Misplaced Pages

• The terms of his unban found here may be interesting, and it should be noted that he has been blocked for disruptive comments on RfX in the past. Nathan 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support with regrets for the block. Mentorship isn't a panacea. RMHED can contribute productively when he chooses to, but blanking a civil oppose at an RFA is a direct challenge to how our website operates. This is someone who only recently received a provisional unban. Durova 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He can't choose to if he can't edit now can he? So how can he be unblocked? No since loseing another editor (even if he is disruptive). Can't people change?--Coldplay Expért 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how many chances you're prepared to give; tell me, how many has RMHED had already? Rodhullandemu 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alot less than Vintagekit's. I just thought that something good could come out of this, that's all.--Coldplay Expért 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, and to answer your question at the end there: Fuck no. Şłџğģő 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an RFA candidate with more blocks than him.--Coldplay Expért 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So? Şłџğģő 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

your right, just forget everything I said.--Coldplay Expért 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mine's bigger than yours" is never a valid argument. The person currently at RfA has not exhausted the community's trust in the way RMHED has; tell me, how many of that user's blocks are indefs? Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support He does deserve to get banned, but until the thirst for disruption goes away, he'll just keep on making socks and being a nuisance. Better to just revert everything he does and not feed any drama to his trolling. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that this is an "indefinite until the problem is unlikley to reassert itself" rather than "indef seeking for a ban"?--Tznkai (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, but butting heads with the user will only make him angrier. Better just to not give him the attention he wants. Banning or not banning is irrelevant until that is solved.Doc Quintana (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - To be honest, I am not sure why the BASC unblocked him in the first place. Tiptoety 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough was enough. I wouldn't be opposed to the WP:Standard offer, but the disruptions RHMED has caused both recently and long-term, mean I beleive he needs to stay blocked for at least a while. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Editor is of no value to the project, and far too much time has been exerted discussing his problems. Cut the cord. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support I supported this users second chance and it did not take long to regret it. I was not surprised to see this thread. Chillum 04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• I had a feeling this was coming for quite a while - in fact, I'm surprised this discussion hasn't happened sooner. I'm not sure why ArbCom reversed the community-imposed ban like that - their authority should not override that of the community's in this regard, and a formal appeal should have been applied instead (or was it - either way, his unblock was widely opposed at the time). But that's ultimately beside the point - since his return to active editing, RMHED has done next-to-nothing even remotely helpful to the site (I've checked before), and has instead conducted himself in a manner reminiscent of a jester, making satirical remarks on numerous talk spaces that are often laden with pointy undertones, and are so incoherent that they cannot be taken seriously as anything other than blatant trolling. The only slight redeeming factor in this case is, I actually like his sense of humour. But the fact remains, he has proven that he is not a fit for this site. Misplaced Pages needs editors, it needs vandal fighters, it needs administrators - but it does not need satirizing jesters. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• RMHED has been playing games and hovering on the brink of a block or topic ban for some time. The block is appropriate and should remian in place until there is some acknowledgement of, and commitment to reforming, the issues identified above. He's quite capable of doing that any time and I would obviously support a conditional unblock when suitable assurances are in place. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support. RHMED's latest antics aren't so bad in themselves, but these are just the latest shenanigans in a long history of what is pretty blatant trolling. If RHMED had any point to make I might be a little more forgiving, but causing disruption seems to be the only aim. Not useful to the project, so get rid of him. Lankiveil 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose without date certain RMHED is, at best, "colorful", and certainly can act a bit odd (yes, I saw his work at Daily Mail), but I continue to oppose indefinite blocks as being quite inutile at best, and Drsaconian at worst. Collect (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain As the candidate in one of the recent WP:RFAs that he has targetted (as Mr. Baconfat), I would not want to sound like "sour grapes" towards my first oppose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support perfect example of the dangers of giving too many "last chances". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support As others have mentioned, the latest nonsense isn't so bad in itself, but taken with the rest of RMHED's history, this is a necessary end. Look at all the time and energy spent trying to convince him to behave in a civil manner, all for naught. Sorry, but the net value of his presence here is in the red. —DoRD (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Shared user account with COI issues

User:Etrangere is having issues with a BLP they (yes, plural, he/she and subject of article) created, L. Cedeño, including a possible COI, and personal attacks on another user, claiming that User:Fastily was being a vandal by deleting an image (not certain what image).

At this point, User:Etranger has admitted that they are allowing the subject of the L. Cedeño article to edit the article from User:Etranger's account.

"During the course of the discussion about the article I have been in contact with him and today while going over the issues at hand he entered information through my account that we both thought would alleviate the questions. It would appear that the information (permission to use a photo) created more confusion as it now seems the community believes I am the author and the subject."

A single purpose account has turned up to edit the article, and question why User:Etranger is blanking the article.

Anyway, no specific board or warning for shared accounts, but it seems that an administrator could inform the user of the policy. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FALSE: While it is true that I am having issues with an article that I wrote I have not "attacked" anyone nor am I sharing my account. Any administrator is welcome to log into my account and check. What I was trying to express was - the person who is the subject of the article I was writing was here - at my physical location - and present during the point at which the photo of them came into question with regard to permissions. I asked the person to validate that I had permissions - and they simply typed into the DESCRIPTION area of the photo that they (L. Cedeño) were the person in the photo - and that they created the image and granted rights to use the photo.

As for why I blanked the article? It's because various people have insisted that the article is not in keeping with Wiki policies. I don't think that is the case but I'd like to straighten out this tangle of problems before posting something that has not been cleared.

This is beginning to become a bit of a witch hunt.

Please advise me as to how to resolve this without further problems.

Thanks

Etrangere (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, admins can't do that, so that is out. Etrangere, can you assure us that no one but yourself is using your account or has knowledge of your password?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've listed these two pages authored by Etrangere for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with User

I am having difficulty trying to calm down User talk:Dropmeoff at the article Mestizo, its talk page, and my talk page. He has insulted me, and accused me of many things, while using terms such as "Pro-European racial ideology", "Stormfront.org", etc. I believe we need someone to moderate, because he insists on inserting questionable and sensitive information in the articlres, which is very POV. Thank you for the help. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Building on this thread, I would ask C.Kent87 if User:Chris Iz Cali (consult sockpuppets of C.Kent87) is your new sock puppet because it seems very coincidental that both do very similar issues to increase the percentage of whites in Mexico , manipulation of sources and violating 3rv . Another coincidence is the name of your previous sock puppet User:Cali567 and I presume is his new sock puppet User:Chris Iz Cali, or not?. Ccrazymann (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ccrazyman, you can ask an Admin. to check the IP addresses, and you will see that our IPs are not the same. It is a known strategy to accuse others so that you may continue to vandalize, but really, enough. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Chummer, administrators do not have access to that kind of info; only checkusers do. Having said that, Ccrazyman, either file a SPI about this or shut up about it. —Jeremy 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seems odd to me so much coincidence. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Then file a fragging SPI and stop using AN/I as a surrogate. Most admins here are not gonna be able to help you (especially if you keep spewing accusations); a CU will. Get thee to WP:SPI; stop blathering here. —Jeremy 07:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jéské, would you ever take a chill-pill or something. That's three times in the last few mins on ANI that you've just been downright rude, and esp. to relative newbs. Chill already - Alison 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ccrazymann deserves every bit of it. He's terribly annoying. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that an experienced user and old as Jeremy, react so angrily to a novice user like me, I find it worrying. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He was a little off putting, and is probably regretting it now, but he made a valid suggestion about the SPI thing and where to request a checkuser. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but his reaction only makes inexperienced users away from discussions like this, plus a lack of respect is telling me "stop blathering here". That can take as a personal attack and a clear lack the Civics. Ccrazymann (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but his suggestion is valid. If you've strong suspicions regarding an editor abusively socking, you can gather your evidence and post a case over on WP:SPI for other admins/checkusers to look over - Alison 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get back to the original request (User:Ccrazymann, you may do whatever you'd like elsewhere). C.Kent87 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball

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

Talk page unprotected, then reprotected, email blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs) has contacted me with the request to have his user talk page unprotected. This user was community-banned the other day and then had his talk page locked because he made comments mentioning suicide that led people to think he was mentally unstable. He now wishes to appeal his ban, and while I don't see this as particularly likely to succeed (and I understand the ban appeals subcommittee unblock-en list may already have turned him down), he certainly sounds stable and rational enough that those suicide concerns appear moot, so I see no strong reason to deny him the talk page further.

