policies Floydian broke, but only 2 attempts to restore a policy and consensus supported version do not seem out of line to me. I have followed correct WP:DR procedure, and reported the matter to AN3 before it became a problem, however Floydian's continued warring led to the page being locked. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • • • • See my forthcoming comment below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A side note: It was locked after a 2R "war" between Mangoe and Strmlbs, not as the result of my behavior. I stopped reverting after the warnings - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I haven't broken either of those. Sorry. Verbal chat 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Thats for this discussion to decide. WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building has it written pretty clearly:

            "Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages."

            Seems pretty clear to me. You did not seek consensus, you simply reverted edits made by Eublides being bold. Just because I hit 3 first does not mean that you did not edit war. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I would happily self nominate myself to be banned from editing the article itself, to take it a step further. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Before handing out any penalties please remember this mess came about because of a blatantly provocative edit by Eubulides(on 08:02, 21 October 2009) who seems to have 'hit and run'. Without warning he removed the single most important piece of information about colloidal silver in the whole article. (i.e. that in-vitro studies demonstrate an antibacterial effect.) He called this info 'relatively unimportant' and said he was 'boldly' removing it. Clearly Eubulides knew he was lobbing a hand grenade into the article. (Is that some kind vandalism?). Admittedly there may be a fair case to be made for examining the context in which that particular info is placed, but it should never have been deleted outright. I share Floydians outrage about this.DHawker (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Those studies are not based on colloidal silver or its alt med use, which is where they were placed. Please tell us why they should be in the article on colloidal silver. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask that we do not get back into discussing the content of the article here. There are plenty of venues for that, most of which nobody has taken the more than opportune time to discuss upon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I invite all editors here to join in on the talk page of the article, which is where I would hope he would have replied. Sorry for not being specific. Verbal chat 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to everything at Talk:Colloidal silver. Not one of the editors who made a fly by edit discussed the changes that were made. Yes, you discuss on the talk page, no you haven't discussed the changes that are controversial, only new changes that have come up since this issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bold suggestion: Topic Ban Floydian This issue (Colloidal silver) had already been discussed at the fringe theories noticeboards in September. When I noticed that, I sent out a test balloon there diff, which was shoot down almost immediately by Floydian, who called my source "clearly biased based on the wording" and went on to state that argyria, i.e. someones skin turning gray, "is cosmetic, and harmless". diff. Just a friendly reminder, Floydian. This case is from the 1950s, and during that time people were usually classified as white and black, and black people faced some obstacles (well, that's an understatements, but we don't need to get into the details of historic racial segregation in the U.S. here). And the person, whose homepage I had quoted, explicitly says somewhere that the skin discolouration caused by argyria can't be covered with make-up, so it is not a cosmetic issue. But more importantly, Floydian completely missed that the homepage I quoted in turn quotes 17 academic works and articles on the issue; the statement: "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago." appears well sourced. So, if you want to call this statement biased, then this appears to be another case of the usual medical bias against alternative medicine, or, more to the point: This "biased" view is the mainstream view, and the other view is the fringe theory view. Fortunately, we have a guideline for such a case: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, but unfortunately Floydian doesn't accept this, and is now apparently trying the use of confrontational tactics to promote a fringe theory. As far as I see it, we have three options: 1) Let him have his way, and have another bad article. I certainly would find this unacceptable, but on the other hand, I find this issue rather boring and wouldn't personally need the hassle of fixing. 2) Keep on fighting until either Floydian gives up or the whole issue goes to the arbitration committee. Since I've had previous experiences with Verbal, I think that he stands a good chance against Floydian, so let's get it on! 3) Or, and this would be the preferable solution: Topic Ban Floydian right away and save us all a lot of stress.

• P.S. If someone finds my cynicism offensive, I'll apologize, but I think I've figured out how Misplaced Pages works by now. - Question: How many administrators does it take to deal with an edit war concerning NPOV? Answer: Five. One to block/warn one of the involved editors, and the other four to figure out that they've blocked/warned the wrong one. - If you would now excuse me, there is an edit war on the German Misplaced Pages that I might want to attend. Zara1709 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will only point to a peer reviewed source that describes adverse reactions to silver (including colloidal) in detail. You'll find it never once states argyria is anything more than a irreversible pigmentation of the skin.. However, the changes to the article are less important than the conduct of everyone around it, myself included (I'm no angel).

