Misplaced Pages

Rich should be unblocked at least to comment in this discussion. I bet nobody believes that Misplaced Pages is at danger if we unblock him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditions that would satisfy X!, Kingpin13, MSGJ, and others

1. No more changing the cases of the initial letters of any templates. No more changing {{for}} to {{For}}, or changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, or changing {{coord missing}} to {{Coord missing}}, or anything else.
2. No automated editing at all from main account. Specifically:
   1. All 'bot-like tasks, like this one, no matter how uncontroversial, to be farmed out to non-administrator accounts like Femto Bot (talk · contribs), and approved via Bots/Requests for approval.
   2. Use of a dedicated non-administrator account, in accordance with AutoWikiBrowser rule of use #2, if editing at speeds like 10 edits per minute with AutoWikiBrowser.
   3. Clear linkages be provided on the bot pages to the appropriate approvals through Bots/Requests for approval.
   4. No altering a bots function outside of the linked approvals without approval of the change.
   5. Scope and function(s) of the bot explicitly stated both in the application for approval and on the bot page.
3. A message to any bot's talk page stops the bot; the task is not restarted until the issue is resolved.
4. No unblocking one's own bots.

Small-ish suggestion re point 2:

Merged with above.

Looking at the preceeding discussion, it should be crystal clear regarding he be fully transparent and accountable in his use of bots.

- J Greb (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I support the modified conditions now that the BAG approval is added. (X! · talk)  · @914  ·  20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have to say, one of the things which I personally find wanting is Rich's attitude. He seems very reluctant to ever admit that he's actually done anything wrong (even after slapping a maintenance template on the main page..), for example, his first unblock request showed a clear lack of remorse, and his comments on his talk page display that he doesn't really seem to appreciate what he was actually blocked for, let alone be prepared to admit that he shouldn't have done the various things which lead up to the block. However, I do agree with the conditions above. Although I'm not completely convinced they would be enough, they're all basically already in policy, so Rich should be doing most of these already.. - Kingpin (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the above and guess that User:Sladen would too, judging from RF's talk page. It's not really a complaint but I think RF's 'man on a mission, the only one who can possibly solve wikipedia's problems' attitude is starting to look a bit silly. I thought the unblocking was so that he could respond here, not so he could carry on with what he was doing before. Is this guy actually listening to anyone? Can someone suggest he post a short note to us mortals here on his own wp:ani section. Please :) Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed to both participate in discussion here, and to cease doing the disruptive and unresponsive editing that got him blocked in the first place. So I've unblocked him. Wknight94 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblocking. - it's hard to know where to start with this one. It is more about human nature than anything else - and text communication. So lets start with Wknight94's message above.

"Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed both participate in discussion here... "

OK so this is minor, maybe, and in good faith, but the implication is that I was reluctant to join the discussion. Obviously that is the impression Wknight94 picked up, probably from something said on my talk page by my unblock request. However I was in the middle of typing a comment here when I was blocked.

• 21:01 notification of ANI
• 21:03 - 21:06 started reply
• 21:09 - blocked.

As my comment (later forwarded by Xeno, for which thanks) said "Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. "

-so I wasn't exactly reluctant to "cease doing" .. "that got him blocked in the first place".

Further "disruptive and unresponsive editing" is rather jumping to conclusions, based on what others were saying.

More later as I am being pinged on my talk page (about responding here I think). Rich Farmbrough, 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

OK. I'm going to keep this short: I could write a book, but it would be TLDR - I hope the following is both informative and reassuring.

What happened? SB dates maintenance tags as it's most intensive task. It also does various minor cleanup as it goes - as people have said pretty unexceptional.

One of the features of templates - indeed all wikilinks - is that they are not simply literals but a minor grammar in their own right for example:

____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Template____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Citations____ __ _ __ needed____ __ _ __ is a perfectly good link to {{Citations needed}}. Particularly when SB's regexes were hand crafted for each template (back then merely 1000 , now well over 2000 counting redirects) dealing with this complexity meant canonicalisation of template names was the only way to go. (I thought dating a few templates was going to be trivial when I started.) Therefore standard functionality is to replace the clean up template names with a clean version, following redirects. This also has the benefit that the number of different possible clean up templates left after a run is 569 (!) rather than four or five times that number. It also means that the template is capitalised - an "arbitrary but intelligent" decision I made - yes I know algol coders, C coders, perl hackers just love lower case - and I have been all of those things - but for someone who has never coded it seems to me that the capital says "Here is a new thing starting that is somewhat like a sentence." - and it is not a great leap from {{Citation needed|reason=this seems unlikely|date=July 2009}} to "Citation needed, because this seems unlikely, request added July 2009" (Incidentally anyone looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Citation_needed&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 right now will see six articles that appear to redirect to Citation needed - these are almost certainly articles that have had the redirect placed at the top and the article text left in place - normally I would go and fix them, but I am being "chided" for not writing here as a priority.) Having canonicalised the templates - which - only takes (569 + a few) rules, dating them is simple - provided that they haven't already been dated, don't have an invalid date don't have "date" mis-spelled (SB will pick up "fate" but not "jate" - that is left for some poor human drudge to do - as being a very unlikely mispelling SB is pretty conservative to avoid errors, similarly it will pick up "date=Spetember" and correct it to September but "date= Josh is ghey" will simply get over-written with the current month and year) - so another 569 rules for the basic dating and a few hundred to deal with specials like "As of". Anyway some of the minor cleanups SB picked up were related to templates in wide use that either had oodles of redirects or were moved. Again pretty unexceptional. Foolishly on 6th Spetember (or September if you prefer) I added the Cite templates to this list - this was foolish because cites are an area where "angels fear to tread" much like dates and MoS - I have been foolish enough to contribute to MoS too. Having said that it was foolish, it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid, despite what others may think, I had been pleasantly surprised not to receive negative feedback on other changes, and there are a surprising number of redirects to , for example {{Cite web}} - 21 in fact. That's 21 templates - not 21 pages, the number of pages is 12,118 and the number of actual uses will be higher still. Moreover I knew that removing those four templates would be fairly trivial. So what was the response? Were seven different kinda of hell unleashed upon my talk page? Find out in the next thrilling episode. Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I get the impression that you think the only reason you were blocked, or that people are concerned, is this recent problem with SmackBot's capitalisation, which I see this more as being the last straw. I think the underlying problems are: You ignoring bot policy, by running unapproved bots; running bots on your own account; not responding to concerns, which you are also expected to do as an administrator, but instead you blank messages, ignore concerns, claim to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired), you even seem to play word games. These are the problems which need to be addressed, since they are what lead to problems such as the template capitalisation. It's no good just dealing with the result of these problems, as we know (from prior experience with you in regard to bots) that all that happens is problems arise again. This isn't a one-off mistake. That said... Looking at what you say above, it mostly seems to be explaining how the task works, that's nice, but really the question is can you prevent SmackBot from changing the capitalisation of all templates (not just the cite templates or whatever). You could maybe even use a regex find/replace after the other changes are made to effectively "revert" any capitalisation changes made (but before actually saving to the wiki)? - Kingpin (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of explaining how the task works - which is pretty deadly dull - is to lay the ground work. Understand, for example, that powerful though AWB is, it is an application, not a programmers framework like Pywikipedia. SmackBot's rulebase runs to 750k+ of XML - let me find out how many regexes that is - 5067 rules plus some "advanced" rules. The suggestion you make above might be workable - while I try to keep the rules as simple as possible, there may be an elegant solution, but on the face of it I would have to pull apart the redirect consolidation rules and have a separate one for "Sentence case" and "lower case", and the same would apply to any specific rule - since there are about 2500 redirects and some hundreds of other rules this would mean a massive increase in the rulebase (possibly more than doubling it). I outlined what is easy and what is hard to change, on my talk page, along with the benefits. And I really don't hear a clamour for {{infobox... There are two reasons I find commenting here tiring: one is the fact that every word is hostage to fortune - as shown in your comment. And indeed every edit or lack of an edit: - I don't know whether its funny or sad to have people counting my edits between being unblocked and starting to comment here. The suggestion that it would have been better for the project to leave redlinked categories on a hundreds articles than to keep the ravening hordes of ANI waiting - especially when commenting on the volume of text here, let alone the 50k or so on my talk page was likely, and still is likely, to take some time, may have some merit, but I can't see it. More later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

This reads a bit like "Smackbot is too big to be maintainable". If that's the case, break Smackbot up into small pieces running on separate bots that are individually auditable. If the answer is that individual smaller tasks would mean loosing the opportunity to discreetly make whitespace/capitalisation changes otherwise deemed without merit, then that's actually a positive; the minor changes brought your activities to a head—as Kingpin mentions (and I'll reiterate for the explicit avoidance of doubt) there is a wider general problem; which is one of interaction (acting on feedback, not disputing/arguing it; and participating in discussion to a closure). —Sladen (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but here (and on my talk page) you are plain wrong about software maintainablity.

• (Citation+style|Cleanup-references|Cleanup-citation|Ref-cleanup|Citationstyle|Citation-style|Refstyle|Reference+style|Reference-style|Cleanup-refs|Citestyle|Cleanrefs|Refclean|Refsclean|Source+Style|Sourced+wrong|Ref-style|Refcleanup)

is longer than your proposed

• (clean(up)?-?(ref(erences|s)|citation)||(cit(ation|e)|ref(erence)?|source?)-?(tyle|clean(up)?)|sourced+wrong)

But it is also more maintainable and more readable

Your version

1. Has errors of coding
2. Has errors of design
3. Is hard to add to
4. Is hard to remove items from
5. Has no discernible performance benefits, and maybe performance costs (although I do agree that this is "in this case" not critical, I'm fed up with people saying "don't worry about performance" as a blanket statement when we have literally hundreds of fantastic servers worth millions of dollars which time out serving pages, yet my little desktop, encumbered as it is with the world's worst operating system, runs most of the software I write (pace infinite loops) before I can blink, or at least IO bound. I was running SmackBot - and everything else on a skip-rescue PC until about 18 months ago.)
6. Is less readable

It is also very very clever - and I am not being sarcastic. In fact I am being a little peacocky, because it is exactly the sort of regex I was using until I simplified and automated. And it caused a number (not necessarily a lot) of problems, picking up incorrect templates.

(See now, this has taken me over half an hour to write, maybe I'm slow, maybe I'm just being careful what I write - and maybe other people spend as long and as much care on what they write, but I certainly see evidence that some of them don't read what I say, and just bash of a few hundred words at top speed to express their feelings. But I have probably already spent about 4 hours on this thread, let alone my talk page. And I am being accused of "not responding" - I know there are subjects here I haven't even broached, and I have made it clear that it will take time to get to them - anyone who can't wait - well I would offer an informal reply on my talk page - but it would only get quoted back out of context here -as has already happened.)

Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

At the risk of putting words into Rich Farmbrough's mouth, I'm going to respond to something Kingpin13 wrote: that RF has claimed "to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired)" -- only because it sounds true. There seems to be a familiar pattern to the last chapter of the career long-term Wikipedians: increasing lack of patience with others, obsession with details (which may appear to be WikiLawyering), & an increasing weariness with contributing or the discussion which follows contributions. The bastards finally wear the dedicated & selfless volunteers down. Now if this is truly what is happening here, then the only advice I can offer to Rich (I say "only" because I honestly don't have a better solution & wish there was one) is to simply cut back on what you do. If running certain bots on Misplaced Pages is getting to be more of a pain than it is a joy, then stop doing it. Misplaced Pages can survive without all of the bots being operated here, believe it or not; & if I'm wrong, it's likely someone else will pick up the slack. If someone doesn't, the resulting carcass will get preserved, & another group will try to resurrect the online encyclopedia with a slightly different set of rules of operation. And I'm writing this because I, too, feel tired with Misplaced Pages, just like Kingpin13 says RF claims to be. And after I finish the projects on my plate here (i.e., a few groups of articles & upload a few PD images), I'm going to drop my involvement here even more. Or if one of these leads I'm chasing gets me back into the job market, maybe sooner. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

llywrch is right - but I don't blame the "Aha! I have a diff... " brigade. "I too was once as you." (Yes that's (self-deprecating) humour, not being patronizing.) Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Changes to cite template

I have just discovered that, without any discussion, Rich made significant changes to the Template:Cite web. Specifically, while we were complaining about his bot, he changed the template examples from lower case to upper case. Since this was his response to complaints on his page, and since his deleting the comments on his talk page without responding to our comments is what started this whole discussion, I think that these changes need special attention.

• 22:21, 21 September 2010 Start of "Could you not capitalize citation template in the future?"
• 15:49, 26 September 2010 Start of "cite vs Cite"
• 12:47, 27 September 2010 Rich says that the bot is no longer changing "cite" to "Cite"
• 18:41, 27 September 2010 I complain again because the bot is still making the changes
• 18:42, 27 September 2010 Rich changes the case of the first character in the Template:Cite web examples
• -- There are additional comments in both threads
• 20:29, 28 September 2010 Rich blanks the talk page without responding to anyone since
  • 15:19, 26 September 2010 in the 1st thread, and
  • 12:47, 27 September 2010 in the 2nd.
• 20:54, 28 September 2010 This ANI discussion was started by me.

It was very difficult to step back through his contribution log. It appears that on Sept 28, he made well over 5,000 edits. (Perhaps over 100,000. And all with AWB. It is totally unbelievable that the admins allow this. Link to contribution log so no one else will have to search for it.)

As a result of this "new" information, I am requesting others to comment before I simply undo his uh, changes, to the template. I for one do not like them. For another, I think this was an underhanded slap in the face. He didn't even have the courtesy to mention this on his talk page when two groups of people were complaining about the same subject. He also did not mention it in any of the other discussions since. Q Science (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously been established above that he has no consensus for the capitalisation changes, so I say change them back. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just revert Q. Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

ok reverted Note there's one reason why none of the fields are capitalised, and that is that non-bot editors can enter them without having to press shift key. Clearly the first field could be an exception, and changed by bots later. There are many arguments, it probably didn't need changing - anyway continue that debate on relavent page.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Str1977 & Parrot of Doom

Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To put it nicely, these two simply aren't getting along. I've been watching their fighting over the past couple of days, and it's becoming more and more of a problem, especially to editors who simply want to discuss changes to certain articles, not get involved in personal fights. The two main articles in question are two Pink Floyd albums, "Animals" and "The Division Bell" (though it is not limited to just those pages). These two don't seem to agree on anything, and the Str1977 recently started this discussion, a long rant which seems to be a cross between a discussion a personal attack. However, despite starting discussions on both pages, he has not stopped edit-warring. I personally see this as redundant. He opens civil discussions intended to avoid conflicts, and then continues to engage in those very conflicts. Parrot of Doom has responded aggressively, calling the accusations "bullshit" and the response "hilarious" His edit summaries have echoed this kind of sentiment, such as "better written my arse" and "just fucking pack it in will you?". Parrot of Doom's editing of certain articles has always often bordered on acting as if he owned them, and I'm not denying that I've had disagreements with him in the past, but his history as an editor clearly shows that he's made a vast amount of improvements to this encyclopedia as a whole. So I'm at a loss. I don't want to take sides here, so I hope this notice doesn't sound like a biased attack towards one editor or another. Getting myself sucked into the polarized fights on talk pages (or anywhere) doesn't sound helpful at this point. I'd really like this fighting to stop and I don't feel it's within my power to make that happen, so hopefully an administrator can resolve this issue. Thank you for your time. Friginator (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Friginator, for making a start.

I do agree with him that Parrot made a lot of valid and valuable contributions to many articles (and that only after having a quick look). But his achievements seem to have left him with the impression of ownership.

I have made several edits, mostly to "Animals" (the others are just formatting issues, though IMHO they do have repercussions on NPOV) but Parrot reverts basically everything I did, even minutae. I admit that I could have discussed matters at talk from the start but thus far this road has not yielded any positive results either. What I get is insult after insult (those were not responses to any attacks by me but what he did from the very start), no reply to some points while he at first seemed willing to at least have a look at some (but only some). He never did this thus far and for a while even refused this on a talk page formatting issue. But he still did so after I yielded to his demand. He usually blanket reverts everything. Even if he had agreed to something on a talk page (as he did to my compromise suggestion to spell out "United Kingdom" for its first appearance), he then simply reverted it, even making an extra edit for it.

I'd like this fightiging to stop too but how am I to react to things like "just fucking pack it in will you?" Yielding to such bullying is not helping Misplaced Pages.

I have desisted from describing the actual content disputes, as these are usually not welcomed at ANI.

Thanks for your patience. Str1977 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. One more thing: while my tone was indeed polemical and, given Parrot's treatment of me, increasingly angry, I did not make any "accusations". That term was introduced by Parrot. My talk page posting almost entirely consisted of the actual content points. My impression of OWNership and the word "obstruction" in the header were the only two exceptions. Str1977 23:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way is "just fucking pack it in will you?" bullying? You may (and others probably will) claim that it's uncivil, but bullying it is not. You and your friend have brought a content dispute here to ANI under the guise of something else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that none of this is in the "guise" of anything else. I'm not sure what you're implying. I know next to nothing about Str1977's previous history as an editor, and "friend" is not really a term I would use to describe him. Friginator (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If he tells me what he did (the incivility of which is a matter of fact, not "claiming") and I yield, then it will be a bully getting his way.

The issue raised here by Friginator (with whom I have no previous acquaintance - hence he is not "my friend") are not about content but about behaviour. But what's it to you, Malleus?

Parrot by now has responded, on his talk page, apparently not bothering. Str1977 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Very wise of him. Rather little of any real value happens here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it constructive, please. It looks like a content dispute turned nasty. Having had a quick look at Animals I can see merit in the edits of both parties. Great example of how quickly things can get out of hand when folks forget the pillar of civility. --John (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

... and come here crying to teacher. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus - I appreciate your ongoing advocacy of your personal beliefs regarding civility and Misplaced Pages, but I would like to remind you (again) that you do not represent the consensus admin or community opinions, who agree that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are important and need to be enforced. There is a difference between advocating for changes to those policies and/or enforcement and telling people in civility disputes that there is no issue, when community consensus would indicate there probably is.

Parrot and Str1977 - You both seem on first investigation to be constructive editors, outside of this dispute. Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you of something George. Your beloved civility policy is applied inconsistently and corruptly, and so the faux consensus you cling to to justify your mission is of no interest to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. "Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things" is simply insulting, treating grown adults like children. Now that's what I call incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

George,

on the contrary. Only dealing constructively with suggestions of the other can fix the problem. "Not talking to each other" is not a solution but actually - despite all the shouting - the problem. So, such a restriction is out of the question. That much is true in Malleus' cricitism (another part is true as well, but not as he intends it to be) but I can't help but wonder what business he has here. He's neither party to the conflict (is he?) nor an admin. Str1977 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no restriction on random Wikipedians participating here. Community participation is encouraged; in this case, Malleus represents a tiny community fringe viewpoint that the whole idea of civility on Misplaced Pages is flawed and/or wrong and should be abandoned as a policy. But he's part of the community. We should not forget that he's there with that opinion (not likely 8-), nor allow that viewpoint to interfere with enforcing the working consensus policy.

Regarding an appropriate solution, in many cases we've seen that editors were able to just avoid each other and thus not antagonize each other. However, if you believe that the two of you can or need to cooperate on the articles, obviously that approach won't work.

I would like to see Parrot of Doom comment here. What, from his perspective, is causing the situation to go in the direction it's gone so far?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding each other would come naturally, given the experience, if the underlying problem was only solved. I know ANI is not for content disputes but the way Parrot simply blocks content edits he doesn't like has to stop.

And sorry, I cannot agree with what you said about Malleus at all. He is entitled to his opinion but should not disrupt any attempt to find a solution. Str1977 01:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. Nobody comes here looking for solutions, they come looking for sanctions. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the only appropriate response is that you aren't a named party to the solution here, Malleus, and that you should take the meta-thread off to the ANI talk page and/or policy pages elsewhere. Poking at Str1977 isn't helping in any way. You had your say on the policy; you're now crossing the line into baiting them. Enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep your threats for someone who takes them seriously George, you know what I think of them. I understand that you don't like to hear the truth, but that's your problem, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Str1977 to stay out of PoD's way; the latter is a good editor but has an unfortunate turn of phrase sometimes. With any luck, whether or not PoD responds here we can be pretty sure he has read it. I'd be inclined to archive this as long as nothing comes up again in the next while. There's a content issue here which needs attention in article talk, a possible user conduct issue which can be avoided by these two avoiding each other until they can be civil; what more needs to be said (or done by an admin), unless either of them is silly enough to keep making the content issue (which doesn't seem that huge to me) a personal one? --John (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John, and as I told you, your suggestion is of no use as it boils down to Parrot simply having his way. As long as Parrot blocks content edits and ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution. Ignoring the problem, as you suggest, will not make it go away. Str1977 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there's a content issue which you could resolve if you handled it better; personalizing a dispute like this (as you did at the talk page) seldom leads to a productive resolution. If there's a long-term problem with PoD's behavior (and I am not saying there isn't), you need to file a RfC/U. Short term, avoid the problem by avoiding each other. While not perfect, this is as good as we will get I think. If either of you continues with this disruption, I'm sure someone will be along to block either or both of you as required. I really hope that isn't necessary. In terms of this noticeboard, I think we have done all we can do. --John (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words: nothing. Str1977 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Before the interpersonal conflict went sideways, there was some productive talk page discussion regarding the content issues. That is not yet resolved. I don't know that either of you is obviously right or wrong on the content issue in question, and I think that discussion needs to happen before the right solution evolves.

Just because there was some abusive language does not automatically mean you win the content dispute. The merits still have to be discussed on that. If the abusive language is over, the content discussion has to resume. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

George,

despite the rocky start I was and am open to discuss on the talk page. Parrot has responded once (to some points) but then repeteadly refused to deal with me, even after I yielded to his demand to restore his "reply between the lines" format. The abusive language has been entirely his (unless pointing to WP policies is now considered "abusive").

I am still open to discuss but, according to John's neatly thought-out "solution", I am supposed to stay away from him, which basically confirms the ownership problem and leaves the content problems intact. It is the latter I am most concerned about. Str1977 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's true then you're in the wrong place. The place to discuss content disputes is the content noticeboard. This is the place where you demand that sanctions be placed on your enemies. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you unable to read or simply unwilling, Malleus?

"As long as Parrot ... ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution."

I came here for help regarding the behaviour so that discussion on content (which Parrot blocks) could move forward. It is the content why we are all here on Misplaced Pages, isn't it?