He being a Greek user I'm not supposed to take action myself, so I'll ask here if anybody would grant him the favour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For the relevant discussions see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 08:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Has he offered any particular justification for unblocking his access to the talk page? In all honesty, this user has come up a lot recently and the community's consensus was pretty strong. No unblock request posted there could reasonably be acted upon by an administrator without at least first deferring to the community, and in that regard perhaps the appropriate course of action would be to open the request here, but I'll say flat out right now I personally see nothing to justify an unbanning simply for temporal reasons. Perhaps a few months from now, but not now. And, while I cannot speak on behalf of the community as a whole, if the community does in fact agree with me that it is too early to consider an unbanning, then I don't see a reason to unblock the talk page either based on the circumstances that led to that event. If there was any rationale on WGB's part, though, I think it should be noted. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way thus far at least six admins/user have received an email with a request to unblock him, what in my eyes is a clear repetition of his previous behaviour and additionally suggests no change in his attitude. As he has done already with his notifications of bureaucrats, I would assume that he intends to sent this email to admins till such time as he has reached his aim. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I have no dog in this fight, obviously; as far as I am concerned anybody is welcome to close this and consider the request denied, if people feel the consensus is clear. My own view is there's little harm in him having the talk page, where he can make requests and argue his case in a transparent way, which would take away the incentive for the e-mail admin shopping. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why there's another checkbox in the block UI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow the talk page access, on the strict understanding that it will be blocked again if the talk page is not used constructively. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As per the discussion at ANI linked to above, I see no reason why this unblocking should be considered for at least a month or two (although probably nearer 6 months). As for the e-mails to admins, I have sent (through Misplaced Pages e-mail user) advice to WGB not to contact any more admins about this, as this will risk the loss of Wiki e-mail rights. I have also suggested that he reads the 'standard offer' carefully - and that a discussion regarding his unblocking will be initiated in time. I have also said that if he continues to contact admins about unblocking, he is risking the block going from indefinite (i.e. with no fixed time set) to infinite. Hopefully he will use common sense and refrain from emailing admins. I would support allowing him his talk page access back - if he is disruptive there again, then he can have it removed again - in which case he also loses access to Misplaced Pages mail as well -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose, for now. The user has been repeatedly explained why his behavior was considered disruptive, yet, he has shown no sign of understanding. The reasoning of the user is that his mistake was to nominate himself at WP:RFA, when it was his attitude after being declined what was really considered disruptive. If he demonstrates an understanding of how the chain of events led to his blocking, I would support unprotecting his talk page. > RUL3R_>vandalism 10:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock of talk page. It is not onerous to allow WGB the opportunity to talk things through with any editor willing to help him understand where he stands and how he can restore his standing with the community, and I don't believe there is any compelling reason this should be done off-wiki. The disruption potential at his own talk page is contained, and talk page access can be removed again at the drop of a hat. MLauba (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know how many people he has contacted via email, as I have also been contacted. However, as he has been blocked and his user talk page protected, I guess that he took this course of action is not unreasonable. Perhaps we should unprotect his user page? Or is there an email address I'm not aware of that we can refer him to? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the unblock-en e-mail list. Apparently he's already tried that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Right then. I'm restricting his on-email wiki access as he already knew about that email address. More examples of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He emailed me as well, before he was asked to stop. He claims he will abide by our 'site policies', but does he understand them? I guess I wouldn't oppose letting him use his talk page to convince us. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He also e-mailed me, received on 18th at 18:22 hrs. System put the e-mail in my spam box . Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I also received an e-mail from him a few days ago. Ucucha 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—why don't we allow him use of his talkpage, but block email access? He's been effectively spamming tens of editors and (I think) most of the bureaucrats about this (talkpage-spammed all the bureaucrats, my mistake), despite being repeatedly turned down. If he has talkpage access, everything's open, so we can withdraw his ability to email. How's that sound? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support talk page unprotection. It will probably be several months before the consensus moves towards unblocking him completely, but I see no harm in restoring his access to his talk page- it's something we allow the most egregious vandals and trolls. Besides, it can be taken away again without any faff. HJMitchell You rang? 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now unprotected WGBs talk page. The e-mail restriction can stay for now. Any abuse of the talk page by WGB and the privilege can be revoked by any admin without further ado. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Going by posts here and on his talk page one can see he's sent, at least, more than half a dozen emails to admins in the last day or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I'm AGFing here - he knows that admins have the tools to unblock him, so as he couldn't leave messages on his talk page, he's contacting admins in the hope that one of them will. Hopefully, he'll read the messages on his talk page and realise that (a) he can post there now; (b) he won't be unblocked in the immediate future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed him to let him know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I had previously blocked access to this page per WP:SUICIDE. No one a) thought to consult me or b) even brought up the reason it was protected. Excellent work, guys. Tan | 39 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you note this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In the protection note and on the talk page, as one normally would. Here. Tan | 39 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that... it looks like Gwen might have accidentally removed your suicide notice. I'm going to reprotect and restore your comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but FPAS mentioned it in the very opening post to this thread, and also mentioned he believe the user to be stable, which very much influenced at least my vote to unblock the talk page. To this otherwise uninvolved administrator, it starts looking like we're playing bureaucratic games with the user. I don't think re-protecting the talk page is warranted at present. MLauba (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Start a straw poll to find consensus that this user is "stable", and I almost guarantee you it will fail. I don't think unprotecting the talk page was warranted. The bureaucratic game was to unprotect the talk page while keeping him blocked and disabling email; what was that for? This situation was handled appropriately until this thread. Tan | 39 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep that page protected. I think we should all cool it - nobody was playing a game over how to deal with this editor, indeed all I see is a desire to be fair towards him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From my communications from him, I also got the impression that the is no longer unstable. Ucucha 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm neutral as to unprotecting the page. I'm not aware of any later threats and I see no need for leaving a link to a suicide counseling service on that talk page (if anything, I think it's unhelpful to both the user and the project). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He has already sent an email to the the unblock address, and was denied. He won't be unblocked, at least not any time soon. I don't think there is a problem here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think blocking + talk page protection + e-mail disabled is an excellent sock knitting system, hence the suggestion to unprotect the talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there consensus to change the block like this in the first place? I don't understand how an admin can change it with just 3 clear supports when there are opposes to it as well. Especially when this comes only about a week after his block and eventual unblock request (which was denied with consensus clearly against it). This is not the same as overturning another admin's decision. A wider discussion should take place before we try to change something that was decided by the community. What's the hurry? ≈ Chamal  ¤ 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Only concern about the suicide threat. As always, I put my actions forward to the general admin community. If they were in error, please feel free to reverse. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ChamalN, there were more supports than opposes when I allowed WGB access to his talk page. I thought I spelled it out clearly enough that allowing such access was a privilege and not a right and that abuse of the talk page would lead to it being re-blocked. If I made an error in my actions I apologise. Even admins can make a mistake! As with all my administrative actions, I'm open to reasonable discussion and persuasion if anyone feels that my action was not correct. I notice from the talk page history that WGB did not edit his talk page before the block was re-imposed. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail from WGB

Here is the latest (you can see my first e-mail to him today, and my reply to his response to that):

-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think WGB's talk page (protected or not) is more fit for this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I can't put anything on WGB's talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What I should have said is, WGB is only forum shopping and trying to keep things stirred up. There's no need to post his emails here, but I know you're being helpful and I'd be startled if anyone thought otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• And here I thought by posting a simple note on his talk page I could avoid yet another long ANI thread in this subject... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

...forum shopping much? -FASTILY 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An old friend?

Something about Seregain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) puts me in mind of an old friend.

• Started a correctly formed AfD with their first edits
• Start a campaign against another editor with only 200 edits under their belt.
• Only 200 edits but has started two AfDs and is clearly well versed in policy and wikipedia debating styles and terms from edit one.
• also does not look like the kind of thing a new user would write within their first 200 edits.