Once again, I'm not concerned with its modern usage as an alternative medicine. I'm concerned that it was an anti-biotic before the discovery of penicillin, and that it should be discussed as such, and that its use for decades as a topical wound dressing is just now winding down as they find better solutions that don't turn you into the tin man. And does nobody else see how hard these people are trying to not have to discuss the changes that are disputed? They'd rather have me banned. Seems like the simpler solution than following the dispute resolution process. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"These people" asked for you to be blocked because you broke WP:3RR twice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I broke it once, for which I've apologized and would like to move forwards from, by discussing the changes on the talk page and avoiding the need to make edits and stonewall them. A fourth revert doesn't count as a new 3RR violation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline: conduct problems

This outlines why I found problems with both Floydian and Verbal's approach, among other other editors:

• On 21 Oct, Eubulides (talk · contribs) made a series of bold edits between 8:20 and 8:30. He noted that it was in response to a suggestion made about 1 day earlier on the talk page. Floydian (talk · contribs) reverted these between 16:31 and 16:36. This was permissible in accordance with WP:BRD; Floydian also commented which should have started the discussion. 10 minutes later, Verbal (talk · contribs) instead of attempting to seek a consensus by commenting at that discussion, broke WP:BRD and reverted. This was highly inappropriate; at that point, even the NPOVN discussion only had 2 editors responses that had differing views to Floydian. Floydian reverted and made an aggressive comment at the discussion directed at Verbal.
• It was after this revert that the third editor commented at the NPOVN discussion, after which Verbal reverted again (again, avoidable) and endorsed as the forth editor. However, Floydian should have considered avoiding any further reverts at this point as it was potentially inappropriate, but nevertheless, did revert. Verbal then made a response at the discussion, to which Floydian responded 10 minutes later. No responses were made at the discussion after this time. Shortly afterwards, Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appropriately made a general warning to stop this cycle, and discuss it on the talk page to avoid the main page being protected. Floydian and Verbal made responses . Meanwhile, a fifth editor also endorsed the differing position at NPOVN.
• On 22 Oct, Verbal made an edit , which was reverted a bit under 1.5 hours later by Floydian . 5 minutes later, Verbal reverted again. Floydian partially reverted. Simonm223 (talk · contribs) made a partial revert without discussion, which was reverted by Floydian under 15 minutes later. Hipocrite (talk · contribs) partially reverted 5 minutes later, and Floydian made partial reverts 3 minutes later. Simonm223 again reverted.
• On 23 Oct, Mangoe (talk · contribs) boldly removed a section from the article. This was reverted by Stmrlbs (talk · contribs). Mangoe then broke WP:BRD and reverted. Mangoe finally opened a discussion and the article was then protected by Master of Puppets. Simonm223 and Verbal endorsed Mangoe's view; Floydian and Stmrlbs did not. Was this sufficient to form a consensus to remove the section?
• Later, during one of the discussions later, Verbal closed part of one discussion in which he was involved with Floydian, where Floydian asked a question. Floydian reverted the close and Verbal edit-warred to maintain it, even though he should not have been closing it off to begin with.
• Accordingly, it appears that a 1RR on Verbal and a page ban (and possibly 1RR) on Floydian is warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, I would have no objection to a page ban on Colloidal silver. However, I wouldn't doubt it if Verbal and Scienceapologist tried to persue having me banned from the talk page to completely bypass relevant discussion. Nevertheless I think you for providing a timeline to show the faults of both sides.

I only wish to object to one point though Ncmvocalist, and that is the number of people with a differing view on the NPOV noticeboard. Some of the comments weren't clearly endorsing a side and were merely comments. For example, Steven Schulz. Only Verbal, Baccayak, and ScienceApologist give differing views, and two of those are editors involved in the questionable reversions - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason for any sanctions on me, I have acted properly and well within wikipedia norms throughout despite abuse, provocation, and baiting. Nothing in Ncmvocalist's timeline, which is incomplete, shows me acting improperly, so I don't see what problems it supposedly highlights. I don't see why this is still even being debated. It's pointless now Floydian has been given his final warning. Let's go back to the article, go back to improving the encyclopaedia. The "discussion" I closed was a violation of WP:TALK and merely consisted of more baiting and off topic, misleading, accusations - I asked Floydian to continue in a more appropriate venue. Other editors have also reverted Floydian, and we can assume that they woud voice this opinion on the talk page were it not already clear that he didn't have consensus. Verbal chat 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect for Ncmvocalist's analytic skills, it would probably be far more helpful to hear the opinion of an administrator like MastCell who has some idea about the medical content and editors involved. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need to discuss content? This is ANI. A 3rd party analysis is exactly what this needs, neutral of any previous knowledge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is helpful to distinguish between mainstream science and fringe POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please get Mastcell to look at this this. Even though he managed to get me banned from the article I respect that he's usually fair in his judgement and has a long history with this article. The key issue seems to be whether comments about the in-vitro antimicrobial properties of colloidal silver (broadly defined) should even be in the article. A pretty simple question I think. DHawker (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for advice as to whether or not specific content should be in an article, then ANI is not the right place. I'm not disagreeing about Mastcell's ability to discuss content, merely that the content portions don't belong 'round here. If that discussion will solve most of the issues above, then awesome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The content issue itself should not be argued here, as there are several open venues for that. However, the content is relevant in some ways to the discussion at hand. I only hope that when the content is discussed, that its relevance to this discussion is mentioned if its not abundantly clear. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that content should not be discussed here. Whether or not one side is 'right', there was still edit-warring on both sides (note: 'edit-warring' and '3RR' don't have to be synonymous - you can edit war without breaking 3RR). I'm fully in support of letting go of all the warring behaviour and excusing it provided that all parties promise to not do it again; that way, we can get to discussing the content and resolving this. If that can't be done, then this will go nowhere.