But I guess, you have been right about this place here: nothing really ever comes out of it as people are just uninterested. Wonder why they became admins in the first place. Str1977 08:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a community of mature people writing an encyclopedia, we don't deal in slapped wrists as such. I believe the content issue is being discussed more appropriately at article talk, nobody was hurt, and normal service on improving the article can be resumed. I call that a result. --John (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure the content issues are best discussed at the article talk page! Who said otherwise? But even now, they are not discussed: and not just with me - another editor also made an addition and was swiftly reverted, his point on talk brushed aside.

Nobody was hurt? You must be joking! Not only was I hurt but as long as there is no proper discussion and no correction of the false information, the project is hurt. Str1977 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I view the civil discussion at Talk:Animals (album) as a good outcome. I am sorry your feelings were hurt and I hope you will recover from that in time. I also hope the calm and proper discussion at article talk continues. --John (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But discussion hasn't started yet over there. Str1977 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Darkstar1st

Darkstar1st has started to engage in deliberate and uncalled for talk page disruption at Talk:Libertarianism. I replied to the OP of a thread agreeing with his comment with the words "Just so". Darkstar1st collapsed it without explanation. I reverted, and he collapsed it again with the edit comment ""just so" has no relevance to libertarianism.". This appears to be a WP:POINT violation and possible retaliation for my having reported him for edit-warring on the article Libertarianism several days ago. Could some admin follow up with him please? Yworo (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We really need to have a list of his other disruptive behaviors regarding the topic of libertarianism. Like his creation of a WP:POV fork by at this diff turning a common redirect Libertarian to Libertarianism into a whole article reflecting the narrow view he has been trying to impose on Libertarianism for the last six months, most recently through continuing WP:Soapbox on his POV, ignoring of RfCs rejecting his POV, displaying obstreperous WP:Refusal to get the point. I can provide lots of diffs if people think it's relevant to expand this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

the whole section has now been closed and hidden by an uninvolved editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Turning a re-direct page into a POV fork is disruptive. After three RfCs confirming that left libertarianism should be in the article, all of which supported inclusion, Darkstar1st created a new discussion thread, "left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much". This discussion thread presented no sources and I and another editor removed it for soapboxing. Soapboxing has been an ongoing problems in the this article. Editors discuss what libertarianism means to them and refuse to use sources. TFD (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the redirect and distinguished the proper noun Libertarian, from the political philosophy libertarianism. This seemed to fix the problem as all 3 Websters definitions had their own page:

• 1. an advocate of the doctrine of free will, libertarianism (metaphysics)
• 2a a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, libertarianism
• 2b capitalized a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles, Libertarian

Listing the suffix and redirecting the root, is opposite the dictionary. members of a Libertarian political party have very different beliefs than the current form of the article dedicated to the political philosophy. the article on "Libertarian" is #1 on google for the term "libertarianism" is is 2nd. my edit was reverted and the page now locked. ex: "green party: and "Green party" (from wp) There are distinctions between "green parties" (lower-case letters) and "Green Parties" (capital letters). Any party, faction, or politician may be labeled "green" if it emphasises environmental causes. Indeed, the term may even be used as a verb: it is not uncommon to hear of "greening" a party or a candidate. In contrast, formally organised "Green Parties" follow a coherent ideology that includes not only environmentalism, but also other concerns such as social justice, consensus decision-making, and pacifism. Greens believe that these issues are inherently related to one another as a foundation for world peace. The best-known statement of the above Green values is the Four Pillars of the Green Party, adopted by the German Greens since their founding in 1979-1980. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Misplaced Pages cannot distinguish between upper and lower-case letters in the first letter of an article title. Therefore Wikpedia articles use the primary meaning for the article with a hatnote or disambiguation to the other meanings. All -ists are redirected to their -isms, which are either disambiguations or have hatnotes. This case is no different. The articles 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' should not have different subjects. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we must remember that the article covers both of those words. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing new, libertarian has been a redirect to libertarianism since September 2004. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Libertarian now protected indefinitely, after another editor put redirect back in place. At this diff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

When to use rollback

I left a note on User talk:Paralympiakos, asking them to be careful when using rollback; in my opinion, in this particular edit rollback was not used appropriately. The same applies here and here and here. In my reading of WP:ROLLBACK, good-faith edits should not be rolled back; in my opinion, what was reverted in these edits was in no way vandalism. Let me make two things clear: first, I have rollback myself, and I probably have erred more than once; second, I am not trying to bring Paralympiakos up on charges, since they make many good edits and are a positive contributor. However, I would like for someone from around here to confirm that their response on their talk page is not correct (unless I'm wrong--in which case you should tell me!), and to confirm or explain that to them. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this is an ANI issue, but yes, I do believe the policy is rollback should only be used on non-constructive edits including but not limited to vandalism. Non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking my opinion, the entire rollback issue is completely pointless. In my opinion, every autoconfirmed user should get it, then we could just stop with all of this stupid bullshit about granting it like a reward and revoking it when somebody doesn't follow the arcane rules to use it. Look, all it does is save one mouse click when reverting someone. You can just as easily click the (undo) and then click the save page buttons and effect the same result. It's a complete waste of admins time to constantly have to police rollback's use, when not one edit warrior has been hindered by not having access to it. Total bullshit that we have to deal with this. That's my opinion on it. Policy is clear on its use, and Paralympiakos is probably usin g rollback against policy, but in my opinion policy is wrong in that it wastes time on a non-issue. --Jayron32 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear fucking hear. → ROUX ₪ 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an AN/I topic unless it is an Incident. I can't see how this would need administrator intervention.?...--Talktome 02:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what qualifies as in incident with a capital I. Intelati, if it were so that misuse of rollback was taken seriously, we'd have at least an incident, I reckon. But my question was answered: it's against policy, but nothing will come of it. Jayron, I can't say I disagree with you on the IAR part--still, the bit in the guideline about not leaving an edit summary being impolite (and in case of the first diff I gave, a bit bitey) has some merit. I have seen some editors getting rollback removed, though, which made me extra careful myself. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See two posts above "User:Kafziel and administrative abuse." that's an example of an "Incident." and the only reason I commented on this post is that it intreged me, but I have no problems with the current setup.--Talktome 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The real issue is the lack of an informative edit summary and the fact that the default edit summary implicitly casts aspersions - and not anything about permission to use magic buttons "properly". The latter two reverts (to Michael Johnson (fighter) and especially to WEC 53 are bad because they're unexplained summary reversions that should have had an informative edit summary, but the reverts on Travis Browne and Brock Lesnar would have been done practically identically by anyone who encountered them, so the method of achieving those reverts is pretty immaterial. Paralympikos ought to be reminded that informative edit summaries cause a good impression and avoid extra work for editors who see them - and that's all that needs to happen at this point, in my opinion. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Johnson one is obvious vandalism. It's a fake bout and that's within even your rules of rollback. The Brock Lesnar ones are a pattern of nonsense edits and the user was warned. Rollback was best as it is vandalism. WEC was an accident, which as I've explained before, is because my browser pops upwards from time and time and I accidentally hit the button. Then, I've explained my view on the other edit. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) to both Drmies and Gavia immer: I am not sure that hitting (undo) followed immediately by leaves any more informative of an edit summary. Assuming that an editor is repeatedly doing that to good faith edits, why is that somehow better than using rollback? --Jayron32 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't. The two acts are essentially the same (as is performing such an edit manually or via a script) and equally inappropriate. —David Levy 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is an ANI topic because admins are the ones to grant and take away rollback. Technically, this is a fine forum to discuss appropriate use of rollback. Still stand by my feelings that Rollback is a bullshit issue, but insofar as the system exists as it is, this is the proper place to discuss its use and revocation. --Jayron32 02:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the rollback guideline, but it's my belief that this editor doesn't understand them properly and hasn't been using it in accordance with them, so I've revoked the permission. We can discuss the relevance of WP:RBK on its talk page or another, more suitable forum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support--Talktome 02:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm playing by the rules of rollback. It says that when a revert is self-explanatory, rollback can be used. It says "for example, vandalism etc", but that doesn't mean that it is limited to vandalism. Any sane person seeing a "tag: incorrectly formatted image" would easily know that it needs removing, so the change is just self-explanatory. If you disagree with that, then go and change the wording on rollback, so that people can't do what I did. As far as I'm concerned, I'm 100% right in what I did and this remove is farcical. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that action was taken whilst I was away. It would have been decent of people to at least wait so that discussion could take place involving me. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please also see WT:ROLLBACK where I've asked that this farce of a discussion have some results. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not self-explanatory to the person who made the edit, which is exactly the point of using an informative edit summary. Reverting without an edit summary, whether with or without rollback, is a form of biting a newcomer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it really is. They put an image down in the form of a hyperlink and see it doesn't work. I'd say they'd know why I performed a rollback. As has been said above, it doesn't matter whether it is via rollback or undo, the result is the same, just with an extra, unnecessary click involved. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. They made a good faith edit. "Something" went wrong - the image they expected to see didn't appear! Why? Don't know. Then somehow the edit they'd just made disappeared as well - the redlink they'd just added (Valley Center,California) turned back into a bluelink (San Diego, California). What on earth is going on?! There's no explanation on their talkpage, no explanation in the article's history - nothing. Just a confused newbie. Constructive or well-intentioned changes should not be reverted without an explanatory summary, as it is impolite to the author of those changes. Your rollback was inappropriate. It did not help someone who needed help. TFOWR 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what then? Put that in the rollback summary! As I've said many times now with that quoted statement, I performed under the rules as they currently look. The sensible thing to do here would be to change the rollback policy/statement etc, revert the removal and chalk this up to misunderstanding/errors at the rollback page. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any errors at the rollback page. I believe the error is in your belief that your use of rollback was "self explanatory". It wasn't. TFOWR 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So you see an image that doesn't work, followed by a rollback and you need that explaining to you? I'm sure you'd find it self-explanatory. Still doesn't explain why the rollback was removed without so much as a hint first. As I've said elsewhere, you're quick to defend IPs, saying that things should be explained to them, but what about me? As far as I was aware, I was acting correctly, but instead of having it explained to me, I have rollback taken away immediately. That's poor. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point: you don't provide an edit summary for my benefit, you provide it for the benefit of the poor soul you're reverting. And that is explained at WP:ROLLBACK - Constructive or well-intentioned changes should not be reverted without an explanatory summary, as it is impolite to the author of those changes. - and it is expected that editors understand that before being granted rollback. This is being explained to you, and when you've demonstrated that you understand it I'll have no problem with you being granted rollback again. TFOWR 14:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors, if there is any doubt as to whether the reason for your rollback is completely self-explanatory, and the user is making a good faith contribution, it's a perfectly simple matter to undo the edit instead, giving the option of leaving an edit summary which would help the user. One of those edits was a red-linked image as the user had tried to insert a full URL as an image; it would have been a simple matter to undo it with an edit summary something like "Please see WP:UPLOAD and upload the image first, and make any test edits in the sandbox", and/or leave an explanatory note on the user's talk page. If you use twinkle as well, you have the option of rolling back multiple edits with an AGF edit summary. It's confusing and disheartening for good-faith editors to see their edits immediately reverted without explanation, when such an explanation would take a few seconds to write. GiftigerWunsch 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine. All points will be taken onboard for the future, but the removal of the feature is hardly going to help with learning. It can be disheartening for good faith editors to see edits immediately reverted, but by the same token, it can be disheartening for a long-standing editor to be treated like rubbish and have things taken away without a moment's notice. Still though, nothing has been done to reverse that action. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What would you do differently if you encountered the same situation and had rollback privileges? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