Does anyone kn ow what this user's original account was? I'm not going to believe this is a genuine newbie. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note that, WP:SPI is likely to be the best place for this. NJA (t/c) 09:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bosniak

Bosniak (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

User:Bosniak made a comment in the edit history of an article: "United States resolutions H.199 and S.134: here are both texts so Serb apologist cannot manipulate them anylonger".(Revision as of 02:05, 16 January 2010).

On the talk page of User:Bosniak I asked what (s)he meant.. The reply is uncivil. If this user was not aware of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia there might be some excuse for it, but User:Bosniak is already listed in the Enforcement section. As the attack is against me, I would appreciate it if another administrator would deal with it. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosniak has already been topic banned twice for this. The last one was for 6 months. Maybe another year off is needed? Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be sufficiently straightforward ethno-religious WP:BATTLE conduct that no WP:AE thread is needed. Per WP:ARBMAC#March 2008 - May 2008, Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already indefinitely topicbanned from Kosovo (to which he reacted with ban and block evasion, according to the enforcement log). Impressive block log, too. Unless other admins object, I'll extend that topic ban to all of the Balkans per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. I am also notifying Bosniak of this thread.  Sandstein  12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Three hours after closing time at the last chance saloon, the trusty janitor pointedly coughs as he sweeps round the last drunk.... Guy (Help!) 23:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Because of his continued, long-term misuse of Misplaced Pages for advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, which is prohibited (WP:ARBMAC#Purpose of Misplaced Pages), Bosniak (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely banned, under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, from the topic of the Balkans, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, this ban covers edits to all pages, discussions and other content related to the topic (such as Balkans-related content in pages that are not themselves related to the Balkans). He is also reminded that any infringement of that ban, or any continued disruptive behavior, may lead to an indefinite block without further warning. This sanction may be appealed as described at WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  06:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:David Steele Searacer

User:David Steele Searacer seems determined to create an article about himself. He has created David Steele (Searacer) and David Steele Searacer, both of which have been deleted, and has now created David Steele Searacer again. However, this is not the reason why I am posting here. He has repeatedly moved his user talk elsewhere: first he moved it to David Steele (Searacer), and I copied the material back to User talk:David Steele Searacer. Now he has moved User talk:David Steele Searacer to Talk:David Steele Searacer. I believe it is important for the history of the user talk page to remain intact, because it contains a record of warnings and other messages which may be relevant in future considerations of this editor's behaviour. I can, of course, simply copy the material back to his user talk page, as I did before. However, I see two reasons why this would not be a perfect solution: (1) it would not maintain the proper history, and (2) since he has now moved his user talk page twice it looks as though he may be prepared to continue to do so, and a futile edit war over this issue would not be desirable. I wonder whether it is possible for an administrator to restore the full edit history of the user talk page, and there may also be a point in someone other than me contacting the editor and explaining why moving his user talk page in this way is problematic. I have done my best, but to no avail. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I now see that User:Redvers has merged Talk:David Steele Searacer back to User talk:David Steele Searacer. Whether this was done in response to my post above or independently I cannot tell, but anyway it is done. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a result of your post. I've also move-protected his userpage to stop him making an article of it again, in the hope of avoiding biting him. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Thehairybananasling on Obama bio

This user (a troll?) posted this. . Can something be done to prevent this person from doing it again? Thanks. Malke2010 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference the correct name is Thehairybananasling (talk · contribs). I had already reverted and given this user a level 2 vandalism warning with an additional note about altering peoples talk page posts. As it's the only contribution i'm not sure that additional steps need to be taken unless more contributions follow.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, Thanks, Malke2010 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the Obama article along with its talk page under protection from vandals?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like protection is off. Can someone put it back if so?Malke2010 16:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, the talk page is not. This edit was to the talk page. Protecting the talk page completely cuts off even good faith input by non-confirmed editors and shouldn't be done lightly.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama is semi-protected, which prevents edits by new and unregistered users. The talk page is not protected, nor should it be unless it is vandalized extremely often.  Sandstein  16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::See that, very good, Danke.Malke2010 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hairy banana sling is probably a username violation, this is almost certainly not an account on which to expend too much effort before blocking. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Did not know about user name vios. Good point. I do feel that anyone coming on saying such things is demonstrating that he/she does not wish to be part of the wikipedia community and should be shown the door, but this is a process.Malke2010 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Probably at least borderline. Just to be clear I have no expectations of watching FA's flow out of this account. I'm also not sure it's any different then the dozens of other one time vandal accounts that pop up weekly.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if s/he comes back, then could it be blocked? Because, presumably the block is for that computer/IP where the edits are coming from?Malke2010 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikal

Hi there. There is an ongoing dispute over at Mikal, which appears to be the name of two separate musicians--one from the U.S., and the other from the UK. Editors are fully replacing content in favour of one musician or the other. The most recent articles for both are: UK and US. Both of these articles have notability issues. In order to address both of them, some disambig is in order, but I think it goes beyond my capabilities as an editor. My best guess for a solution is to create a redirect from Mikal to Mikal (disambiguation), and create Mikal (American musician) and Mikal (UK musician) with appropriate content and edit histories. Thanks, Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... This will need some work to split into separate articles, but the disambig need not be that complicated. Since the UK article was created first, I think that should be under the main title. Notability and sourcing can be addressed when the waters have cleared somewhat. Rodhullandemu 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I hadn't realised there was another Mikal - Michael Gurry, so have created the DAB page accordingly. I'll take a look at the content. No further admin action required here. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption at Public image of Barack Obama

There has been some IP-based disruption going on at Public image of Barack Obama over the last few days. Various soap-boxy edits have been made to this article (and one or two loosely related articles) by the following IPs (listed with example diffs):

• 76.66.192.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff1, diff2
• 76.66.195.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff1, diff2, diff3
• 76.66.201.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - diff1 (copies edits of other IPs), diff2 (and again)

It seems clear that these IPs are related. What would be the best course of action? Is semi-protection of the article the way to go, or should I bring this up at WP:SPI? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they're all Bell Canada addresses, it appears likely that they're the same person, so I'm not sure what else could be done at SPI. SProt, on the other hand, would hopefully stop it long enough for them to get bored with it. —DoRD (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Public image of Barack Obama semi-protected for a week. -FASTILY 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just realized it's going to be a loooong week, though. —DoRD (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with userpage

Closing Discussion for obvious reasons. -FASTILY 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi, a user named Blackmagic1234 (talk · contribs) that used to be my friend in real life posted about me on his userpage in the enemies section. Even though he put the initials R.S., I know that it is me because my name has the initials R.S. and though he won't speak to me about it, I find this offensive since he posted this on here. I hope that something can be done about this, please have him remove it, as it is offenseive. Queen_kitten 17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen kitten (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages is defiantly not the right place for this user to list their "enemies". I'll ask them to remove the section from their user page. Best, - Kingpin (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No need, I've removed the offending section. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackmagic1234 has been informed of this thread. I can understand Queen kitten not notifying him in this case. The offending material has been removed and Blackmagic1234 has been warned not to reinsert it. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* I had just written out a message but got an edit conflict :D. I'd kinda hoped that Blackmagic would remove the section them self, but we'll see how this goes I guess. Thanks for dealing with the PA Mjroots :) - Kingpin (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't matter I'm through with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagic1234 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. Warning has been removed, which means it has been read and understood. No further action required unless offence is repeated. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(un-marking as resolved) Can a CheckUser make a run through these two accounts? I have a feeling a certain banned user is trying to disrupt again. –MuZemike 18:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

why don't you usercheck Queen kitten And RubyGloomFan >.> oh wait add 142.162.12.185 to that to <.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagic1234 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the account RubyGloomFan since I was going to start using that one. For some reason I started to have a stalker on here(a user that I didn't know)reverting my edits, so I was going to make another account. Also Discussion pages for articles are about the articles, not when the show will end. And while we're on the topic of Sockpuppets, why don't you usercheck Blackmagic1234 and Higgys? Higgys was an account created back in May that attacked an old account I had(Kagome_77), and the user said stuff only Blackmagic1234 would know about. I have had to make and get rid of a few accounts for issues like this, and I'm sick of it. I stopped editing Misplaced Pages for a couple of months, and came back and started only editing a few articles, not as many as I was editing. I am officially sick of the garbage that has been going on here. Not only is there harassment in real life, but also on THIS SITE of all places. This is ridiculous. Queen_kitten 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen kitten (talk • contribs)

Don't bother checkuser. I'm FINISHED with this site. It's users like Blackmagic1234 that make me sick. On an old account I had, I was harassed by someone that didn't even know me, named Soul Phire. I had quit for a while because I didn't realize that I could report them for "hounding." What made it even worse, AussieLegend started a discussion on me on Soul Phire's page saying how I don't disucss edits with other users. I was not asked to, so why should I have? Anyway, it's because of this crap that I'm officially done. Congratulations, Blackmagic1234, you have just put the icing on the cake of my decision to quit here for good. Why don't you take a bow. Queen_kitten 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen kitten (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Banned user returns?