Oh, I am previously involved, for the record. Master of Puppets 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate on the point raised by Master of Puppets, editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules (such as 3RR) should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring is unacceptable, whether by reversion or otherwise; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. Appropriately, more stringent sanctions would be needed (and likely handed out) if this were escalated to ArbCom the next time this sort of thing happens at the article.

For the record, at the request from MastCell for uninvolved input on a previous occasion, I took a look at the conduct on this article a while back - at that point, I felt it necessary to propose a topic ban on DHawker, and that was enacted accordingly. I'm not aware of any other interactions with both parties. Again, as someone completely uninvolved, I've taken a look at some of the major conduct issues and I outlined recent major issues above. I too would support letting go of all, should both parties promise not to do it again; but they do need to take it as an absolute final warning with respect to such conduct on any article/talk they edit. The parties also need to understand that admin noticeboards are not a step in dispute resolution for a reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Verbal approached me on my talk page here. I thought the above comments by me and Master of Puppets explained the distinction between 3RR and edit-war, and why both sides engaged in edit-warring (see the timeline). Yet, it seems that Verbal still insists that his conduct was flawless, which suggests that he does not understand or accept the problems with his conduct. In such circumstances, the conduct is likely to continue in the future, and a promise to not let it happen again will be futile. I've tried once again to explain to him here. I am calling on an uninvolved admin to make Verbal (and others who fall in the same boat) understand that 3RR and edit-warring is not the same thing - what happened here was, for the most part, edit-warring, and is not acceptable. If another explanation does not happen or work, then sadly, sanctions will become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I totally dispute Ncmvocalist's statement and interpretation of policy. I acted well within policy and made more than clear I wasn't going to engage in further reverting or respond to Floydian's clar editwarring, abuse, baiting, and gaming. Multiple other editors also reverted and discussed teh edits, leading Floydian to break 3RR twice. I wouldn't have made the second revert if I had known that Floydian was going to ignore policy (WP:BURDEN, for just one example) and insist upon his preferred version without discussion and against consensus. My crime seems to be AGF. I have acted well within policy and norms of wikipedia editing, and acually went beyond them requesting admin help as soon as I realised trouble was brewing - and since made no reverts, and made clear I wouldn't. In no way was I "editwarring". I see no justification for Ncmvocalist's claims. Verbal chat 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of article content and edits

I thought that I might as well spent another hour on the issue, and here a my results: Currently the article mentions that colloidal silver was used before the 1940s and for what it was used, but it doesn't really say why its use was discontinued. According to the medical literature, the main reason was not the "introduction of antibiotics", but the side effects caused by colloidal silver. Since I have an web page which quotes some literature (and a lot of experience with literature search), the articles aren't hard to find, and the Journal of the American Medical Association certainly is a reliable source. There is an article from 1935 about an "alarming increase of argyrosis". (SEVENTY CASES OF GENERALIZED ARGYROSIS FOLLOWING ORGANIC AND COLLOIDAL SILVER MEDICATION). There is also an article from 1940 in the Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery: (ARGYRIA RESULTING FROM INTRANASAL MEDICATION). I think these sources are sufficient to establish that the medical use of colloidal silver was discontinued sometime in the 1940s because of its side-effects, which leads me to the interesting question: Why doesn't the article mention that?

If you look at the point of controversy between Verbal and Floydian, you'll see that it is about two sources diff. One is a study about in vitro anti-bacterial effects of colloidal silver from 2008, but the other is a book from 1920. So, if Floydian, as I assume, managed to find a book source from 1920, why didn't he manage to find articles in highly reputable medical journals from 1935 and 1940? There are three possible explanations: 1) Bad luck 2) neglect of academic sources, in favour of on-line sources or 3) tendentious editing. One can suspect that Floydian only used those sources that support his view. That is the editing pattern of a partial-POV-warrior.

The problem is, if you want to identify those partial-POV-warriors, you can't rely on an an analysis of editor conduct. Why? Because someone who is, as a matter of principle, interested in a neutral point of view, is also a POV-Warrior, only a NPOV one. You need to analyse the content of an article, and identify the POVs involved, which in this speaks case against Floydian. From his comments on the noticeboard I know that he would downplay the side effects of colloidal silver diff, and a short analysis of the point of controversy in the article would allow a similar conclusion.