....the complete opposite to this time. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Browne edit, I've left the editor a {{uw-imageuse}} message. In my humble opinion, if rollback is used in situations like this, it's a good idea to leave a note on the user's talk page to explain why the edit was reverted. I don't think it matters whether the explanation is in the edit summary or user talk, provided an explanation is provided. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More Restoring Honor disputes

The article Restoring Honor rally was locked last month because of disputes over the Restoring Honor rally#Crowd size|crowd size section]]. The issues were discussed on the talk page and consensus was reached, despite a few loud editors in opposition. The article reached a relative calm a few days ago. However, two users who hardly participated in the talk page have walked in and reignited the same disputes and causing us to start all over again. For that reason I overhauled the whole section and compiled the estimates into a single table with references provided. However, these editors insist on beating a dead horse and adding undue weight to certain estimates. User:AzureCitizen has reverted my edits three times. I was unaware of that policy until another user alerted me to my own excessive reversion. Because the disputes have been unnecessarily reignited by editors who refuse to go back and read the archives and see that consensus has consistently been against their agendas for the article, I request that the page/section be locked until the issues can be resolved again, hopefully once and for all this time, or that the editors be blocked from the article for refusing to comply with consensus. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, you can take this to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Good luck. You may want to get some outside opinions, by starting a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. --Jayron32 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did your page protection not stick? Or have I suddenly been granted the rights to edit protected articles? Perhaps you meant "Semi-protected"? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The description of BS24 is basically completely wrong. He made changes without having any consensus in sight - in contrary, many objected to these changes, where she/he basically just deleted information she/he does not like. BS24 even didn't give any reason for his deletions, just calling it "overhaul". (BS24 has a history of wrong claim and accusations.) This is not acceptable. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been soapboxing all day at Talk:Libertarianism. Now he is admittedly disrupting the talk page by hiding other editor's pertinent comments, with the edit comment "Fine, I can play this stupid game too. Carol's comment about UNDUE also applies to scope... hide it too" which shows it to be an intentional WP:POINT violation. Yworo (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding (yet another I've been having with Yworo, but it's hard to work out differences when he deletes your comments from his talk page and requests that you not post there again) and refuses to continue discussion and answer questions in discussions he starts on my talk page.

1. That hide referenced above with the poorly chosen words in the edit summary was in compliance with a decision made by some editors earlier in the day and subsequent hides were made in enforcing that decision.

   The decision: Talk:Libertarianism#General_warning_regarding_disruption

2. As a result of that decision, you can see entire sections hidden on Talk:Libertarianism towards the bottom that say, "Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011".
3. A bit earlier I wanted to respond to an earlier discussion about what different sources indicated, and I found it to be hidden/closed not for the agreed upon reason, so I had to unhide it before I added my comments. Then Yworo deleted my comments. Is that acceptable?
4. As to the section I hid, is filing an ANI really necessary? When I disagreed with a hide, I just reverted it.
5. I'm disappointed that Yworo escalated to ANI without discussing his concerns with me first,. I suggest Yworo take a break, and then return open to working out differences on our talk pages before escalating to ANI or elsewhere. I'm confident we can work this out, except he unfortunately is apparently in a "battle" frame of mind, as made evident by this wikilawyering trick to accuse me of WP:POINT because of my poor choice of words in an edit summary comment. That is, if I had just commented "hiding per decision about hiding discussions about article scope", there could be no technical complaint.
6. Since we're here, any assistance would be appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made that particular revert (3) because you removed the {{hab}} at the bottom of the collapsed section but not the {{hat}} at the top, hiding the entire rest of the talk page from the {{hat}} down. That's not the disruptive behavior I was talking about, which I very clearly indicated. However, the thread was collapsed for valid reasons and you shouldn't have been adding to it in any case. Still, you seem to be attempting to distract from the focus from my actual complaints. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? It seems to me that you discovered and corrected that problem later (thanks for fixing that, by the way, though I still don't understand what I did wrong because you can see both hat and hab removed in the diff of my change).

Note the reason you gave for the edit summary (at 19:36) for the diff in (3) when you deleted my comments: "Undid revision 388214486 by Born2cycle (talk) discussion was closed)". Seems pretty clear to me.

Your edit to fix something by adding a hab occurred 13 minutes later at 19:49 with edit summary, "by removing the {{hab}} but not the {{hat}}, you collapsed the entire rest of the page, please pay attention to what you are doing".

What are your actual complaints? That I hid a section for discussing article scope in concert with the decision of some others (including you, apparently, because you implemented it too) to hide sections like that (see below)? If that's sufficiently disruptive to warrant an ANI, why not mention that you and Fifelfoo and everyone else who agreed with this is being disruptive too? Or is it because the comment in my edit summary indicated I was complying with the decision in order to make a point? Pardon me for disrupting you with my edit summary comments. How is that disruption? You couldn't instead put a friendly reminder about WP:POINT on my talk page? Is this really worth an ANI? Is this not WP:HARASSMENT?

Though I would not have filed an ANI for it, since we're here, I thought involved admins might want to look at your deleting of other users' comments, your ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions (which is characteristic of WP:TEDIOUS), and refusal to work out disagreements on your talk page as actual disruption, since you're the one raising this ANI, which sure feels like disruptive harassment to me, especially considering the time and effort it takes to defend and explain my behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

On 1 October 2010 I boldly instituted a general warning regarding the disruption caused by the continual revisiting of topic and coverage. The warning is in place until 1 April 2011, six months is a reasonable period after which to revisit topic and coverage. Two remedies were provided for: hiding threads to immediately shut down disruption, or taking the matter to AN/I as disruptive user conduct. The article has been through a very large number of RFCs and extensive discussions, all of which have supported the current broad topic and coverage. Attempts to change the topic or to narrow the coverage have been rejected as against the consensus of the article's editors. As "I didn't hear that" revisiting of achieved consensus were continual, and disruptive, I generally warned article editors, so as to allow editing and WEIGHTing discussions on the current article. Feel free to sanity check this, but imho, it shuts down the disruption without preventing editing or content disagreement within the current scope, and six months is a decent time to wait to revisit topic consensus after six months of disputation over what the scope should be. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Born2cycle's point 3 is correct. I boldly hid a large body of text because it appeared to have (imho) descended into battleground mentality. Hiding this text was was not connected with any breaking the warning about topic or scope. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I was also accused (multiple times, not just in this ANI) for "soapboxing", I should also point out that I have no idea what this is about. I've read and reread WP:SOAP (including 2. Opinion pieces) and cannot for the life of me understand how that applies to anything I've ever posted anywhere in Misplaced Pages, much less "all day long" yesterday at Talk:Libertarianism. I mean, I don't deny having my own views and biases (who doesn't?), but I try very hard to adhere to WP:NPOV, especially with respect to how material is presented in the article, and so take some offense at these accusations. So, if someone can explain this to me, by citing my exact words (should be easy enough since I supposedly did it "all day long") and quoting whatever criteria in WP:SOAP that supposedly corresponds to my allegedly inappropriate behavior, and explaining how it applies, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I think we have to conclude that this is just yet another form of WP:HARASSMENT. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You added a comment to a discussion marked closed. Any editor may revert the addition of a comment to a discussion marked closed. Apparently I didn't scroll down enough and missed the second comment outside of a collapsed discussion. My apologies, that was a mistake.

As to your demands for answers, I repeatedly pointed out that I considered the whole scope argument, especially the "just libertarianism" and cat arguments, to be soapboxing. It was soapboxing, and all the threads containing those arguments have been collapsed. I don't have to answer soapboxing. Yet you kept harassing me to answer your soapbox questions after I made clear that I wasn't going to debate the "logic" of your soapboxing.

That soapboxing is major part of the disruption that I intended to report here, which is why I mentioned it first. Even after the agreement not to discuss scope, you brought up your scope argument in the middle of one of my discussions about definitions of libertarianism from sources, in an obvious attempt to disrupt my discussion thread. When you became frustrated that your soapboxing was being collapsed and wasn't achieving the effect you intended, you started to uncollapse threads and post less than civil comments. How is that not a pattern of disruption? Anybody who goes and reads the talk page will be able to identify your voluminous comments as primarily soapboxing. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle's edit summary, "Fine, I can play this stupid game too", shows an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors. He should accept the results of three recent RfCs and stop pushing his own POV about how the article should be written. TFD (talk)

Born2cycle also participated in the POV-fork of Libertarianism created at Libertarian, making these three edits to the forked article: , , . Of course, primary responsibility for that POV-fork remains with Darkstar1st, who actually replaced the longstanding redirect with the POV-fork . Yworo (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

yworo accuses others of hiding comments, yet he tried to hide an entire section which received 100+ edits in the span of a day http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=388148762&oldid=388148380, including many by yworo. he has also reported me for hiding his 2 word comment "just so" as off topic, yet now that entire section was collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"which received 100+ edits" That's a serious exaggeration. It received between 20 and 25 comments, and it wasn't particularly productive. If you disagree, please summarize the conclusion of the discussion and precisely how it contributed to the content or structure of the article. What was the outcome? Yworo (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your collapse of "just so" was directed at a specific editor (myself) for no reason other than I dared to question your turning Libertarian into a POV-fork of Libertarianism. It had no justification. The later collapse of the whole thread was done based on the agreement not to discuss scope. If you'd collapsed the whole thread for that reason, it might have been justified. Collapsing a single editor's two word comment had no justification and was clearly a disruptive WP:POINT violation, and you edit warred to restore it after I reverted it. Yworo (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

the whole thread was disruptive, my edit was later restored as well as the rest of the thread being collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't justify your collapsing a single comment of a single editor, replying to an established thread that was active at the time. Yworo (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

very well, i apologize for removing "just so", being from the ysa, i didn't realize it meant "agree", i assumed it was some kind of taunt of misplaced comment. may wind of a 1000 camels, fill your sails! Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Yworo, I know it is your opinion that much of what I type is soapboaxing because you disagree with me, which apparently you use to rationalize your ignoring of much of what I'm say and ask you. As a contrast to how discussions with me go when someone else is equally skeptical but willing to cooperate, see this discussion with John K on his talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present a mainstream view of subjects. Obviously your view is fringe, not that there is anything wrong with that, but what is wrong is that you try to inject fringe views into articles. TFD (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, thank you for stating this. That's quite the accusation (and is at the root of the harassment, I believe, because everything I post seems to be interpreted through this "he has a fringe view" lens by a few of you, and not taken seriously, and often ignored).

So, please identify, as clearly and specifically as you can, for the sake of others reading this if not for me, the view of mine that you believe is so fringe that it should not be represented in (or "injected into") Misplaced Pages articles.