A newly created account, HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is posting personal attacks against other editors on Talk:Neil Gaiman. The language and conduct of this editor is identical to that of an indefinitely blocked account, EchoofReason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which turned out to be a sock of a banned editor ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Block review, sockpuppet? for previous discussions on this user. I recommend blocking HomolkaTheAllKnowing and doing a checkuser run on the account, as per the previous discussion, since this user has had a habit of abusing multiple accounts. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, that's a pretty blatant sock-puppeting. You would think after several bans he would've figured out that his 'DO NO HARM' verbal tic would be something to suppress. --Gwern (contribs) 18:18 19 January 2010 (GMT)

You had it posted here before I saw any of the discussion, but I agree it seems pretty obvious. Has a new SPI case been opened, or is it just here? Having run afoul of him before, I hesitate to step in here. LadyofShalott 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's so obvious I didn't think it was worth filing an SPI case. This should be a block on sight case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And the sockpuppet has now confirmed that it's ColScott again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probios and hoax article strumus

Probios (talk · contribs) has created a new article called strumus, which purports to be about a part of the brain. As a neuroscientist, it was immediately obvious to me that the article is a hoax -- in addition to the "strumus", which does not exist, the article describes several other structures that don't exist, such as the "effluvium" and "trivium". I prodded the article and chastised the editor, who responded by removing the prod and claiming that a certain anatomy book describes these things. I don't have access to that book, but it doesn't really matter, none of this stuff exists. Probios has been around since 2007 but edits rarely; his talk page shows a history of vandalism and creation of bogus articles. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest immediate indefblock or permaban. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- First of all, I have done a shitload of work for wiki (en. and fi.), although I haven't always been logged in so that some others could see this. Second, I'm also a neuroscientist and I do have this book about the human brain that describes this region at its glossary, check it if in doubt. The book has been reviewed and according to it, did not have flawed information.
Third, my record of "vandalism" is based on an article about a black metal artist that -according to the first rumors that circulated @ IRC- was declared dead. I added this to wiki (erroneously?) thinking that a rapid response to events would be better than a slow and more certain one, even though it would be proven wrong at a later time point because this erroneous information would in that case exist only for a short period of time. If this would be proven to be the case -I thought- I would delete my edition. Before I had the time to do this, it was deleted by a black metal fan who gave me the "last warning". I have thereafter learned my lesson and refrained from updating wiki this way. OK, then the "bogus articles"... First one was about a physical theory that had hundreds of references at the journal of chaos, solitons and fractals. While the theory was new and suspiciously revolutionary (making the inventor a star at Egypt), I thought that it needed to be mentioned @ wiki. It was only later when the inventor of this theory was discredited as being the chief editor at the same journal and thus got his articles through without peer-review. However I still think that E-infinity theory should be mentioned here since there will be hundreds of future researchers who will be looking at these articles and should have a wiki-article to refer to. It should discredit the inventor but cite the ideas with the articles so that one could try to seek useful leads. The second "bogus article" was about a fictional virus during the H5N1 outbreak. It clearly stated that the virus in question was fictional and nothing else. I made it after a google search which revealed that some people believed the virus to be real. I just wanted to ease their stress by giving the facts.
Bottom line is that -according to a legitimate and accurate neuroscience book that I cited- strumus is a real, rarely mentioned region in the primate brain and that I edit wiki with only benevolent wishes. If Looie496 doesn't know about this region, he should read more and try to delete less. I hope this was enough to clear my record and prove that the article about strumus should not be deleted. Probios (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- Update: the article has been deleted by Mjroots (details below). I propose that he would be corrected for this and the article restored, if possible. I can also write it again if I will be guaranteed that this ignorant act will not happen again. Strumus is so rarely mentioned in the literature nowadays that the wiki article could prove to be the only source of information about this possibly important structure of the human brain that is related to higher cortical functions.Probios (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
19:08, 19 January 2010 Mjroots (talk | contribs) deleted "Strumus" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax)

Probios has asked that the article be undeleted (I deleted it as a hoax). A Yahoo search for "strumus" + "brain" doesn't produce much to support the article being genuine. If any other admin thinks the article should be undeleted or userfied then I've no objection. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Probios's statement of intention to recreate the article, should the title be salted to prevent this while we deal with the issue? Alternative is to undelete and then AfD the article, salting if consensus is to delete. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The index of the fourth edition of the Nolte book that Probios claims to be his source is avaliable for view at Amazon (click on the cover image), and, contrary to Probios's assertion, there is no entry "Strumus" in that index. (Nor is there an entry for "effluvium" or "trivium".) Deor (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I claimed that the source would be the 6th edition @ the article. Also, I mentioned "glossary", not "index". Surely you understand the difference? If "yes", what's the problem, Deor? I have the 5th edition at my lap. Strumus can be found at the page 625.Probios (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that a word would be entered in the glossary and excluded from the index, since textbooks' glossaries normally include only words used in the body of the texts themselves, which would as a matter of course be indexed as well. I also find it hard to believe that the fourth and sixth editions differ so substantially. But as this is the administrators' noticeboard, I'll leave the matter to them. Deor (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- I wouldn't add the article before it is approved. I think it should be undeleted since this talk is still ongoing. You were too hasty, Mjroots. Please refer to the actual reference for the actual proof. Probios (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probius, it sounds to me like you need to stop creating articles on the basis of hearsay or single sources. Wait until you've got coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources before starting an article - and don't declare people dead because "I heard it on IRC". Try re-reading WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Fences&Windows 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, nice that you cared to join in and oppose the article and make me look ridiculous. As I said earlier, I have learned my lesson. Also, you shouldn't start to talk about things that you don't even know. I assume that you didn't have the time to check the validity of the information stated at the article before it got deleted. Probios (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- I have now sent an email to John Nolte, the author of the book that I cited. I also gave him a link to this discussion. Please restore the article for now and wait a while. Probios (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The really curious thing is that Probios has actually made a number of useful and perfectly correct edits to neuroscience articles over the months. It's unusual for a good editor to go off the rails like this; I don't understand it. But one way or another, there's no doubt that the "strumus" article was bogus from top to bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looie496 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to put in a word in Probios's defense here. A hoax is a deliberate attempt at creating misinformation on Misplaced Pages. I don't think Probios did this, I think this was "jumping the gun" and writing an article based on a single source. It's just a mistake, and I don't want Probios to think that we're ganging up on him for it. On the other hand, I don't know what good the author of the book will do for us. Another source for the info is what we'd want, not more from the original source. -- Atama頭 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no intentions to write bogus articles, or any misinformation for that matter. I really do believe that John Nolte wrote about an existing brain structure, even though it is not mentioned in the internet (excluding a Spanish translation of the glossary at a textbook). One possibility for this lack of info is that the structure has an alternative name, for example something that is not in Latin. Other reasons could be that the structure is included into some nearby region or is just so small and so obscure by function that it hasn't been studied much. If the article would be restored for a while, I could try to get Nolte to add his references to it, or give them to me. Active researchers usually reply within a day if the question is relevant and needs an answer. I think he could feel that it is his duty as the writer to straighten this fact out, but the references can be a hard to collect (as I feel as an owner of some 10000+ articles). Therefore, I anticipate that this question about the validity of the article would be resolved within a week or so; if not, I would not object the deletion of the article. Probios (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this continues to get weirder. I finally found the term, using Google Books, in a Spanish translation of the Nolte book. My Spanish isn't quite good enough to let me pin down the part of the brain in question, though -- but I'll keep trying. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(multiple ec) This is a very odd circumstance. Looking at the deleted article, my immediate instinct (as a biologist with an interest in neurological disorders) was that it was a well-written hoax. (Trivium? Part of the brain? Really? Cute.) On further investigation, Fences and Windows has found a putative Spanish translation of the textbook in question, which seems to actually contain exactly the content indicated: Google Books link. While my Spanish is quite rough, it is readily apparent that our article and that Spanish translation came from identically-worded sources. In other words, it is possible that this article is not a hoax, and is instead a word-for-word copyright violation. Either way, of course, Probios has some explaining to do.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no English-language source with employs these terms in the context of the brain anywhere in the scientific literature. For that matter, I can't find any other sources in any language which use these terms for portions of brain anatomy. Someone somewhere has screwed up badly, but I really can't tease out where. I would be very hesitant to recreate this article (with any content) unless it can be sourced more thoroughly than this. I am also inclined, unfortunately, to recommend a more thorough examination of Probios' contributions, as it would appear that the content here was not his own work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can add that I had a look into the German medical dictionaries of my sister and found neither of the two terms, so if they're not hoaxes, they only could be local translations. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that it is a back-translation from the Spanish version, keeping all the Spanish terminology. Unfortunately the part of the brain in question is very complicated, and I can't quite figure out exactly what the "strumus" is supposed to be. Looie496 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- OK, I got an answer from Nolte:
Sorry to have gotten you into this heated conversation, but strumus, effluvium, and trivium are all lame attempts at neuroanatomical humor. Most readers don't notice the strumus, but once a year or so I get an email from a medical student someplace in the world asking about it.
I added the text at almost word-for-word accuracy as it seemed so strange, I didn't find any information about it, and yet it existed at the glossary of a respected neuroscience book. I'm sorry that I took your time.
You can search my other texts for copyright violations all you want. The only time I have copy-pasted stuff was when I included (and cited) info about the inventor of E-infinity theory from his own page, and this has been deleted long ago. Probios (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So, it appears that this is indeed a hoax, not perpetrated by Probios, but upon Probios. —DoRD (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Urghh. I think Nolte deserves a good trouting for this one. Glad it's finally cleared up, though. Trying to make sense of the Spanish was driving me crazy -- the location it seemed to be describing for the strumus doesn't contain anything except empty space. Looie496 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Nolte trouting, but I suggest that Probios is also in need of the same treatment. Probios, you are strongly cautioned to not create or change articles in the future unless you have verifiable sources. Okay? —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Suaveart redux