As an editor concerned about NPOV (regardless of whether your understanding of the NPOV in a specific case is correct), you don't have many options. If you argue nicely, but abstain from reverts, the partial-POV-warriors will simply ignore your comments on the talk page and only reply with 1-or-2-line remarks. If you confront him, and revert him if necessary, he will go whining to the administrators noticeboards and try to frame you for edit warring. There currently isn't a working strategy to deal with a partial-POV-warrior, which is among the reasons why I am not doing much at Misplaced Pages any more. You can only chose the confrontational tactic and hope that some people at the noticeboards are competent enough (and are willing to spent the time!) to identify the core of the issue.

Back to this specific issue: If Floydian could agree to abstain from editing the article for 3 months, that would be a workable solution. It would allow the removal of the full protection and should give me and other interested editors enough time to research some facts that are currently missing in the article - like the real reason why colloidal silver was discarded as a medical treatment in the 1940s. But after my previous experiences at Misplaced Pages, I would not be willing to work on this article when I have to fear that someone who can't be talked to reverts my edits. Zara1709 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT what the present war is about. The question of why colloidal silver use was discontinued is a minor issue. DHawker (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the comment Floydian gave me on the fringe theories noticeboards, the reason why the use of colloidal silver was discontinued is indeed part of the issue, because Floydian reacted quite strongly to that comment. I should have searched the academic sources to substantiate my view back then, but I didn't, so I supplemented them now. And anyway, I found another source, and this time a recent one (although this source also quotes my 1935 source). The side effects of colloidal silver can be more severe then he probably thought so far:

"Consumption of large doses of colloidal silver can result in coma, pleural edema, and hemolysis. Colloidal silver is also toxic to the bone marrow and may be associated with agranulocytosis. The toxic effects of inorganic silver ingested orally in large doses are very similar to any corrosive solution." (Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver

This certainly is of higher relevance to the article then the question whether colloidal silver shows anti-bacterial effects in vitro. Floydian is working on this article at least since September; I needed not even two hours to find these sources, so how come Floydian didn't find them in about two months? I think that this is a very good question, and it helps us more then the discussion who reverted how often. Zara1709 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only that but you are taking a look at conduct from several weeks before the conflict. ANI is not for content disputes. It should also be noted that I have no access to academic journals. I've only made use of the sources that were in the article when I arrived, and have brought any potential sources to the talk page rather than editing the article. Am I POV warrior solely because I felt a source that was brought to the page seemed biased? Also a quick look through the talk page will show that I'm the one with the three or four paragraph debates while the others generally put two sentences in that completely evade me. You'll also notice the more up to date study from the more reliable source that I published above (Oxford Press > Dermatology Online Journal) that never once mentions the toxicity of argyria, despite the paper being a focus on the health effects of silver. But I appreciate the generalization, once again, Zara. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue is now discussed on how many noticeboards, including this one? 3? 4? Already in September you were unable to admit that colloidal silver does have dangerous side-effects (and you still are). You were apparently trying to push the point that colloidal silver shows anti-bacterial effects in vitro into the article, before it was fully protected. True, I can't rule out that you simple did not find the sources I found, but then again, the only additional tool I have at my disposal is a database of academic journals, however, you could find these journals yourself using any search engine. The other possibility is that you are trying to promote colloidal silver, and simply ONLY brought forward those sources that support your view.