Also, please identify enough instances of me doing this (to establish a problematic pattern sufficient to bring to ANI) where you believe I was doing so, and explain how that behavior exemplifies inappropriately injecting this fringe view. Also, if it's an example of me arguing that that the scope of an article should be reduced to be not about a general use of the term in question but about a more specific topic because the more specific use is primary please explain why this is an example of me trying to inject my alleged fringe view rather than applying the Cat specific/general argument (Cat is about the specific commonly used use of the term, domestic cat and not about the general use referring to the family that includes lions and tigers), and how it's not just me upholding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as I consistently have done at WP for over five years, including recently at Talk:Stockman (Australia) (also discussed here). If you are unable or unwilling to do this, I request you withdraw this accusation for being without basis, and agree to not bring it up again. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Even I can do that, the fringe view that TFD refers to is the view that left-libertarianism is not part of the topic of libertarianism proper, which is contradicted by numerous mainstream sources, as can be seen from the many provided sources on Talk:Libertarianism. When you have abandoned using sources and are reduced to arguing about "just libertarianism" and "cats" to make your point, it becomes clear that you have no sources that explicitly state what you assert. Bringing your "pet" soapbox (pun intended) to AN/I may not have been the smartest move, either. Yworo (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of Law and Order Offensive Party by User:Tiptoety

User:Tiptoety uses his admin's privileges to remove sourced information in order to support the views of User:Miacek . --78.53.44.188 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No "admin privileges" were used in the diff cited. Tipoety subsequently semi-protected the article due to "excessive sockpuppetry"; the IP above seems to be another of these multiple socks. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP policy allows editors to undo any edits by banned users. Nevertheless, what exactly is wrong with the IPs edits from a content perspective? The references seem to be in German - did they not support the term to which they were attached? The dispute on this article starts here: - about a category. The article still has the text related to the category (without the references), so why was the category removed? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiptoety appears to have been involved at that article in a purely administrative capacity. Good on them for following up and monitoring after their earlier semi-protection expired. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would still like some explanation of the content issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Dodo19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned, or merely indef'd? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment. As Gimmetoo said, no explanation given if the edit is legimate or illegimate. This is the trouble of Misplaced Pages, Bugs just yells "banned?" but fails to provide proof or explanation! Misplaced Pages is very childish in this respect. Too bad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't yell "banned", I asked if the editor was banned. Because if he's actually banned, quality of content is irrelevant. If he's merely indef'd, then automatic deletion of his edits is not necessarily allowed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• *Sigh*. Dodo is a faultfinding troll and massive sock puppeteer who is known for attempting to use every opportunity to launch frivolous 'reports' , against his perceived enemies, often masquerading with ostensibly legitimate 'concerns' , . In order to be able to act, he is keen on instigating edit wars, very often using argumentation based on WP:SYNTH or sources that do not support the assumption he pretends they do .
  As for the Law and Order Offensive Party, I no longer have that page in my watchlist, so I didn't notice Dodo's insertions. I was asked to comment on my talk page. Tiptoety probably reverted Dodo's IP edits for administrative purposes, as 1) the user is prone to enter POV material, even if sourced 2) is known for falsifications, that serve one aim and one aim only: to provoke his foes into edit wars. It is definitely healthy practice to semi-protect the articles affected by Dodo's sock puppetry and to block disruptive IPs for some days. On the other hand, I agree that his references in that particular case can be included after some scrutiny by constructive users (I've only checked a couple of them, not all); whether or not the party now warrants the category Dodo's sock introduced, I'm not sure yet. It should be agreed upon on the respective talk page.
  If Dodo19 is not technically banned yet, I suggest we fix the issue now. Users like this are not interested in writing an encyclopedia, they come here only to poison the atmosphere and to disrupt. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment. Miacek refers to "often masquerading with ostensibly legitimate 'concerns' ". If there are legimate concerns, they should be carefully considered. If they are not legimate concerns, then they are illegimate (bastard/bitch). The concern should be evaluated foremost, not an attempt to smear the editor if you cannot come up with an unbiased evaluation of the concern. That said, I am uninvolved and have not evaluated the original concern. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

An insider comment: this was a case what I'd describe as an ostensibly legitimate concern that in effect amounted to harassment and caused some renewed sysop intervention that eventually led to the disclosure of his sock puppet farm. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the elephant in the room is the fact that an IP's first edit was at ANI complaining about a seasoned admin. Toddst1 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate sanctions imposed on Triton Rocker and LevenBoy

I would like a review of the administartor's noticeboard recently filed by User:Cailil. First, some background;

The fight between Irish nationalists and supporters of the pro-British position is a continuing and seemingly intractable problem at Misplaced Pages, as it is in real life. At Misplaced Pages the problem shows itself as continuing attempts to remove British Isles from the encyclopedia, the possible fabrication within Misplaced Pages of British Isles naming dispute (at best this is complete WP:OR), the systematic conversion of Londonderry to Derry (agreed in the MOS, but ongoing and unnecessary conversions guaranteed to cause trouble) and most recently an attempt by a number of editors to effectively downgrade the status of Northern Ireland by removing references to it being a country - see recent edits at Giant's Causeway. It is within this context that we have the so-called BISE page where interested editors will suggest articles to have British Isles removed, and more recently, and to counter the removals, other editors suggest articles for inclusion of the term.

Two editors, User:LevenBoy and User:Triton Rocker, have recently been voiciferous in their objections to removal of British Isles from articles and have drawn the attention of, amongst others, the admin User:Cailil. Cailil has tried to impose a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. When LevenBoy complained to Cailil about his actions he was immediately blocked, with Cailil citing a previous "transgression" (would Cailil have blocked LevenBoy if LB had not made the comment on his talk page). Cailil then went to AN/I to put forward a case for civility patrol (see above) and alerted LB and TR as here User talk:LevenBoy#ANi September 26, 2010. Note that at this point both Triton Rocker and LevenBoy were blocked and could not therefore easily answer the accusations. Further, LevenBoy was even blcoked from editing his talk page (reason here User talk:LevenBoy#"At the risk of being snipped". Cailil knew about this but did not open the talk page.

Cailil claims consensus on the expansion of sanctions. I see no consensus whatsoever, and given that the targets of the sanctions were effectively banned from commenting on them, the idea of consensus is somewhat lacking. The majority of those in favour of the imposition are protagonists in the British Isles debates themselves and can be identified as being related to the Irish nationalist side. Nevertheless, Cailil has imposed the sanctions on Triton Rocker and LevenBoy, as per this notice; User talk:Triton Rocker#Civility parole. When TR tried to comment on the sanctions on his talk page and he was instantly blocked from editing his talk page (and his edits were reverted) by User:SarekOfVulcan.

I suggest the above actions by two admins fall short of numerous policies such as WP:AGF. While both LB and TR have arguably been aggressive in the pro-BI stance, the impositions which they now face are clearly far in excess of what's required. Both TR and LB have also been the subject of a series of unfounded SPIs. TR is the only editor currently banned from editing British Isles terminology and is now serving a month-long block with no talk page access for what was clearly a minor and technical transgression of the sanctions , if indeed it was a transgression at all.

Note that sanctions were agreed against User:HighKing, one of the main editors, perhaps THE main editor, opposed to British Isles usage, but never enacted.

I have raised the issue at the above AN/I thread of the need for independent oversight of the British Isles-related problems. I drew attention to the fact that Cailil is from Ireland (see his user page) and as such, and with no disrespect to him, should not be talking up the position or arbitrator in this matter. I likened the situation to that of a referee at a rugby match and it drew the following bizarre response from another admin keen to arbitrate the matter .

In summary I believe the sanctions imposed Triton Rocker and LevenBoy are far too severe, they do not have consensus, and the whole issue should be overseen by impeccably independent editors and admins (which would exclude all those currently involved). I also believe there is a strong case for Triton Rocker's sanctions to be reviewed. There appears to be a definite attempt (implicitly and explicitly) to silence those editors who take a pro-British stance on relevant matters. LemonMonday Talk 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

comment British Isles naming dispute needs to be destroyed - this topic could be easily dealt with using a note in the lead of British Isles stating that "the term british isles is not commonly used in the republic of ireland,(refs) and is a politically contentious term in some(clarify) circles(ref) and in UK-repubRIE diplomatic relations(ref)" (or something). Or an article "British Isles (naming conventions)", to call it a dispute is overblown. That's all. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The matter at issue with the Giant's Causeway is not a "British Isles" dispute. It's much, much more amusing than that. We have "Irish editors" taking the position usually adopted by "British nationalist" editors: excluding a "constituent country" of the UK from an article lead or infobox and insisting on including only the UK appearing there. And to double the fun we see "British nationalists" trying to add a "constituent country" when they'd normally oppose doing so. I rather object to any editors being blocked or sanctioned when they were putting on such wholesome and family-friendly entertainment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support the blocks made by Cailil far to much time is being wasted dealing with editors who wont "get with the program". Mo ainm~Talk 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• This matter has already been discussed and consensus for the above sanctions on LevenBoy and Triton_Rocker was reached here on ANi. In that last ANi thread I warned the LemonMonday account to stop conflating users' nationality with content position (as it happens I have not edited in this topic at all and am not involved except to enforce sanctions).
  The LemonMonday account has less that 150 edits but has been active as a single purpose account involved in the British Isles naming dispute since late July 2008. In fact an ANi thread in August 2010 resulted in a topic ban for LemonMonday being discussed but not implemented.
  This topic has wasted too much of the community's time already and pointy threads like this are not helpful--Cailil 18:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  Also for the record I blocked LevenBoy for incivility but not Triton Rocker. I brought the expansion of sanctions for the British isles probationary topic area here so that uninvolved admins could impose lesser sanctions where useful, and a harsher sanction of a full topic ban if necessary not just to 'punish' these two editors. Furthermore there is an increasingly disruptive level of sock and meat puppetry in the Troubles and British Isles dispute areas--Cailil 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• I am a little startled by Lemon Monday's statement above that "imposing a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. " -- when this apparently refers to imposing a high level of civility. Where higher levels are most needed is precisely for disputes like this--the more intractable the dispute, the greater need for a very high standard of polite behavior, because of the ease at which they can escalate. I certainly endorse Cahill's actions. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the blocks and DGG's comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment IIRC Triton Rocker is currently blocked for violating his topic ban, and access to his talkpage revoked due to extreme incivility/attacks. LevenBoy's block is based purely on incivility/attacks. Both blocks are valid to protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of an article

The article Starscream (other incarnations) recently had a deletion nomination and the decision was to merge it with the article Starscream (Transformers). Now today I see some editor just deleted the first page, with none of the content being moved at all to the agreed on page, blanking it completely, so people can't even access the page, with no redirect. Not sure if this is the place, but can someone undo that so a PROPER perge can be done. Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starscream (other incarnations). DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. Anyways, the result of the talk was a merge, not a delete. Blanking the page completely and removing it's history is a deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not readily understanding that. As I understand, that does break attribution. Perhaps the deleting admin (who wasn't the same admin who closed the AFD) should explain why it was deleted per WP:CSD#A10. –MuZemike 22:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored it into your userspace at User:Mathewignas/Starscream (other incarnations), so that you can work on merging content from there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, good point on the attribution history ... before moving it back, I'll let the discussion proceed further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please put it back where it belongs and let all the Transformers Wikiproject editors work on a proper merger. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Starscream (other incarnations) was nominated for speedy deletion under A10 (content that's available in another article) and I saw the banner that the AfD had been closed as merge. I looked at Starscream (Transformers) and saw that the article had the same section headings as the "Other incarnations" article, so I thought they had been merged. I'm sorry, I didn't consider that we needed to keep the old article for its GFDL contribution history. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for helping fix the problem. I'd work on the merge now but I'm just walking out the door. Can someone restore the talk page? Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page restored. Favonian (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiiischiii and Talk:Lovejoy