User agreed to mentorship, but has apparently not taken it very seriously and continues to be disruptive.

SA continues to violate the WP:NPA policy:

• here, in which he apparently uses a crystal ball or some kind of mind-reading to determine my motivations for a deletion nomination, points out my religious beliefs for no good reason than to assume bad faith, once again brings up my first edit as if something sinister about my editing can be gleaned from it, blatantly lies about my editing of the Ken Ham article, and uses the edit summary "bad faith AFD started by evangelical POV pusher."
• here, in which he uses scare quotes to not-so-subtly imply that I am not a "True Editor."
• here, in which he again attacks my religious beliefs and uses them to imply my editing has some sort of sinister bent.

Note: SA has engaged in these personal attacks against editors based upon their religious beliefs for weeks.

SA improperly removed my comments to an AfD discussion:

• here, with the summary of "rvmd disruptive, libelous comment with doesn't belong in AFD and is unverified"
• here, with the edit summary of "rmvd inappropriate comment - Jack Chick's "Christian Porn" is totally irrelevent to this AFD" (note that the edit also conveniently deletes a personal attack)

All while engaging in his own inappropriate, disruptive and libelous comments, ironically enough.

SA edits improperly:

• here, in which his edits had to be reverted for violating WP:RS (and he subsequently called it a "mistake")
• here, in which he continues to insist on re-inserting material irrelevant to a person's biography

SA has recently made a habit of targeting my edits recently under the guise of "fighting evangelical Christian fundamentalist spam" or whatever he calls it to give himself carte blanche to violate whatever guidelines and policies he wishes. I supported SA's mentorship and hoped he'd take it to heart, but that apparently isn't going to happen, particularly in light of these recent edits. SA has a serious chip on his shoulder that affects his edits here. Seregain (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive had my own run-ins with SA in the past. He has continuously nominated Userboxes for deletion in bad faith. And attacking those who vote "keep".--Coldplay Expért 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue dude. Your definition of "bad faith" is that if the AFDs failed, than I must have made them in bad faith (or else they would have succeeded). That's absurd. AFDs fail all the time - that doesn't mean that every one of them was started with some "sekret agenda", it just means that the voters disagreed with me, and I respect that.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you saw the last AN/I about him, you'll know his likely response to this one will be pages of attacks against myself instead of actually addressing his own behavior. Seregain (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The above posts are incorrect (as I explained in the earlier incident Seregain started) and are so juvenile that I'm not going to comment on them again.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have tried to assume good faith with SA's edits, but now that is kind of difficult to do, especially in light of things like this. Seregain (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• This from an editor who has fewer than 200 edits, and managed a well-formed AFD with his first three. Duck, anyone? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. At this point he seems to be a WikiStalker with an evanglical Christian agenda. Here's a list of suspicious edits by Seregain that imply a fundamentalist Christian agenda (there have been others since then too, including his crazy AFD for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible).

Please do not throw around terms like "WikiStalker." That's a personal attack. Really, you need to back off. You were close to being blocked for this behavior before. Auntie E. (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not the one posting at length on other websites about people's behavior here. Seregain (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is WP:EDITCOUNT a policy now? (Woah! That actually led somewhere. I had no idea when I typed it.) Anyway, AfD is a pretty simple process with clearly written instructions. Cutting and pasting is not difficult. Seregain (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New issue: SA has more than once deleted others' good faith and relevant contributions and replaced them with his own. An example is here. Seregain (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And then there's this, which has left me simply speechless. Seregain (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion at article talk

an experienced editor, User: William M. Connolley is continually removing article talk page comments which relate to his conduct at that page. his removals of other editors' comments do not seem warranted. have no justification whatsoever. he has been warned repeatedly regarding his adherence to WP:CIVIL. please see this talk page diff. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

additional note: the deletion may have had good-faith reasons, as he was deleting his own comment as well. however i have restored another editor's comment there, so perhaps some outside review might be useful just to provide some objective advice. he has also repeatedly removed my comments from his own talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, per WP:UP#CMT it is perfectly acceptable for users to remove comments from their own talk page. Also, William M. Connolley has now been notified of this thread. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• This was article talk where William had been requested to remove his own response to an unhelpful comment – Sm8900 undid the removal without giving any reason in the edit summary, so I undid that edit with the comment "unexplained restoration of contentious and apparently offtopic discussion". The statement "i have restored another editor's comment there" is misleading, as the restoration included William's comments which he had been requested to delete, with a strike through and additional comment. Per WP:TPO it can be in order to remove disruptive comments, though usually it's better to archive them. As the request to delete was to remove a contentious statement, I've compromised by redacting William M. Connolley's own remark, and suggest that the others consider removing their remarks. Telling someone to shut up after they write "please tell me to "shut up"." is rising to the bait and inappropriate, getting those who made them to remove the provocative remarks now that the response has been removed seems worthwhile. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate dave souza's response. I would just like to mention that his summation of the situation, though it may seem a bit convoluted at first glance, is actually a very comprehensive and accurate review of the facts. thanks for your willingness to address this matter, and to diligently review all of the facts relating to it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious concerns about User:J.delanoy

This user has apparently gone mad and is out of control on very random blocking sprees. For instance, in just the last few days alone, he has blocked countless accounts as "sockpuppets" of the same user. I see these bulk "checkuser blocks" very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons:

1. Some of these accounts haven't edited in a month or more. 2. Many of these accounts suggest very diverse editing styles. 3. The compilation of "sockpuppets" mixes in sets of vandal accounts (ie. Red Pistons Force), with accounts that have made less than three unconstrucutive edits, with accounts that have been around for almost a year and even accounts that in only very few edits have shown nothing but good faith for the project:

Special:Contributions/Classic_Clock Special:Contributions/Prince_of_English13

And then a user only a month old that has made hundreds of good edits and has created more articles in a matter of a week or two than most long-time users EVER do. 2 of those articles featured on the main page this month as DYKs:

Special:Contributions/Domestic_Cat

To be honest, whatever the checkuser says, a bit more common sense would seem critical here. Am I the only one who thinks this looks more like a random collection of accounts (despite the quacking of the RPF accounts with each other, that suggest no link to the master) that J.delanoy has just gone "ready, aim, fire" to than a legitimate category of sockpuppets? Many of these accounts are just far too diverse to be linked to each other.

