Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.47.156.95 (talk) at 21:35, 5 March 2011 (→Mysterious glitch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Conflict of interest by an admin

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

SchuminWeb has a long and checkered past with the Portal of Evil and Old Man Murray websites. He should not be involved in nominating nor arguing for their deletion. He posted and was posted about voluminously on both sites. Cundallini (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack. GiantSnowman 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Moo? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacas escritoras? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's My Cow? HalfShadow 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why a Duck? Yworo (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Who are you people and where's my horse?". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No Wife, No Horse, No Moustache. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I've been seduced by the duck side of the farce. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What also floats in water? A duck! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BIGDUCK LiteralKa (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How a user with a total of 2 edits would know about someone's "long and checkered past" is hard to say. Cundallini, meanwhile, had a short and checkmated present. Ironically, Cundallini is an old Italian word meaning "Boomerang". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-read Cundallini's post. He says SW had a long and chequered past on those websites. Many WP editors use their WP handles elsewhere (I do this myself) - so it's not unreasonable for a "noob" to know about it - esp if SW posted on them "Hey I'm getting your WP pages deleted!" Sure doesn't sound like SW, but I think your reaction a little hasty. Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm inclined to unblock here. This user is not a sock of anyone but rather another person who came from the Old Man Murray site as a part of the current AFD dramafest currently going on. I don't think we have AGF'd very well here; moreover, if the user is intent on being disruptive, then let him get blocked on that instead of on a spurious claim of socking. –MuZemike 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed my previous comment due to the new evidence provided below. This is good block. --CrohnieGal 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by all this. The above user has apparently been ridiculed by 10 experienced users some of whom are administrators. I assumed they knew something the rest of us didn't (or at least I didn't) and didn't pay much attention when I first saw it. But if these latter posts are correct (I have no clue one way or other) then I'm appalled. Either way, could one of the admins who posted above give an explanation of this lack of AGF and whether it's justified. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is an external website whose members have had a years-long habit of harassing SchuminWeb in all sorts of venues. There have been postings like the above trying to incriminate Schumin here on ANI periodically for several weeks. Once you've seen the pattern it's quite obvious that this posting was part of the same campaign. Besides, Cundallini (talk · contribs) has now also been CU-confirmed to be a sock of some sorts; see latest messages on his user talk by CU Tiptoety. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - relieved to hear it. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't making fun of User:Cundallini. I was making fun of User:GiantSnowman. But I have seen so many new accounts and ips harassing SchuminWeb over the years that I do tend not to get very excited about investigating them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Been reading through the Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination) out of sheer nosiness, and I found it interesting that User:Kade miraculously rose from the dead after 4 years of inactivity after several blocks for PAs and harassment, only to be indeffed for PAs and harassment. I am dying to know whom this User:Kade is a sock of. What otherwise law-abiding Wikipedian has such an evil puppet? --64.85.220.182 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to have someone to compare it to before the CU's will go fishing for you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny - disruptive editing on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

I’ve been trying to reach agreement with User:Mindbunny on a content dispute in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and have found Mindbunny to be confrontational, unwilling to discuss meaningfully, as well as issues of WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally disruptive editing, underpinned by a POV. In a sense, the content issue is not that significant, but I am concerned enough to bring it here because I believe this user has driven other editors away from this article in order to keep control of it e.g. please see this and especially this posted by another editor. Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring here here here here here here here and here. An opposing editor posted these on Mindbunny’s talk page, gave up and has not edited the article since. The Mindbunny account has only been in existence since 1 December 2010. There is a strong suspicion that this user is a sock of User:Noloop who supposedly retired last November – another editor has begun an SPI on that (see here, the result is not yet known. Noloop largely created the article as it now is and was under scrutiny for disruptive behaviour (see also this revert of Noloop's Talk page) – that’s covered in the diffs in the SPI report. (Incidently, 5 editors in total have expressed the opnion that Mindbunny is a sock - see SPI diff plus this