Really, why are so many articles at Misplaced Pages in such a bad shape? Is it because many of our editors simply are incompetent, or is it because many of them are not interested in writing good, neutral articles, but in promoting their personal POV? Probably, this case is not altogether clear, but I've seen editors "play stupid to spin articles in their direction" (to paraphrase a statement from Dbachmann) before. Of course, this page is not for content disputes, but I have to provide the evidence here that gives substance to the view that you, Floydian, are trying to promote a fringe theory at the article Colloidal silver by using the sources in a highly selective way. The evidence is here, and let me add that, aside from that short encounter with Floydian in September, I am an uninvolved editor. Zara1709 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the invitro effects were placed in the lead independently of my contributions to the article (and as far as I remember without going and checking, was there when I stumbled upon the article). Most of my edits involved changing the wording to represent the information that was presently on the article. I will still deny the dangerous side effects, as clearly the danger of the side effects are disputed from source to source. Every editor brings a point of view to the table, especially with fringe topics, and many editors have admitted to their POV. It an go without saying that any editor who takes a stance on the subject is going to input terms into a search engine looking for studies that validate the way they feel. As long as those are valid and reliable studies, are those editors committing some atrocity, or are they merely one of the many POV's making edits to the article? I have always discussed my changes before implementing them, and problems only arose when other editors failed to uphold the same courtesy and civility. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, I am sure that you will not find an article from an reputable medical journal that disputes that colloidal silver can have severe side effects. Of course, your average article on the anti-bacterial effects of colloidal silver in in-vitro experiments will simply not discuss the side effects of colloidal silver when used as a medication, but the absence of this fact there is justified because of the limited scope of these articles. In an encyclopaedic article, on the other hand, the absence of the very same facts is not justifiable. I took a look at the edit history, and the source I have quoted, "Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver" has been present in the article for over a year. Revision of September 22, 2008. Currently you are using this source as a reference for the statements that: ".. some websites still list its use for the prevention of colds and flu, and the treatment of more serious conditions such as diabetes, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis, among other diseases." and that "A number of case reports describe argyria after ingestion of colloidal silver marketed as an alternative-medicine treatment." Yes, this source say that. However, the source also has includes a comprehensive summary of the "Toxicology of silver", where it includes the information I have already quoted above: "Consumption of large doses of colloidal silver can result in coma, pleural edema, and hemolysis." Is there any good reason not to mention this in the article, aside from the fact that this information does not fit into your personal point-of-view? Zara1709 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I hadn't even noticed... And if it has been that way for over a year than clearly other editors didn't notice either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. One good reason not to include that statement might be that the source provides no references, no case reports, or any details whatsover to support it. They sound like pretty exceptional claims to me. Isnt there a Wiki rule somewhere that says exceptional claims need exceptional sources? This source doesn't cut it IMO. DHawker (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara, 20 of the 31 references on the Colloidal Silver article talk about side effects, the main one being argyria. The colloidal silver lead paragraph has something about side effects as well as there being a section on side effects with a link to the article on argyria. It is not like the side effects aren't being discussed in the article. stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone also let verbal know that he does not own the talk page, and that he doesn't have the right to close relevant discussions on the talk page just because he cannot provide an answer to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What Verbal is doing is "disruptive refactoring". The policy on Refactoring is stated quite clearly here: WP:Refactoring: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. I only set out here to show that Floydian should not be trusted with editing this article, because he is unable to accept the view that is expressed on the article topic in reliable academic sources, and so far this discussion has provided ample evidence of this. Now DHawker thinks he can invalidate my source by pointing out that the sentence I quote doesn't use any references - so what? As an article in an academic journal it is a reliable source, an although this particular journal is an online journal, this does not speak against it. In fact, if you look at the reference that article does provide, you will see that it quotes among other an article from the Journal of Clinical Toxicology:

"Conclusions: We emphasize the lack of established effectiveness and potential toxicity of these products." Silver Products for Medical Indications: Risk-Benefit Assessment, Abstract

I could bet, if we would have access to the full pdf, it would also point out that 'death' is among these risk, if you really overdose yourself with Colloidal silver. Would be no surprise - I think there are also people who have overdosed themselves with vitamin c, and died. Any way, if you were really concerned with writing a balanced article based on academic sources, the potential toxicity of Colloidal silver would be pointed out more explicitly in the article and there would probably be a tag 'Expert needed', since you would need someone who has access to medical journals for a throughout review of the respective articles - if you don't want to rely on the article in the Dermatology Online Journal (which would be fine in my opinion). However, since at least one of the involved editors persists in denying the potential toxicity of Colloidal silver RIGHT HERE, and the discussion on the article revolves, not around the issue of toxicity, but around the issue of the relevance of in vitro studies - which are certainly less relevant than the toxicity of Colloidal silver for humans - I come to the legitimate conclusion that the article is the target of fringe advocates who use sources in a highly selective way in an attempt to spin the article in their direction.

Since I have a lot of practice finding academic sources, I could literally do that for weeks, until I've found quoted every single accessible source on this issue. However, against people convinced of a partial-POV this skill is utterly worthless. Every time I quote another academic source, they do the equivalent of putting their hands against their ears and going on to sing *la,la,la,la,la,la...* Then they try to distract the readers by talking about something else, like the behaviour of other involved editors. The problem is: That strategy quite often works, which is why many articles on Misplaced Pages are in bad shape. I am not doing much any more on Misplaced Pages for that reason, but if you want to save Colloidal silver from becoming another one of these bad articles, you should identify the editors not interested in writing a balanced article based on academic sources, and ban these editors from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. Stop whining (or whatever it is you are doing) and just make your first contribution to the article. If its worthy it will stand. If not it will be ditched. That's how Wiki works. There are plenty of colloidal silver opponents who will support you.DHawker (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Then they try to distract the readers by talking about something else, like the behaviour of other involved editors.".. You mean what Verbal and ScienceApologist have done the entire time? Yet I have three well phrased, well worded questions that they try to lock up as against WP:TALK. Not only that but I'm providing academic sources as well. The only source I've questioned is NCCAM, which is clearly not an academic journal. But I'm an advocate, so only I can be wrong, correct?