And then there's even more problems. For instance, he takes the liberty to block a good faith contributor as a sockpuppet of MacotGuy:

01:49, 19 January 2010 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) blocked Baseball1015 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: MascotGuy)

The user had to request unblock to get unblocked as a blantantly unrelated account. J.delanoy did later unblock the user, but only after other administrators realised what he was doing. Now, yet another innocent victim has the a J.delanoy block log stain. Who's next?

A third issue is his dishonesty. He knew exactly who [http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:J.delanoy#Any_connection_to_... User:Blocky cuzco] was and when his lying was exposed he reverted as vandlaism possibly to cover up his actions.

Even assuming good faith there is just too much going on here to ignore. Note that this is merely a few selected examples of his recent behavoir. Soemthing must be done..--219.89.10.35 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I smell someone on a mission here, and it's not Delanoy. Nevermind; I've read some of the history here. Nevertheless, you still appear to have an axe to grind against Jdelanoy given all your comments above; would you rather a different CheckUser run you down this time? —Jeremy 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I smell a blocked sockpuppet... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As winter progresses, we see that not all of the ducks have flown south. -- Atama頭 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I do smell a sock; however his comment about unblocking a user he initially hit thru a sockblock is indeed correct (though it can be chalked up to false-positives). Plaxico strikes again; there isn't anything actionable here even if complainant wasn't J.Delanoy's stalker. —Jeremy 20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Diicbtv2otwtdod23

This one is on a page move vandalism spree with threats against an editors family. Needs blocked and the pages returned to their proper places. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've voablocked this vandal - but would appreciate some assistance in undoing his vandalism. The redirects needs unpicking. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done the honors of revoking tp and email - I've seen this git before, and am about ready to ask for a community ban for him. —Jeremy 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the LeeD vandal who apparently got autoconfirmed on purpose to do what he did. I asked J.delanoy for a checkuser to see if he is on a new IP range. Currently 3 of his ranges are on a long term block. I believe the actual user is ScienceGolfFanatic but not 100% sure. Momo san 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone threatening "Tewapack" is virtually guaranteed to be ScienceGolfFanatic unless he's got friends working with him now. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Filter 273, LeeD Vandalism may need to be updated as well to reflect the edits made. Momo san 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have adapted filter 273 to account for this. Please let me know if there's anything still being missed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually saw this as it was happening because I have several of the pages that were vandalized on my watchlist. He was already blocked before I was able to send a report to AIV, so my response was to look at the unusual sequence of early edits to his own userpage to see what they were and why he made them. It looks like he was trying to evade Filter 72, so I spent quite some time looking at 72 to see what possible changes could be made. However I can't see any easy changes to make other than to raise the limit even higher, which might be controversial. I agree with your changes to 273. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

something that bears watching

Keanu217 (talk · contribs) looks like a spam account for 'Cheap Food for Hard Times' - I already reverted where it replaced the content on the doc pages for {{infobox}}, but I suspect it will try elsewhere and may start spawning new accounts. may need some looking into. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him and deleted his talk page as G11; as soon as I revert what remains of his still-standing promo edits I will place the spamblock template on his page. —Jeremy 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker takes a swipe at Misplaced Pages

A few days ago, someone from The New Yorker left a message on my talk page asking me for an interview regarding BLPs (specifically concerning Neil Gaiman, on which I had been involved about a year ago). I see that The New Yorker has now published a cover story on Gaiman - a major biographical profile - which includes the comment: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Misplaced Pages page by the site’s editors." Looking at the page history, it seems that The New Yorker's comment is well-founded - two editors appear to be trying to WP:OWN the article are going against the consensus on the talk page by reverting out even new material cited to The New Yorker. The reasons for doing so appear to be very dubious - for instance, arguing that The New Yorker is a tabloid (!) This really doesn't reflect well on Misplaced Pages and being highlighted in a cover story is an embarrassment to the project. The issue has been raised on WP:BLPN#Neil Gaiman, which is how I found out about it. However I think, given the adverse press commentary, that the article would benefit from the involvement of the experienced editors here. (For the record, I'm not involved in the current discussion on Talk:Neil Gaiman#Scientology.) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors mentioned I don't see how one reverting a change I thought breached BLP, giving reasons in the edit summary, followed by lengthier reasons given immediately in talk, or any of my other contributions in that thread, means I have ownership issues. --JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll refactor that; although it does give the impression of ownership, I accept that you were acting in good faith. But I suggest that you should work with the other editors on the talk page to find a way to include the information rather than just reverting it out of the article on what seem to me to be very dubious grounds. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the single sentence in the New Yorker article which references Misplaced Pages: "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Misplaced Pages page by the site’s editors". I don't see that as a "swipe" taken at anyone. Although it does not make Misplaced Pages look good, it appears to be accurate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's accurate. My point is that the fact that it's accurate looks bad for us. I don't think it's been handled well, frankly, hence my request for input here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

While this may be an interesting tidbit, I don't see any need for admin intervention. —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is well in hand now. I'll mark it as resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavian issues on railway articles

edit warring between 2 or more users with no basis in the actual subject (railways) - but seemingly based upon nationalist conflicts. One of the editors self reported the issue here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#serious_problem. This issue has nothing to do with wikiprojectrailways, and clearly both editors are not working right - I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other.

The primary editors involved are User:LAz17 and User:Ex13. Shortfatlad (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. LAz17 has had big trouble with permanent conflict and personal attacks over a different issue, and I had to topic-ban him under WP:ARBMAC from certain issues recently. Hoped to keep him out of trouble but that doesn't seem to have worked out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion in the past... Template talk:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia. I assumed that it was closed and let it be. Then after some time user ex13 reopened the can of worms.

Shortfatlad proposed the idea that both templates be used - I suppose that this can be a simple solution. User ex13 has had a problem with this though - but that was in the framework of the discussion of "this one or that one", and he was against that one.

FPaS, I do not believe that there are any personal attacks going on right now. User ex13 has been previously banned on wikipedia and from what I understand, he has given user Direktor much grief. User Direktor in particular is important in this issue as he was involved from the beginning - and he was on my side.

This issue however should not be difficult at all to fix. And your words describe me as if I am some sort of animal??!? (LAz17 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

FPaS, I went to look for mediation to help in the dispute. I saw that the dispute will go nowhere with me and him. Therefore I seeked help. I wanted this resolved. Why do you think that I am some sort of troll? If I was interested in edit-warring I would not have seeked help. As for Shortfatlad, I strongly condemn how you worded this - on the wiki rail project I asked for help. Hence I am looking for solutions in order to stop the issue. (LAz17 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

But... I often see such disputes going off with totally unnecessary nonsense talk. My experience with the maps was that I was led to believe that one map has to be deleted, not that "the better one replaces the poorer one". So, lets cut down on the these unnecessary stuff and get to the points.

1) I made a Yugoslav Urban Rail Article, which Direktor helped improve.

2) In response, nationalist croat, user ex13, created a croatia tram thing and decided that the thing to do would be to replace the yugoslav rail template with it.

so... what now? I find it bothering that ex13 has a problem with the yugoslav rail one. I think that the solution would be to redirect his croat tram, or to have both as shortfatlad suggested. If there are other possibilities please bring them up. If there are other ideas please bring them up. How hard can it be to resolve this simple issue? This is probably as simple as simplicity gets, no? (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).