On the specific issue of my current content dispute with Mindbunny, the summary is as follows. I introduced this edit at the beginning of Feb., which Mindbunny reverted. I couldn’t get Mindbunny to discuss this meaningfully and regretfully I got into an edit war. I admit I was at fault on this as well but it was out of frustration in Mindbunny’s lack of proper response. I reported it to AN/3RR (here. This was how far I got on the Talk page with the user at the time I reported it. Mindbunny was blocked and then unblocked in part because I was not sanctioned (the reviewing admin thought I was at fault as well.) After this Mindbunny posted a proper response to my edit on Talk, I responded by radically changing my edit here (with Talk comment) on 8 February. Actually it was a completely different edit albeit with te same underlying point. The article was edited by about 10 editors over the next two weeks including one editor who made some minor changes to the text I added and Mindbunny herself who edited other text in the section it was in on 21st February. None (including Mindbunny) removed the text or commented adversely on it. To me (and maybe I’m wrong on this) this indicates consensus acceptance of the text. Then on 22 February (the day after the SPI on Mindbunny began, to which I posted a comment on the 21st) Mindbunny removed the text. After two reverts, and an exchange on the Talk page I proposed that we get a WP:Thirdopinion here, but there has been no response despite asking a second time. I believe that the reason for Mindbunny’s latest reverts is (a) because I supported the SPI (the timing indicates that) and (b) it is contrary to Mindbunny’s strong POV on this subject. The original edit and this edit are completely different texts but with a similar underlying point. This point is valid and would provide the article with some balancing NPOV – it would appear that Mindbunny objects to that. Mindbunny's edits (as with Noloop) are generally along the lines of being overtly hostile to the Saudi treatment of women. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no sympathy with the Saudi position, but there is a question of maintaining NPOV credibility. I've informed Mindbunny of this post. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, on February 7, the user was not blocked (or, rather, the blocking admin quickly reversed their block), because at that point in time (February 7), they had not been given {{uw-3rr}} or some other warning making them aware of that policy. Since that time, Mindbunny's edits have contained very little other than edit warring and some fundamental misunderstandings of policy (eg "undo violation of BRD by Decausa" - what does that even mean?). I support something being done here. --B (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Mindbunny has adopted a similar approach on Lara Logan - see this. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Entertaining to see so much edit-warring by those complaining of edit warring. The link above is a threat by Eriklectic to start edit-warring, complete with a time and date: "I will be reverting the Lara Logan edits by 10am EST tomorrow". This, on a page that has been protected for much of the last week. B, who "supports something being done here" has chosen to do it by reverting my revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. His comments on the Talk page? Nonexistent. His edit summary? Nothing to do with content. That's a great way to diminish edit warring! As for Decausa, the actual sequence was that he plopped an enormous list down into the article, saying he had found it in Saudi Arabia and needed a place to stick it. ]. I undid it with an edit summary, and he immediately reverted my revert, complained that my reasons weren't "proper," and accused me of edit-warring. Smart! Due to confusion caused by sloppy "recent change patrollers", I was blocked twice. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin on his own initiative. Decausa's description is erroneous in many other ways. This is wrong: " Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring...." I didn't add that; I undid its removal. There is more nonsense in his account, but it's not worth belaboring. My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.Mindbunny (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "I will edit war...", for any reason, is not the way to win friends and influence people. There are lots of things that lots of people would rather not have the public know that are reported and verifiable through reliable sources. Should they be removed from articles just because the person the article is about has neither confirmed or denied them despite the fact that reliable sources state them as fact? Also, a BLP that she didn't authorize - are you referring to the release of the information (which, if the source of the information is anonymous, how do we know they aren't speaking on her direct behalf?), or are you suggesting that the subjects of BLPs must give their consent to their Misplaced Pages articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Misplaced Pages accounts. Mindbunny (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, what makes you the enforcer? Why are you deciding for the community rather than letting the community decide for itself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one, am the enforcer on the issue, as the previous blocking admin (note: I'm not even sure what the whole edit war is about, so I can't be biased on the issue). And that statement was entirely inappropriate. Yeah, I kind of goofed up that block history; the first block was only not deserved because the user wasn't given a proper warning - although later talk on the user's page now gives the impression this may not be the user's only account. The second block was definitely deserved, but I was feeling lenient.