The thing is, we don't have access beyond the abstract, so drawing conclusions would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Whose to say that I'm the one spinning sources around? Of course the person who doesn't exclaim the fringe theory is an advocate who cannot contribute constructively and must be banned. Thats not one sided dictatorship thinking. I've repeatedly asserted why I take my position on the toxicology, and you clearly have it go through one ear and out the other. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT Also, I'm sure death is a side effect for almost any pharmacological product in the world, if you really overdose yourself with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose whining? I am only lamenting the general state of affairs at Misplaced Pages, which is something different. I would suppose you would be "whining" here, if that strategy would promise any success to you, but currently it isn't. I mean, DHawker apparently sees it as his mission to fight, quote, "colloidal silver opponents". What kind of approach is that? The idea behind Misplaced Pages is not that it is a battleground between adherents of different POVs - the idea behind Misplaced Pages is that it is an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. So if the reliable sources say that colloidal silver has dangerous side-effects, you have to accept that, or you are not qualified to edit the article on colloidal silver. Of course, we could simply have the article unprotected, and then resume hostilities there. I would assume, if I was to edit the article, whatever my edit would be - you or someone else would revert it, and then we would have another edit war. I am assuming that, because that is how the last NPOV controversy I took part in went. Then we could count who has more supporters, but in any case you could make another report on this noticeboard about evil Zara, who keeps restoring his revision and is unwilling to compromise. As I said, this has happened to previously in other controversies. Now take this: I am unwilling to compromise, because I am right. Misplaced Pages articles should not be foul compromises between hostile fractions of editors, but encyclopaedic articles based on reliable sources. The view that colloidal silver has toxic side-effects is based on reliable sources, and BEFORE we continue working on the article, and want every involved editor to accept that.

I think Floydian and Dhawker have both given enough evidence for the assumption that they are advocating the use of colloidal silver, and that this influences their editorial judgement. DHawker has, right here, implied that I was a "colloidal silver opponent", whereas in fact all I have done is to notice that some editors are denying the dangerous side-effects of colloidal silver, and have then searched for reliable sources on this issue, and as a result, I have established that colloidal silver has dangerous side-effects, and I am using this to arrive at a decision at this controversy. Let's explain this in analogy to a poker game. Several editors were gambling about the article colloidal silver. Since I was sitting at the table too (albeit not in full view), I raised, under the assumption that some editors are bluffing, and are in fact not trying to write a balanced article, but to promote a partial POV. I re-raised, and now I want to see. These editors now only have two options. 1) to fold, and abstain from editing the article further, because I can demand from any Misplaced Pages editor that he is able to accept the view of the most reputable sources, in this case the view of academic medical journals. 2) to put down you cards and let me see them; you still have the option to find a reliable source that says that colloidal silver does not have dangerous side-effects, but currently you are not even trying.

Of course, there are a few more options. You can angrily leave the table, or you can assault the other player, in this case me, with personal attacks. But I think I you have to resort to those options, you have lost, too. Zara1709 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and the people who disclaim colloidal silver let that influence their editorial judgement. What's your point? You've established that it has dangerous side effects because you found a source which verifies your point of view (and you very clearly do have one). I can find sources that verify my point of view too... But mine must be wrong, because I advocate the use of the stuff (Which I've repeatedly mentioned that I don't, but you didn't hear that), and anybody who advocates what wikipedia has defined as a fringe theory through some wide criteria must be wrong, always. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't get it. When I noticed this controversy I spent roughly 2 hours researching about the topic, focussing on the issue of the potential side-effects of colloidal silver. I came to the conclusion, that, according to reliable sources, colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. This is not my POV - considering that all the research I've done on this question was part of my work at Misplaced Pages I would even go so far as to say, that I don't have a personal POV, I only have a view as an editor, which I have throughoutly justified here. "Misplaced Pages articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources." (You actually made me quote "wp:rs".) If several reputable sources say that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects I can demand from every editor working on the article colloidal silver, that he accepts this view. Since you do not have the option to challenge Misplaced Pages's policies, you either have to admit that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects, or you have to present reputable sources that say that it doesn't. However, considering how reputable the medical journals I have quoted are, it is rather unlike that you find other reputable medical journals that disagree with them. If you think that "you can find sources that verify your point of view too", please try. IAs a matter of principle, I will not rule out the possibility that the sources I found are not the most reputable ones. However, as long as you persist in denying the mainstream view (as far as I've identified it) and are not willing to discuss the issue based on reliable sources, you are advocating a fringe POV, and it can't be expect from Verbal or any other editor to cooperate with you in writing the article. Without the acceptance of our content policies there is no basis for a discussion whatsoever. I think I can rest my case now. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You can rest you case when you can point out where Verbal discussed this with me instead of making accusations at my character. I will go with the sources you show me, which you have. I will not listen to here-say, or accusations at me, but rather retorts to my arguments. I don't want editors to say "This is the mainstream view", I want links to the sources so I can read them myself. If you look to the beginning of this ANI discussion, however, you will see that the potential side effects were not the issue at hand. The issue was the potential applications. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. I repeat. Make a contribution to the article and stop whining and filling space here.DHawker (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You both are still not admitting defeat. I used this case as test to see whether it is possible to identify partial-POV warriors, and the test worked. So far, Floydian and DHawker have demonstrated that they are not able to conduct a discussion of the topic (colloidal silver) BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES, and DHawker has actually now resorted to personal attacks, whereas I have limited myself to not-so-subtle polemics.