The solution would be to have both templates. Both do what they say on the tin. {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} covers all countries which formerly made up Yugoslavia, {{Trams in Croatia}} covers tram in modern Croatia. LAz17 - there are no nationalist Croats on Misplaced Pages, only editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BjörnBergman

BjörnBergman (talk · contribs) got blocked indefinitely for discussing (in Swedish, on his talk page) his 24-hour block on Misplaced Pages, as well as Swedish Misplaced Pages. He really would like his block removed and given a new chance to contribute to Misplaced Pages. My recommendation is that he is given the chance to do so. --Petter (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It would probably have been best to simply ask the blocking admin, Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who I've notified). –xeno 22:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to ask Theresa the same thing when I saw the notice on the Talk page. GameOn (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I'll do the unblock. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request an administrator intervention and assistance in editing of wp: Family Foundation School

Moved here from WT:AN —DoRD (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a continued issue on the "Family Foundation School" wikipedia article, generally surrounding negative issues that surround the school. Some of the editors have voiced their opinions that negative information about the school is not relevant to the article, but some other editors have voiced their opinion that allegations of abuse and the youth rights activism surrounding the school, specifically the abuse allegations, are necessary and relevant content that should be included in the article. Please have a neutral administrator review this article and mediate this article's content.

Thank you Flyboi9 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you probably meant this for wp:ANI, which would also not have been the correct venue. You already have a neutral administrator trying to help you Orlady (talk · contribs), and a neutral (though I confess annoying) editor, me, trying to help you. I have suggested wp:ELN and wp:RfC as avenues to gather support for your position, or guidance, or both. wp:dispute resolution is another good document.- Sinneed 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JCRB

User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see , this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here , ending here ) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to observe user behavior

User:Valkyrie Red has been a persistent problem on Battle of Gettysburg. User's contributions are limited to debating and edit warring on the subjects of casualties and the insertion of the adjective "decisive" into the infobox results parameter. (Tonight, he's deleting cited material from Turning point of the American Civil War.) Established and respected User:Hlj has tried beyond patience to deal firmly and correctly with this user, but I'm running out of good faith with this determined page disruptor. In the past, I've called on User:Gwen Gale and User:Juliancolton as uninvolved admins. I'm asking for a fresh set of eyes to help observe my own biases in this process. BusterD (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible socks

CaitlinQuinn1 (talk · contribs), Jibbyjaba (talk · contribs) and Bianca7479 (talk · contribs) are all SPAs that seem focused on rehabilitating the public image of Pit Bulls (see also List of people killed by dogs in the United States). All three accounts were created in the space of a few days and have only edited the two articles. Seems pretty duck-like to me. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant vandalism from an individual on AT&T IPs

For the past month I have been dealing with an IP user who has constantly been removing all references from a series of articles I edit on a regular basis. I have reverted these every time but because the IPs are only related through the ISP (AT&T) and data center (Hayward, California) there cannot be a range block put in place. The following IPs have all been used by this individual, with the first one (and the case name) being the one used within the past hour.

• 75.36.129.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.202.57.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.200.101.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.204.77.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.205.26.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.205.24.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.204.79.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I never get results when I contact WP:ABUSE, and very often my reports to AIV get dismissed because I don't bother leaving a warning in these cases (I seriously do not expect IP editors to bother checking the talk page nor one that has been doing this to do anything in those regards).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

False information on Scott Brown article (Senator)

Massachusetts senator Scott Brown's article is the target of some well meaninged but technical vandalism. They keep calling him Senator-elect. He is not. He is just the presumed winner and has been declared the winner by news organizations. However, the election is not certified. We can say multiple news organizations have declared him the winner but we cannot say he is the winner without using a crystal ball.

If Misplaced Pages was around in 1948, Misplaced Pages would have said that President Truman lost the election. Jimbo Wales said that we must get it right. Saying someone is the winner based on a very good hunch is not good enough. JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Coakley has called and conceded, so I have no reason to not call him senator-elect, or if you want, presumed senator-elect. SirFozzie (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

, JB50000, that is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:SELFREF, please do not insert material such as that in the future. MBisanz 04:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, MBisanz but it was a genuine effort to get it right. Coakley is not the election commissioner. There have been a few cases that the loser was so sore that he or she refused to call and concede. JB50000 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in any case, it is not vandalism to note the election results that have been reported, nor is it productive to call it vandalism. If you have an issue with the particular contents of Scott Brown, then Talk:Scott Brown is the place to raise those issues - not here. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

But bringing it here has gotten the article fixed. We now are reporting it correctly. I did not call it vandalism. I called it technical vandalism (not the same) and also said that people have good intentions but are putting predictions and stating them as fact. JB50000 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, the Content noticeboard and BLP noticeboard are intended for raising issues like this. Don't feed the admins content issues, it only encourages them.  Skomorokh  04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

Rdm2376 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) this past hour has started mass-deleting articles with the rationale "Unwatched and unsourced biography that has not been edited for at least 6 months". He continued even after two of asked him to pause until the community has a chance to discuss his actions. Finally he paused after I pointed out to him that one of his deletions was in error. Thoughts? In my opinion the deletions ought to be undone, as they are not in keeping with our current deletion policy and many of the articles can potentially be improved. Paul Erik 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to delete biographies of living people that are unsourced and unmaintained. They're ticking time bombs as people can insert harmful content that has very real consequences. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You would support undeleting unsourced biographies of living people? For all intents and purposes, that is the same as creating an unsourced BLP. NW (Talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This method of deletion is blatantly out-of-process, but really it's our only option. What else are we going to do with the hordes of unsourced, stale, and marginally notable BLPs? This has to happen eventually IMO. –Juliancolton |  05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not our only option. We have a process for this - PRODding. --NeilN 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PROD works for isolated cases, but is neither appropriate nor practical for hundreds or thousands of pages. –Juliancolton |  05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not? --NeilN 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it requires twice the work, for starters. –Juliancolton |  05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone PRODs 1000 articles in a day, someone will start an ANI thread about them abusing the PROD process. Additionally, PROD fails miserably for articles like this. A few months ago I tried PROD-ing about a dozen of the oldest unsourced BLPs (longest time without sourcing). Around 3 were actually deleted, about half just had the tag removed with no improvements made. Mr.Z-man 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I approve of his actions. User:Zscout370 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rdm2376 is doing good work. Unsourced BLPs that show no sign of ever being sourced should be deleted. If someone personally would like to take on the task of sourcing all of them, ask him to userfy them for you. Misplaced Pages is full of this kind of stuff and the solutions are to either source them or delete them. Both work just fine. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the articles are not speediable then the deletes are out of process. It makes me nervous that no second opinion is being potentially sought for these deletes. --NeilN 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is my problem as well. The deletions are well out of process, if the current process isn't working then it should be changed but the community should be involved in making that decision. Camw (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The community is incapable of such a conversation and decision. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly gives you the right to hold a conversation and make a decision to go ahead with it elsewhere because you don't think the community should be involved? Was I wrong when I thought this was a collaborative project? Camw (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hence my actions. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More worrying because it's obvious from the discussion that s/he isn't even bothering to check whether the tags are correctly applied or not. Guettarda (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Which discussion indicates that? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't true. The one that Paul Erik mentioned had the references very well hidden within the text, and was restored when this was pointed out. It certainly does not invalidate the general principle. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an example, though, of the value of having more than one person's eyes pass over the article before the speedy-deletion happens. Paul Erik 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to go through this list ahead of time and tag the bad biographies for deletion, I'm sure Kevin wouldn't mind. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there a discussion of this somewhere already? (On-wiki or off-wiki?) Paul Erik 05:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? --NeilN 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review. Careful, I've been told it's an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, no community discussion? --NeilN 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure there was community discussion. Perhaps not the community you're thinking of? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute. You should know that the only community discussion that means anything involves the Misplaced Pages community. --NeilN 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but I just don't get the whole idea of deleting articles because they lack sources. Delete articles because they're crap, delete articles because they aren't accurate...but unless you're checking the sources, the mere presence of a source says absolutely nothing. Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's about a lack of adequate sourcing, not the presence of poor sources. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Deleting articles because they lack sourcing does nothing to reduce BLP violations. The fact that an article has a source doesn't stop someone from inserting smears. In fact, a crap article with sources is more misleading, because it creates a false impression of being 'authoritative'. Deleting articles because someone fails to tick off the proper box is doing something just for the sake of doing something. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPs are required to have sources. An unsourced BLP is therefore a BLP violation. Deleting an unsourced BLP removes the violation from the site. As long as the number of unsourced BLPs being deleted outpaces the number being created (which is a lot), it will reduce the number of BLP violations. Mr.Z-man 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand our BLP policy, the onus is on the user wishing to restore unsourced content about a living person to show the inclusion of sources for the alleged claims, this can easily be done using the normal process at WP:DRV as we would for any other situation in which sources manifest themselves after deletion has occurred. MBisanz 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. BLP overrides CSD criteria? --NeilN 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP overrides any policy. I like to think real lives are more important than needless wiki bureaucracy. –Juliancolton |  05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The BLP policy on deletion says that if the article isn't policy compliant then it should be improved and rectified and only deleted if that is not possible. This skips the attempt to improve the article. Camw (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but who's going to do that for 51,864 articles in dire need of either attention or removal? –Juliancolton |  05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've spent days going over those categories adding references, PRODding sending to AfD. It's both endless and thankless. Kevin (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We thank you for your prior uncontroversial work, but having done that and gotten tired of it is not a justification or excuse for overstepping other existing policy and treading to or past the limit of WP:BOLD... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved in it right now. Once the ones in the project are done then I'll help with the rest happily. Others will help I'm sure. Camw (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CSD exists to have a reference sheet for common deletion reasons. It has never been and never will be completely inclusive of what can be deleted with haste. (And these articles have existed for months without proper sourcing.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So we're throwing the "credible claim of notability" criteria that stops CSD tags out the window? --NeilN 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) BLP applies where a violation of BLP is credibly alledged to apply; simply saying "this is unsourced" does not invoke BLP. See the shortcut WP:GRAPEVINE to the BLP subsection, quoting:

• Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research); or that relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (though see self published sources, below).'
• The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.
• Attack pages, i.e., biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G10. Administrators may remove such pages at once. Non-administrators cannot delete pages, and should tag them {{db-attack}}.

No allegation of good faith content objections, or attack page status, has been made here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While we sit and twiddle our thumbs on thousands of unreferenced, marginally notable BLPs, the articles can have real life consequences for people. I think these deletions, and MBisanz's idea particularly, is a step in the right direction. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank fuck someone is doing something. Viridae 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Because the illusion of progress is so much better than actual progress. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fewer unmaintained biographies. It's small progress, but I wouldn't knock it. You eat the elephant one bite at a time, after all. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One libellous article is worse than 1000 unreferenced articles that aren't. It also takes a fraction of the effort to fix. But, of course, it's more important to look busy. Guettarda (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. No one is really doing anything about unsourced BLPs or libellous ones. Surely working on a lower-priority problem is better than working on neither? You're also assuming that there's no overlap between the 2 groups of articles. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not better. Because it pushes people to include any source. Pushing people to hide the problem makes it harder to solve. Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you have any alternate ideas that don't involve either mass deletion or something substantially similar to what we're doing now (which consists of working through the backlog at only a fraction of the rate that its increasing)? Mr.Z-man 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said on Kevin's talkpage, various projects exist to reference articles in areas of interest. Thousands of articles have been improved or deleted. Deleting these removes the chance of improvement. Going ahead with this without consulting our community here is entirely the wrong thing to do and running something based on the consensus of Misplaced Pages Review is insulting to editors here. Camw (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I support Rdm2376's deletions. Not that anybody cares what I think, but it seems like the articles have been tagged, then deletedm because nobody cared to add sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• If Kevin's actions are deemed inappropriate by the community, I expect to see Category:All unreferenced BLPs empty shortly thereafter. For what it's worth, 339 biographies have remained unsourced, unmaintained and stagnant since January 2007—three years. It's high time we stop selfishly worrying about our own petty bureaucracy and thinking about the real-world implications of our efforts to harbor these very questionable and low-quality articles. –Juliancolton |  05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kevin's proposed actions should have been given a chance to be reviewed by the community before going ahead with them. Did you think nobody would notice or disagree? Maybe all project decisions should be restricted to a few selected editors, it's much easier and way less work that way. Camw (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP clearly and unambiguously supports dealing with articles with identifiable real world issues, such as unsourced negative comments, false statements, potential libel, and the like. It does not support (and other policy does not support) blanket removal of potentially but not specifically problematic articles.

If the community wants to nuke all unreferenced BLPs then that's fine - as a new policy or behavior standard. But we don't have that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Why do we need explicit policy to take actions to prevent real harm to real-world living people? –Juliancolton |  06:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So the only articles to be mass deleted are the ones causing harm? --NeilN 06:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. No specific allegations of harm were made regarding these articles. The general allegation - that as a project, we have a lot of unreferenced biographies which arguably contain a lot of bogus data - is rhetorically supported universally but not a validly recognized aspect of WP deletion policy either in precedent or written policy. Specific examples of harm are required under existing policy, and either community consensus on this being OK per further discussion here, or a policy change per discussion there, are required to legitimize the mass deletions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think deleting all unreferenced BLP's two weeks after creation would be great. But this standard needs to have the approval of the community. --NeilN 06:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfect example: DASHbot is in the process of notifying people that they have created unsourced BLPs. The responsible thing to do when you get a notification like that is to source the articles. Properly. Or nominate them for deletion. But actions like this would rather push people to add any sourcing. And once the problem is "solved", there's no longer a push to actually fix the problem of sourcing. But, of course, if you only care about numbers, not quality... Guettarda (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you see the moral imperative here? Most of these biographies are trivial to re-create (or can be restored) when someone is willing to provide sources. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Which means that once they're recreated, they'll be that much harder to find. No more accurate. Just better hidden. Which makes the problem worse. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that once an article is sourced, it'll be more problematic? —Dark 06:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's got false or damaging or libellous content then yes, of course it's worse if it's sourced than if it's unsourced. Because, of course, it's that much harder to find. And if it doesn't have anything damaging, if it's accurate, then it doesn't hurt if it's unsourced. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ahh, now I remember what I was thinking about before my shower, if you read Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Biographies_of_living_people and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs, the conclusion is that the articles in question violate the policy as they lack sources for all of their assertions by virtue of having no sources. The Obama case requires removal of any unsourced content "whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable", and Badlydrawnjeff permits summary deletion of BLPs that do not comply with the policy. Now it all makes sense. MBisanz 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all specifically reflected in WP:BLP now, I think - but, doesn't directly apply here, as the deletions didn't make specific allegations of overly negative, positive, or questionable content, only unsourced. If there's a specific problem with the article that's different, but those weren't alleged with specificity here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, if content isn't negative, or positive, or questionable; then, umm, what content isn't in the scope of that phrase? I would say simply asserting there is content and that none of it is sourced is sufficient to fit it in that phrase. MBisanz 06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Obama decision says, and I quote:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately. (sourced from your link).

"Contentious" is a feature of that. You are going beyond that and claiming that it supports removal of non-contentious material.

I do not believe BLP or either decision cited supports that claim. It's a valid community decision if we want to extend that to say so - but it's not what it says now. A specific claim that something in the article is contentious (or wrong, or overly positive or negative or questionable) needs to be made to justify a removal under existing as-written policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has two conceivable readings. One is that "unsourced" and "poorly" are modifiers of the phrase "contentious material about living persons", another is that "unsourced" modifies "material" and "poorly sourced contentious" also modifies "material." I am reading it in the second manner. MBisanz 06:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that reading in the plain english sense. If Arbcom intended us to nuke all unreferenced BLPs as an outcome of the above cases it was not clearly supported by discussion then or since...

Community can decide now that we want to; it's within our remit. But stretching grammar parsing to the point that we break the language to try and support "oh, we already say you should do that" is not a good way to do this. If the communty supports it, it's fine, we can do it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom did also rule that admins can do anything, including deletion, to protect BLPs, all at the admin's discretion. That seems to fit with my broader reading of it. MBisanz 06:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(after multiple ECs) Still, Arbcom's intention does not appear to be that we proceed with deleting all BLPs simply because they are currently unsourced. Paul Erik 06:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they left it up to individual admin discretion and also said that reversal would lead to desysopping. MBisanz 06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just AfD them if you can't speedy them. They'll be deleted or they'll be improved. Grandmasterka 06:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)