User:Tiiischiii has added a list to Lovejoy, that is basically a trivia list, consisting of ... well trivialities based on either synth or no sources. User:MarnetteD has (in my opinion) correctly objected to this, and a discussion ensued on the talk page of the article. I only noticed this issue a few minutes ago, and added my opinion. However reading the discussion and checking the history, it seems that some refactoring of other editors talk comments has ocurred. I warned user:Tiischiii and in the process noticed user:MarnetteD has warned him once before. So I returned to the talk page of Lovejoy and it seems the refactoring has been part of a longer process of back and forth and perhaps because it is too late in the evening for me I have lost the overview of what really happened here. Some fresh eyes would be appreciated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiiischiii has re-factored my talk page entries on at least three occasions and, in spite of three editors explaining why this trivia section does not belong in the article, has reentered it as both an IP and a registered account. I am trying to step away from this for the rest of the weekend but am posting here per the notice from Saddhiyama. I know that the content dispute does not need resolution here but the moving and changing of my talk page edits is bothersome, especially since the editor does not want to acknowledge that this should not be done. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the 1st time my edits were re-factored. If you look at the edit history here it is hard for me to believe that this was a cross posting as the change came more than 20 minutes after my entry. Also, the comment claiming that it was a cross post came more than 10 minutes after that. I am sorry that I do not have to time post more examples but I am headed out the door in the next few minutes. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I User:Tiiischiii reinstated some content provided by users User:Toyokuni3 and User:Timrollpickering on the page Lovejoy because I found it interesting and relevant. Under the guideline WP:TRIVIA it states: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all" as a central tenant, however the user User:Marnette keeps spamming me with this article, along with threats to revoke my account, and refuses to enter into dialogue. The page Lovejoy contains no in-line citations, so have tried to improve the page by adding a References section, improving layout, and re-prioritised ordering. I have found it difficult to make edits to the article, as any changes have been immediately reversed by user:MarnetteD and immediately posted multiple spurious spams to my talk page. Refactoring occurred genuinely in error, as user:MarnetteD has routinely ghosted and removed any contributions I have made to main articles or policed any contributions I have made to talk pages. I am new to editing wiki pages, is there any guidelines around systematic targeting/removal of my contributions by another user? I have suggested working collaboratively towards the improvement of the article Lovejoy, however the user concerned does not wish to enter into constructive dialogue and wishes only to make wholesale deletes to my attempts at improving wiki pages - while sending "account removal" scripts. Is there a point at which removal of my contributions without reading and refusal to enter into constructive dialogue is considered threatening or bullying behaviour? I am disappointed to find this entry here as I have continually referred to the Dispute Resolution process, and particularly wished to be treated with respect and in accordance to the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (top three boxes) as suggested, and as I have behaved. Tiiischiii 23.33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The section quoted in WP:TRIVIA suggests that we don't remove existing ones in some cases - we most certainly no longer add them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Epson291

After using a verbatim, unattributed quotation from a source ("Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority.", from ), I warned Epson291 that such plagiarism was unacceptable. Unbelievably, his response was that he hadn't committed plagiarism because he provided a reference to the source from which the quotation was lifted , even though no quotation marks or other means were used to denote the direct copying of text. After I rewrote his plagiarized material in clear, original language , Epson291 proceeded to reintroduce the plagiarized sentence , changing the wording only slightly "Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority." became "Dominick then noted that since Stewart is Jewish, he is also a minority" (material removed from the original is in strikethrough, new language in bold). Given Epson291's repeated failure to adhere to common standards of academic honestymisuse of source text on Rick Sanchez, he's probablymay have added plagiarized material to other articles as well. Blocking his account would permit the damage to be stopped while his contributions are thoroughly investigated.Therefore I'm requesting that an administrator take appropriate action. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Excessively heated language rewritten by Peter Karlsen on 01:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

non admin reaction May I suggest you refrain from texts as your plagiarism, unrepentant plagiarism, unbelievably and academic honesty for the possibly improper attribution of a short sentence. It seems to be a bit more confronting than needed and it hardly suggests assuming good faith. Probably by investing some time in the discussion with the user on talk:Rick Sanchez or user talk:Epson291 you can come to an acceptable solution within a few days; and without much drama. L.tak (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Users who reject Misplaced Pages's attribution requirements for the verbatim copying of text need to be stopped, not negotiated with. Anything less than a firm response trivializes the seriousness of the offence: what we have here is no mere accident, but a user who insisted that he's done nothing wrong , then did it again , on the same article, with the same sentence from the source. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, these are very serious accusation not assuming good faith. You seem to have a discussion on the way a short sentence was attributed/phrased. Epson seems not to explicitly reject the policy, but has problems with a different version which he phrases as poor wording. Thus this seems to be merely a content conflict and I have confidence that in a good discussion the two of you will come to a solution. Otherwise, you can try to obtain a third opinion. But again, texts like he committed an offence, blocking suggestions or bringing things to ANI are not helping here. L.tak (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So now issues of whether sentences can be copied from sources without using quotation marks or similar attribution are "content disputes" merely because the user inappropriately introducing the source text chooses to complain about the style in which the offending text was rewritten? If this were purely an issue of stylistic disagreement, then, yes, it would be a content dispute, but plagiarism shouldn't be permitted to be re-framed as such. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the issues you mention are not content disputes. However, you provided a solution. That solution was not ok because it was poor wording according to Epson. Instead he reintroduced a not properly attributed text. The challenge that remains is to find a wording acceptable to both of you (that's what I called the content dispute); an additional challenge might be to explain/convince Epson that his way of attributing is not correct.L.tak (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned with the style of the sentence. If Epson291 disagrees with the language I used, he can rewrite it in his own words, and I won't revert him. But let's be clear: avoiding the verbatim, unattributed copying of text takes priority over any stylistic disagreement. To the extent that I'm seeking to stop Epson291 from adding incorrectly attributed text to the article, I am not in a content dispute with him. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a clear position; and in this wording it is free of anything which could be construed as an accusation to him/her. I suggest you take this to the talk page there and see if you can come to a solution together. I realize you attempted before at his user talk and you discussed in edit summaries, but you are hardly completely out of options yet I'd say... Good luck! L.tak (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've crossed out and rewritten some language in my initial report that was unnecessarily intense. I'd still like an administrator to deal with this, because Epson291 is likely to respond better to an editor who carries more authority in policy enforcement than I do, and whose language has been more temperate. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He's only been here for about two months. HalfShadow 00:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Epson291 is in the right, simply because he has the longer tenure? Is there a "vested contributor right" to copy sentences without attribution? Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(just in case the questions were not rethorical): Tenure time doesn't count on wikipedia and sentence copying without attribution should be dealt with. When working with users who are around shorter, some inexperience can be expected and should be taken into account by others. L.tak (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with your language directed towards me, from the very first time you wrote on my talk page. Yes the poor wording referred to content, not attribution. I'm not going to reedit it, because I don't have the time to debate with you, but be civil, and assume good faith, the way you've handle this is not appropriate for WP in my opinion, nor was taking this to ANI. - Epson291 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the tip of the iceberg

It's unfortunate that Epson291's response above was unapologetic and refused to acknowledge that he'd done anything wrong. As I suspected, his plagiarism on Rick Sanchez wasn't the first instance, and, if he isn't sanctioned, it won't be the last. For instance, consider Yellowstone Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which Epson291 created. An original sentence from a Fox News Article: "Founded in 1999, the invitation-only club in the Gallatin Mountains counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." Now Epson291's version: "The club was founded in 1999, in the Gallatin Mountains and counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." (provided without quotation marks or other indications of the direct copying of text.) Epson291, you have two choices: you can admit the extent to which you've plagiarized material, and devote an adequate amount of time to cleaning up the mess you've created, or I can open a contributor copyright investigation on material you've added to Misplaced Pages. Which option would you prefer? Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As do you, however, given your problem with civility, which need I remind you is a rule here, I am getting the feeling you're the one that's going to be blocked first. I suggest you stop issuing the ultimatiums here, you've already done enough, and posting here further could be seen as baiting, especially with the tone of your posts. I suggest you leave this thread be, and wait for more knowledgeable people to comment, instead of biting and biting. You've been told it's wrong already to bite someone new to things, yet you continue to do so in your completely rightous attitude. Drop it, leave them alone, and if your complaint has any merit, an administrator will comment. Until then, stop berating them.— Dædαlus 08:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE? Epson291 has been editing since December 2006 , and has over 14,000 edits . Here's some more material that he plagiarized: He created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Here are two original sentences written by a Jewish Community Center archivist:

"In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances."

Now Epson291's version:

"In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances."

(as usual, no quotation marks or similar are provided to indicate that text has been directly copied.) With all due respect Daedalus969, academic honesty is more important than being nice to editors who reject Misplaced Pages's standards in this respect. In none of his responses has Epson291 been at all willing to admit any wrongdoing or to improve his editing . Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue with Jewish Community Center of San Francisco was not created by Epson291: it was split off from Jewish Community Center where it was introduced here by WJHC (talk · contribs). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's obviously a prior account of the same user: Epson291 takes credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on his userpage (he does indicate other articles which he merely merged and rewrote, only "sort of" created, or "Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content", but not this one.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking over Epson291's edits this is looking less like an issue of plagiarism (since the sources are attributed) and more like an issue of copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism,

Works with copyright restrictions can not usually be extensively copied into Misplaced Pages articles. Limited amounts of text can be copied from such works providing they satisfy the Misplaced Pages copyright policy and are clearly indicated in the article with the use of quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations). All quotations must be followed by an inline citation (see WP:PROVEIT).

Since Epson291 copies non-free text into articles without "the use of quotation marks, or some other acceptable method", his behaviour does indeed constitute plagiarism. Also,

If an external work is under a standard copyright notice, then copying text from such a work, with little, or no, alteration to that work, into a Misplaced Pages article is usually a copyright violation, unless it is clearly indicated in the text by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations).

Therefore, plagiarism of non-free sources is a copyright violation per se, even if it otherwise would have been fair use. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WJHC is not a previous account of mine, and yes I split it from a previous page. If there are attribution problems or anything which constitutes plagiarism, I'm not perfect, and I am certainly willing to look at this, with the advice from other editors, but your tone towards me is not acceptable. - Epson291 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, a concession that you may have done something wrong only after an administrator threatens to block your account indefinitely has to be taken with a grain of salt. If WJHC isn't your prior account, then why did you take credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on your userpage , even though you have a section devoted to "Articles I Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content"? If you're willing to take credit for other contributors' work, then you're also going to have to take the blame. If WJHC is your prior account (your claim to have created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is truthful), then you're going to be in serious trouble for copyright violations . Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Why did you take credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on your userpage" - Well looking at it, because in the only edit I made on the page was its creation, hence it being on my section for pages I created. And in the edit summary I wrote, "(new article --> split from main)", so yes I did split it, so it should probably have been on the other list, it may have just gotten their because I was looking at the tool for seeing which pages I created, I was certainly not trying to decive anyone, or take credit for someone elses work. Those lists exist as a sort of watch list, to give me an ability to check up on the articles.- Epson291 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez

GabrielVelasquez has been engaging in harassment, personal attacks, edit warring, and sockpuppetry since at least 2008. After breaking the 3RR and filing a report against another user,, admin KrakatoaKatie blocked GV for edit warring on Nontrinitarian 23 January 2008. A few days later, on 29 January 2008, John Carter filed two separate ANI reports on GV's disruptive and harrassing behavior on Nontrinitarianism, beginning on 27 January 2008. The second report was filed on 29 January 2008. Although there may be other earlier examples, it was at this point that GV began using sockpuppet accounts overtly, beginning with 142.132.6.8 (talk · contribs). John Carter noted the account in the latter report above. Looking at edits from GV and the IP, there is no question that the account is one and the same.