Without the acceptance of the policy that articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on reliable sources, here is no common ground for a discussion, and any discussion at the article would be futile. They would only use any attempt to edit the article as a pretext for starting another edit war, and then they would try to frame other editors for edit warring, as Floydian did when he started this section. So either Floydian and DHawker are banned from the topic (until they affirm that Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable sources, especially concerning the article Colloidal silver), or the article is doomed. If you want to have an acceptable article, sooner or later they would have to be banned from the topic - let's see how long it takes before this issue goes to arbitration committee, that is, if the article is ever unprotected and Verbal and/or some other editors fight the issue until the bitter end. Zara1709 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DHawker, your comments about "whining" are really incivil. Please tone it down. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read my message, Zara, or are you just on an automatic loop now? "I will not listen to here-say, or accusations at me, but rather retorts to my arguments. I don't want editors to say "This is the mainstream view", I want links to the sources so I can read them myself."

Despite Verbal claiming the contrary, nobody discussed the changes. I will not drop that issue, as per usual with ANI, everything gets ignored because people read half the text and come to a conclusion that they want to, or that favours the editors that they know better. I'm tired of editors whining that they've been insulted when nobody has insulted them, or making up a variety of terms to describe the actions of the editor rather than responding to them (gaming, baiting, etc, I don't know what that BS is. I asked questions, I expect answers or I make changes). My questions are valid, they question the validity of the sources (not the reliable sources regarding side effects, if you actually bother to read anything I've said up to this point, you'd realise the issue is around the NCCAM source.), and I will remove the questionable sources if nobody will bother to discuss them. Without discussion there is NOT A CONSENSUS.

Zara, you've already decided my evil destructive motives, and nothing I say or do will change that, so I'm rather indifferent to your opinion from here on out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Accusation of personal attacks aside, this ANI thread really does support this statement from Zara: "Floydian and DHawker have demonstrated that they are not able to conduct a discussion of the topic (colloidal silver) BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES". I am uninvolved with this article, but have synthesised colloidal silver (and many other nanoparticle metals) and used it in biochemical assays. There is tonnes of resaearch on colloidal silvers biological activity, including adverse medical and environmental effects. Toxicity is size, concentration and ligand dependant, but certainly exists, and simply require searching for academic sources to understand. If editors dislike sources, they should be searching for other sources that disagree, not arguing about editors reasons for adding the source. I think topic bans for editors or other article restictions (1 or 0 rvert rules) are needed here.YobMod 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod, Zaras so-called 'reliable source' about pleural edema (a heart problem) was little more than an aside in an article on argryia (a skin condition) in a dermatology journal. It contained no references, no cases studies or any other details whatsoever that could verify the claims. I simply pointed out that for those reasons i considered it a poor source for such exceptional claims, yet you say this demonstrates I'm unable to conduct a discussion 'based on reliable sources'. Very strange. I further suggested that if Zara thinks its such a good source then put it in the article and stop complaining in advance about the opposition she expects to receive. But as far as I know zara has never, ever contributed to the article so overall i find her long winded complaints here rather bizarre. Anyway, this is not the place for discussing article content.DHawker (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Advising an editor to add poor content to articles so you can edit war to remove it does not seem like conducting a discussion to me.YobMod 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Let's see; I have brought forward three sources that mention that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects:

• SEVENTY CASES OF GENERALIZED ARGYROSIS FOLLOWING ORGANIC AND COLLOIDAL SILVER MEDICATION, INCLUDING A BIOSPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF TEN CASES, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1935
• ARGYRIA RESULTING FROM INTRANASAL MEDICATION, Archives of Otalaryngoly, 1940
• Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver, Dermatology Online Journal, 2005