Cyclopia reported GV for disruption, harassment and personal attacks on Talk:Gliese 581 c approximately two years ago, on 1 October 2008. This report led Cyclopia to file Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GabrielVelasquez on 6 October 2008. A statement of the dispute as summarized in the RfC, follows:

User:GabrielVelasquez has engaged in out-of-the-blue personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, tossed around several accusations of sockpuppetry and in general he is prone to aggressive, disruptive behaviour, making very hard for editors to proficiently discuss and edit pages of which User:GabrielVelasquez is interested, like Gliese 581 c.

The desired outcome of the RfC was a request that GV "should follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, or stop editing if he cannot avoid such behaviour." A subsequent Wikiquette report was filed by Gogo Dodo on 4 September 2009, and moved to ANI for further discussion by Ncmvocalist. GV was warned about the personal attacks, continued to make them, and was blocked by Maunus on 5 September 2009. Shortly thereafer, GV claimed to retire, but remained active. A year later, GV once again came to the attention of ANI when 208.87.197.82 (talk · contribs) showed up, and Jeffro77 reported him. Toddst1 tagged GV's user page as a sockpuppet, but GV reverted. In any case, GV did not retire, and when Gliese 581 g was announced, 24.78.166.69 (talk · contribs) showed up with the same modus operandi as all of the above, forcing the article to be protected. Because of protection, 24.78.166.69 could no longer edit, so after two months of "not editing", GV showed up out of the blue, and in his very first edit, warns the opponents of 24.78.166.69 about edit warring. One only has to look at the talk page and history of Talk:Gliese 581 g to see the same disruption by the IP and GV. Sockpuppet report still needs to be filed, but the consistent disruption since 2008 has not changed. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• This edit summary is enough to earn him/her a 2 week block as a repeat NPA offender. Feel free to extend to indef for socking. Toddst1 (talk)

Not really being aware of the history here I warned GV of undoing this removal of a personal attack and threat from one of the 24 IPs after he was blocked (the warning was after he was blocked, the editing by his account was obviously not 02:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)) Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the socks and the severity of the NPAs involved, I'm changing my block to indef for socking and severe, repeated NPAs. After attmpting to address this issue at RFC, this problem is not going to be solved, and it's getting worse. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lehighton, Pennsylvania

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

I found while on vandal patrol. Threat of violence? Legal threat? --Diannaa 02:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look credible to me; just someone who thinks this is a worthy way of spending his time. Revert, block, ignore. The first two parts of that have been done already. Ucucha 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay

Humaliwalay has been tendentiously editing the Lebanon article, pushing older, less reliable sources that give relatively higher estimates for the size of Lebanon's Shi'a population, and relatively lower estimates for Lebanon's Sunni population. This is particularly alarming in the context of the user's edit history, which shows a clear bias of minimizing Sunni material and bolstering Shi'a material (there was a previous ANI case about their actions on a since-deleted article titled Criticism of Sunni Islam). The editor has been asked to not add the controversial material until they can establish consensus for it, but practices a clear "I don't hear that" mentality, re-inserting it anyways, pushing their personal POV, and citation bombing the article (citing more and more older, less reliable sources to try to support their material). Uninvolved editors have chimed in on the original research noticeboard, the reliable sources noticeboard, and on the article's talk page discussion, explaining that Humaliwalay's sources are often inferior to those that are already being cited, and that Humaliwalay's use of those sources often constitutes synthesis and original research. Humaliwalay ignores these, piling up more and more source citations in the article which don't say what he's citing them for. I'm very much not interested in an edit war on the material, so I'd appreciate if someone can look into Humaliwalay's edit history and tendentious behavior. ← George 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sources which I am citing are from PEW, Library of Congress and WHO's backed body EMRO all published between 2007-2009. Whereas George relies on one single source that too a study of year 2007 and claims the source cited otherwise. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident an uninvolved administrator will take the time to review your edit and subsequent talk page discussion, and see the clear fallacy of your statement. ← George 07:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Still this matter is under discussion here . User brought this here very hastily. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an issue of content, this is an issue of behavior. You have been flouting Misplaced Pages policies, ignoring the advice of other editors, pushing through your biased point of view without establishing consensus. Myself and others have explained to you, repeatedly, that you should establish consensus before making your controversial edits. You refused. That is the issue. ← George 07:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack me by saying biased, I did not delete any of your claim, rather just inserted what I found by specifying them so that it does not clash with yours. Also as explained I have also deleted the word UN. And you call me Biased. Is this the way you should behave?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One very interesting thing I noticed after the User George accused me of being biased is that his citations are based on the findings of Youssef Chahid done in year 2005 and not 2007 which were reprinted by NOWLEBANON.COM here in which it states that Shias are around 29% even less than the Sunnis. Where as the same source NOWLEBANON.COM in its latest release by its MD Hanin Ghaddar on April, 25 2010 states that Shias are demographically the largest sect of Lebanon here . Nowlebanon.com does not prove to be as authentic and reliable as Pew Research Center and others. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What the hell kind of nonsense is this? I have never cited nowlebanon.com, nor have I cited Youssef Chahid, making your claim a complete fabrication. I cited the U.S. State Department, which gives a figure of 28% (not 29%). Fabricating such claims on top of your POV-pushing does not bode well. ← George 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizer blanking pages

• This user (User talk:Baeyo5) continuously blanks the Imortal page. Please someone do something about this. Thank you.--TwelveOz (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• If it continues, issue further warnings and if it continues after a final warning, report to WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome-vandal also given. How does the user follow the rules if he has never been given access to them? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But I dont think a user would ever need a rule to decide whether its a good thing or a bad thing to blank pages, its obviously bad. Thanks for the help! I'll be sure to send it to WP:AIV if the user continues.--TwelveOz (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's always best to assume good faith and ignorance, as BWilkins pointed out: before leaving a warning, you should leave a general note indicating the rule and why their edit was reverted, unless it's absolutely blatant bad-faith like libel or a personal attack etc. A template such as {{uw-delete1}} is an easy way to give the user a general note about blanking pages or sections, and you can continue sequentially through the templates until a final if the behaviour persists. GiftigerWunsch 10:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Though personally given that they had blanked sections and been reverted three times and that didn't give them pause for thought, I would probably start at a level 2 (no assumption of faith). The note you left was essentially equivalent to a level 3 template though (see {{uw-delete3}} for example), which shouldn't be a first warning. GiftigerWunsch 10:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

213.6.27.118 and 213.6.11.49

I feel comfortable assuming this is the same user. User:213.6.11.49 was blocked for edit warring. A few days later User:213.6.27.118 made an argument for then then blanked the block and appeal discussion on the 213.6.11.49 talk page. That isn't a big deal but then User:213.6.27.118 made the same edits that got User:213.6.11.49 blocked. Can an admin give them a firm warning about using the talk page and not edit warring?Cptnono (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like WP:DUCK. He pretty much says so himself here. Fainites scribs 12:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

IP User:213.6.29.97 is probably the same user, contributing the same content to the same articles (see 213.6.29.97 contributions). However, I have a feeling that he is trying to be constructive or at least follow the rules this time. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Dilma Rousseff The admin locked the page unilateral without any vote or consensus to do that. --Ftsw (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There were numerous editors edit-warring over several items that involved WP:BLP concerns, with no evidence of moving towards consensus on wording or agreement on validity of sources. There is talk-page activity, which is good. But can't simultaneously edit-war on the article. Good use of protection in a form that is least BLP problematic and/or prior to current disputes. WP:PROT does not require a vote, a consensus, or any other prior notification. DMacks (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

...and note that after the article was protected, another admin re-protected for a longer duration. For what it's worth, this is a clear BLP vio, and fully justifies the protection in my view (there were several edits like this one). TFOWR 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And Ftsw has twice inserted this edit at Israeli West Bank barrier (among other things, changing barrier to wall in the text and with an edit summary 'rvv pov'}. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there's an SPI case open about Ftsw. Their edits are getting progressively more troubling. They just uploaded File:Barackobama.jpg, for example. — HelloAnnyong 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The user's third edit was a request to become an RfA candidate. Tiderolls 15:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They're intimately familiar with policy, which makes their current conduct all the more troubling. TFOWR 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer (ThomasK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Thomaskh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)); I just pointed this out on the SPI page. And you're right, he's had more than five years to read up on policy. His previous RFA didn't go very well either. How do we feel about a range block on 188.23.0.0/16 and 93.82.0.0/20? There aren't many edits there that aren't his. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps point out that we don't 'vote' or generally require consensus (at least before hand) for a page to be protected. If an admin feels protection is justified in accordance with our WP:Protection policy they are free to protect a page. Often this comes from a WP:Request for page protection but there is no need for consensus to request protection, nor for admins to grant it and if admins notice problems themselves, they don't need to ask 'permission' first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ftsw (now indef-blocked here) is registered at de:wiki and being disruptive in exactly the same way over there, also anon editing using the same IP range. Are there any German-speakers willing to give them a heads-up? Or do we studiously ignore each other? Franamax (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Giftiger wunsch (talk) has a de-3 babel-box. I'll ping GW. TFOWR 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified

10:07, 3 October 2010 Anikingos (talk | contribs) m (20,002 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 89.191.104.43 identified as vandalism to last revision by 24.121.143.146. (TW))  ???

10:03, 3 October 2010 89.191.104.43 (talk) (19,898 bytes) (In references #26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud .) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

In references # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud. Article "Joe Nickell" in the Wiki has not of confirms or has not denied the content of article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. Therefore, # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) should be removed from references. Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified and not an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying that your edit being called vandalism is the incident here, I would propose that your edit (which removed a reference) appeared to be vandalism. I'm not sure, I don't use Twinkle. It appears the source you removed was actually the article by Joe Nickell, not the Misplaced Pages article on Joe Nickell. I see you have posted to the article talk page. That is probably the optimum course for you to follow. Regards Tiderolls 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've notified User:Anikingos of this discussion as well. Tiderolls 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the IP looked at our article and thought that was the source being used - it wasn't, Joe Nickell's name was just wikilinked. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the revert, but as it was explained, the edit appeared to be vandalism. But why would a revert come this far, if it was not vandalism, then you could just explain me about that and tell me why it is not vandalism and then i myself will put things back. It happens to me quite a lot of times. Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After the clicking on Joe Nickell (at # 26) appears an article Joe Nickell (at Wiki), the contents of which are not linked to an article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. A wiki invites all users to edit any page, but I deprived of this possibility and charged with vandalism. If the reference to # 26 is principally important, this the reference should be putted in due order and probably should be take away my unfounded accusations. Thanks for discussion, IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:98.85.5.251

This editor has just been given a block for inserting false information into film articles. The problem though is that he operates under a range of IPs. The vandalism isn't immediately obvious: for instance he will alter the running time of the film, or change the name of the writer of Shrek 2. Virtually all of his edits under the various IP have had to be reverted by other editors, and it's nearly all the same kind, focusing on running times, films composers and screenwriters.

One of the other IP numbers has similarly received a block: Special:Contributions/98.85.15.134

There are other IPs though that have slipped the net, all making the same types of edits that were reverted by a mutlitude of editors:

Special:Contributions/98.85.5.180
Special:Contributions/98.85.6.163
Special:Contributions/98.85.15.85
Special:Contributions/98.85.79.132
Special:Contributions/98.85.96.24

Is there any mileage in a range block here or is the IP scope too wide? I wouldn't be surprised if there are other IPs out there I've missed, but would appreciate it if an admin could look into this case. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be Bambifan101. I will place long softblocks on all these addresses. If someone could update the LTA page, and any SPI page, in the meantime? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI report filed, and noted ip's blocked.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Missile article

User:Victory in Germany has changed long standing images on the missile article without consensus and is edit warring in an attempt to force their unilateral changes upon the article despite opposition to these changes. The user has been informed of WP:BRD but continues to edit war rather than seek a consensus. Unionin (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to bring this up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel review

This deletion I did does not really follow any of the criteria for redaction however I felt that this was an appropriate case, so I did it under WP:IAR. Because it doesn't fall under any of the criteria, I'm just posting here for a review of the deletion by any other uninvolved admin in the interest of transparency. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good action, well within admin discretion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, however it doesn't really make any sense to delete the block log entry but leave the user with an intact talk page and an entry in ListUsers. See also this. -- zzuuzz 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of editing tool twinkle, edit warring, civility issues, etc.

User:Alacante45 is currently edit warring to protect his inappropriate edits to the Algae article.

This user made an addition to the article of a number of tags and text that I felt were inappropriate. I reverted his edits as the tags were not used appropriately. If the entire article is confusing, this should be discussed on the talk page in addition to placing the tag. I waited a while to see if he would discuss this situation, meanwhile editing one of his other tagging abominations. The "too long" tag is also not helpful on a high level article about a large topic. His additional text was added to a random sentence, but did not incorporate the remainder of the article and was unsourced. The article clarifies that cyanobacteria are an excluded group.

The user put a single warning vandalism tag on my talk page for removing his edits, rather than assuming good faith. I will not be blocked for making an appropriate and good faith edit, and an only warning vandal tag is grossly inappropriate for my edit.

This user gave another single warning vandalism tag by mistake, this time to a user who was actually reverting vandalism.

All in all, it appears that User:Alacante45 does not have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia editing tools to be qualified to use WP:Twinkle, and I hereby request that he/she be blocked from continuing to use it. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators can't revoke Twinkle rights; unlike rollback, which is a tool granted and revoked by administrators, Twinkle is a gadget that is activated by going to Special:Preferences, selecting "gadgets", and then selecting Twinkle. The Utahraptor/_{Contributions} 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a twinkle blacklist in User:AzaToth/morebits.js. Access Denied  17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. The Utahraptor/_{Contributions} 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• FWiW, I blocked Alacante45 and another editor a few minutes ago (before this thread was posted) for a 3RR violation on algae. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably appropriate under the circumstances to have blocked both. Thanks for posting the information here. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems he is just a vandal, but adding subtle nonsense, rather than doing the sort of vandalism designed to attract quick notice and blocking. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well he's twice attempted to evade his block, resulting in it being extended, so it seems his remaining time here may be brief. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I assume he's going to hoist himself on his own petard soon enough, but do want to include sufficient details to get his twinkle use taken away asap to make it easier to revert him until he gets to his explosive finish. Assuming he gets back. Not looking good for this user name. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hungry generation

There appears to be a long-running content dispute starting to get a bit heated between two editors, Maharshi Balmiki and Tridib Mitra, with IP 115.187.38.171 now joining in. The two registered editors seem to have a bit of an ownership problem, and each of them adds meta-comment to the article itself - "I've fixed this now", "The other guy's version is nonsense", etc. I'm sorry I really haven't got time to look into this myself and try to get the combatants to talk, but I thought I'd better at least let people know it's happening as it seems to be hotting up a bit. (Just off to inform the editors involved). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All three participants now informed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron sock yet again

He even admits it . Causing major disruption, please block right away. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged by someone else. I have declined an unblock request on the parent account (User talk:Sinbad Barron) due to the evasion, but people more familiar with the user can review by all means. --S.G. _ping! 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Constant rudenesss

KnowIG (talk · contribs) has a big problem with incivility, and has done for quite some time. In the last day or so he's managed to produce the following: (which includes disturbing connotations of, "I don't give a stuff about BLP,")

Note that he generally tries to implicate me in baiting him into his outbursts, but I haven't had any contact with him for well over ten days, and I invite everybody to check that I had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the diffs above. However, I am irked by his persisten lapses into what is, at best, gross rudeness. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see my stalker's reappered, who constantly swears at people KnowIG (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps just point out that while KnowIG (talk · contribs) may believe that I appear and disappear, he must surely be aware that Misplaced Pages's civility policy does not; rather, it is constantly a requirement. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming from you who was banned for being incival the other day KnowIG (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not going to get into a debate with you, so this is my last comment in response.) Nothing I have done in any way makes the above diffs from you acceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So ur admiting that your actions are acceptable cause you can get away with it KnowIG (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

His point is that whatever his imperfections they do not invalidate his assertion that you have been incivil to other users in your edits, and I agree. What makes you think that communicating in such a way on Misplaced Pages leads to a positive communal environment? I find your matter pretty dickish, to be honest, and I advise you to be a bit more civil. S.G. _ping! 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• KnowIG (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one month. Guess this thread can now be closed then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  I think a third party should review the diffs below to see if there is anything more than "tit for tat" and decide if a close is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough :) It is basically tit-for-tat, though, with the stress on tat! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  I've been skimming through those diffs, all incidents identified appear to be prior to TreasuryTag's block a week or so ago, so time already served - no evidence provided of returning to the behavior that resulted in the block. Appears to be a pointy report. Disclaimer: I didn't do a comprehensive review of TreasuryTag's recent edits, only those examples that were linked below. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked KnowIG (talk · contribs) for a month and have provided a rationale on their talkpage. My actions are without prejudice to any review of concerns expressed regarding TreasuryTag, as listed below, but were in part because of KnowIG's attempt to divert attention from his poor behaviour by raising these matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not that I care one way or the other, but a month seems a bit excessive. HalfShadow 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Check out the weight of stuff in the RfC I linked to in my initial post – this has been going on for a long time and if this month's block encourages a change in behaviour (which I genuinely think it might) then it's a success. If it doesn't, then an indef is fast approaching. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Anything less might simply be waited out, and it allows those area's where the editor was in conflict with others to return to a normal editing environment. The reactions of the blocked editor when their block expires will signal whether they are interested in being part of the editing community. Of course, if consensus forms that the block is excessive or incorrect then I have no objection to it being varied or removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag

User:TreasuryTag has constantly been swearing and incival towards other users and in edit summeries. I've had enough. So here are some examples 1, plain rude infact patronising here, and here, more rudeness shown on 3 ocassions here, any way back to the list, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8 910, 11, 12. And also examples of him making unhelpful/rude reasons for revising a page 1 2 3, 4, 5, 6 7, yeah, 8, 9, 10, 11], 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.

That's only since June and I'm sure you'll agree this behaviour is unacceptable and has gone unchecked for far too long. KnowIG (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, completely unchecked – ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yopie and his rollback right

The user is notified about the report:

The user is not very proficient in English so that the only thing that he is able to contribute to the Misplaced Pages by is nothing more than POV reverting and the user has been carrying out a certain type of reverting crusade on Misplaced Pages every day. Withal, he has recently been blocked for edit warring. And shortly after he had received the block, he commenced an appeal against the sanction in which he was warned about abusively using rollback tool in an edit war and he was said that this may entail the revocation of the rollback permission. However, it is worth pointing out that this is an old problem and that this behaviour of him was first expostulated as far as November 11, 2009. And in addition, there is a template on his user page that "This user reverts vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!". In other words, while reverting, one of his eyes blinks and of course his ability of apprehension of English written texts is very limited due to his poor English. It is important to note that the user continued using rollback even after being warned in his aforesaid latest block appeal. It is also true that there are several other problems with him but they are germane to the ArbCom rather than here (e.g.wikihounding, personal attacks) and those I woultn't start to dissect right now. In my opinion, it would be in order to request Yopie to be bereaved of the possibility of using rollback.--Nmate (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

There has been an issue with three editors at the Theodore Roosevelt article concerning the coats of arms, with User:Beyond My Ken, User:Roux and User:DrKiernan. A fourth editor, User:Dmcq, agreed to their position with the requirement that all heraldic images should be historical, though this is not the policy found on Misplaced Pages nor the stance taken by the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Opposed to there side is myself and User:Seven Letters, which we based our opinions upon quotes from heraldry book, visual images showing similar composition and heraldic traditions. I would like to also note that User:Beyond My Ken has stated he knows nothing of ehraldry, and that the other two editors have stated they are only slightly familiar.

The image is this, File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png. There opposition is against the smaller shields at the bottom of the image because they are embellishments and ornature not part of the coat of arms itself. I have explained that there are many examples of coats of arms painted and drawn surrounded by corporate arms and other embellishments not part of the actual coat of arms itself, artistic license added to the painting or drawing. I have also explained that even if there are minor additions in an image (I used an example of a turtle sitting in grass, where the inclusion of grass does not mean the image could not be used in an article on turtles), that it does not exclude the use of an image when the major focal point is of the subject to be presented. For examples where embellishments are added are this 1893 example , and more modern examples are here, here and here. With a composition more similar to the image in question, where smaller shields are used, are the works of Anthony Wood, a British artist who painted arms for the U.K Government, here and the Niagara Herald of the Canadian Government here, here and here. A heraldic author, Fox-Davies, writing in the early part of the 20th century, said of embellishments to heraldic displays, "Later came the era of gilded embellishments, of flowing palms, of borders decorated with grinning heads, festoons of ribbon, and fruit and flowers in abundance... The external decoration of the shield was carried to great lengths...." To counter these points, the opposing editors gave no sources or references. Apparently, all of these examples are dismissed by some measure or point, and that the real truth was theirs, and that there was no need or way to prove that with sources.

This seems to be mostly a case of Misplaced Pages:IDONTLIKEIT and Misplaced Pages:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with the editors also refusing to meet Misplaced Pages:Verifiability by refusing to reference their claims which are in dispute, especially in the face of the evidence I have provided in support of my claim. They have also continued to edit the article in spite of the ongoing discussion. Is there any way to resolve this issue, give weight to the references provided and require counter points to be equally referenced?

Thank you for your time, XANDERLIPTAK 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this not a content matter? This is not a matter with which I have great familiarity, but it seems to be being discussed at Dr.Kiernan's talk page and probably other places as well. I don't think it should be at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: there are actually some important behavioural problems at play here, though Xanderliptak would need a mirror in order to see what they are. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Factual error: I have never at any time said I was 'slightly familiar' with heraldry. Beyond that... this is pretty clear forumshopping. The consensus at the talkpage is clear, Xanderliptak has himself stated that Roosevelt never used these embellishments (the extra shields at the bottom of the image), and this really is all rather nonsensical. Xanderliptak has also failed to mention his editwarring at Theodore Roosevelt. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't really know much about heraldry; I didn't even know Americans had coats of arms. With my admin powers, I could block someone, delete something, or protect something- are you asking me to do any of those things? Which one, and why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)