Although there are likely not the most reputable sources, they are reputable enough to establish, in the absence of contradiction sources, the fact that the view that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects is the mainstream medical-academic view. The Journal of the American Medical Association must be among the most reputable medical journals that there are in the U.S. But what do these editors do? One is saying, quote: "I will not listen to here-say.. I don't want editors to say 'This is the mainstream view', I want links to the sources so I can read them myself." The sources are here, please read them. The first 150 words that are provided from two articles for non-subscribers are sufficient. And by the way, Floydian, you started with aggressive comments the comment on the issue, remember:diff? Seeing that the topic of colloidal silver was discussed, I provided a link to a homepage, which in turn quotes 17 further sources. I would assume that any honest editor working on the article would a least take a look to see if the sources are useful, but Floydian failed to even notice. So, based on this encounter, I already was under the assumption that Floydian was trying to promote a fringe POV, and after I pointed it out to him, in this discussion, he, and DHawker, did not do anything to challenge this assumption, but reacted in a way which only increased my suspicion against them. It would have been simple for them to say: *Yes, you're right. The medical use of colloidal silver was discontinued in the 1940s because it can have dangerous side-effects, this is more important for the article than the in-vitro effects of colloidal silver.* , but they didn't. They reacted just as you would expect it from someone who cannot accept the fact that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. Of course, if they cannot accept what reputable academic sources have to say, then it would not make much sense to attempt a discussion with them about the due weight that would have to be given to studies on the in-vitro effects of colloidal silver in the article. That said, I could of course search for more reputable sources on the side-effects of colloidal silver. I would need between 10 and 60 minutes to find the next one, however, this would currently not change anything. Floydian and DHawker have not even attempted yet to find a reputable source for the view that colloidal silver does not have any dangerous side-effects, so I am leading 3:0 anyway; and even if I had more sources, that would not change their attitude. As I said: For a meaningful discussion you need some common ground (which on Misplaced Pages is provided, among other, by wp:rs). Since Floydian and DHawker have openly rejected a discussion of the topic based on Misplaced Pages's common ground, the should not be editing the corresponding article. Zara1709 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Zara. Have you even read the article? The article is FULL of comments about the side effects. Theres a section in the article specifically called 'Adverse Effects'. Most of the 30+ references in the article are about the side effect argyria. No-one could possibly read the article and conclude colloidal silver is harmless. What more do you want? (And this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned) DHawker (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, you have finally conceded that point, and admit that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. So now we can move forward in the discussion, although we would still need to clarify why Floydian felt it necessary to understate these side-effects. I mean, even as purely a skin-discolouration, argyria is certainly not cosmetic and harmless. Here are the quotes from the literature: " All these children will present throughout their lives a conspicuous and permanent bluish or slate-gray discoloration that will select them as objects of whispered comments by friends and strangers." (JAMA); " The physician who has seen even a single victim of full-blown argyrosis, with its typical generalized pigmentation of the skin, giving the patient a bronzed blue or slate color which has been described aptly as the appearance of a corpse suddenly come to life, ..." (Arch Otolaryngol) The author of the second article explicitly says that taking silver-containing nasal medication might result in making you look like a zombie - albeit more poetically. All the medical articles I've read so far contain such dire warnings, some are more, some are less explicit.

Since we now can proceed to discussing the article content - what does the article make of this? If you take a systematic approach to the article colloidal silver, the first big problem is that it does not identify the most reputable sources. Ideally, most articles would have a section "Literature" or "Further Reading"; those sections are provided for the readers, too, of course, but they have an important purpose for editors - they identify the most reputable sources, which one would have to read if one intends to do more work on the article and which are the are needed to structure any discussion on due weight and balancing, in short, on NPOV. Because THESE DISCUSSIONS, to say that again, ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BATTLES BETWEEN EDITORS OF DIFFERENT POVs. The article should follow the most reputable sources in presenting the various POVs, and therefore a discussion on NPOV has to based on reliable sources, too.

After this general justification of our approach, what can we say on the controversy of this case? Let's take a look at this edit, for example. Floydian had removed the mentioning of the adverse side-effects and apparent lack of effectiveness of colloidal silver from the lead section, and Verbal restored it. Considering that the reputable sources I had found all prominently warn against the use of colloidal silver, for its ineffectiveness and dangerous side-effects, it would violate wp:NPOV not to mention this in the lead section, and Vernal was right in restoring the statement. We don't need to discuss the question whether Verbal could have justified his edits better. I think this discussion has given ample evidence to support the view that Floydian is unable to conduct a discussion based on reliable sources, so regardless of the approach Verbal would have taken in the issue, there is no way a meaningful discussion could have been achieved.

Well, it's not my task to come to a decision on this issue. I have good reasons to suspect that Floydian is trying to push a fringe POV, but then again, in my personal experience it takes several months to successfully take down one of this kind - and honestly, I don't have that much time for Misplaced Pages any more. (It was interesting to see, though, that there actually might be a workable strategy to identify these editors.) Seeing that the article is currently unprotected, I think we could try with: *Let's hope that the edit wars on this article don't continue* - if not, there will be another thread on this article on the noticeboards anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus revisited