Mindbunny, please stop hitting the revert button and being rude, now, or you'll see yourself blocked again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why would I be blocked for "hitting the revert button", rather than, oh say, those who are hitting the edit button without consensus? As for civility....If you think you're entitled to know whether somebody was raped, you're an asshole. If you think that detail is encyclopedic when it is reported anonymously, you're truly uncivil. The idea that admins care more about the word "asshole" than compliance with something truly respectful, civil, and humane in the description of a sexual assault is offensive and disgusting. And, exactly why is all this crap being directed at me? Somebody just announced an intent to edit war beginning precisely at 10 AM tomorrow. A reader of this page just went over to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and reverted my revert--to prevent edit warring. So now you're threatening to block me for editing other pages because I said "asshole" on AN/I? That makes no sense. Mindbunny (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning, referring to other editors by that term is uncivil and borders on WP:NPA territory. It has nothing to do with the article or its content, it has to do with how you choose to present your case. (And on the subject of the article and its content, does it strike anybody else as odd that the, presumably positive, statement that the assault was NOT rape is what's being demanded to be removed?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that I had been sexually assaulted. Would you ask me "Well, were you raped"? If you heard from someone who heard from someone who probably knew the truth, would you run around announcing that I hadn't been raped, and put it on the Internet? I sure hope not, and if you did do those things, you would be an #*$%. Privacy is privacy. You don't ask such things, and you don't tell them. If they're not volunteered, you live without knowing. It's for the victim to specify, or not. And, the BLP guidelines pretty much say that. Mindbunny (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. There doesn't seem to be any getting through that he/she is not in charge and we have to work with others.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. Despite clear, eminently civil requests from the community, Mindbunny appears intent on being uncivil, and of the mind that that is the only way (s)he will be able to make her point. We don't need that. Even if the substance of MB's issue is one (s)he is correct on. Would also suggest a CU, as this appears a likely second problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Account is stale for CU purposes, but the behavioral evidence is very strong. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. I wasn't exactly sure what should happen when I made the original post above, but with the User's responses (which is, by the way, typical of the way the User always behaves and edits) it's difficult to see that he/she will ever learn to behave in a reasonable way. This is particularly so, given the disruptive track record of the user's previous probable account, User:Noloop, who "retired" with the words "I am just fed up with Misplaced Pages: the cultural bias, the abusive administrators, and a "dispute resolution" process that ultimately has no method other than the popularity contest". DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey -- Noloop may have a legitimate basis for some of his complaints. Or not. But whether or not MB is the same editor, MB's performance here in this string is sufficient for a block. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block User has shown complete inability to assume good faith and thus assumes everyone else is wrong. Incivility and tendentious editing issues as well, on top of violating WP:CLEANSTART. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A block would solve everything. Do it! The best way to teach editors to assume good faith is to block them. The best way to teach them not to edit war is to revert their reverts. Do I assume everybody else is wrong? It seems to me I've spent hours giving reasons and researching Misplaced Pages policies. I must be hallucinating. Block me! Hallucinating editors can't help but be disruptive. A block would solve that. Do it. Mindbunny (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. In this case, it would help adjust clue level. The way you have been editing is not agreeable with the community. That's why this post is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the last post, I'm beginning to doubt if this user is ever going to get it, whatever the sanction. (Btw, Noloop was blocked four times before retiring, twice for edit-warring and twice for disruptive editing. At the last block in July 2010 the blocking admin.'s log summary was "apparently didn't get the message last time".) DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The community is disorganized and careless. In a case like this, one can hardly blame it: this is a petty personal dispute. I think there has been a single comment from an editor not previously involved (Epeefleche). What is presented here to the community is a tip of an iceberg, a tip slanted and defined by the complainer. Your antagonistic entry into the discussion I started at the Village Pump was a good example. I tried to turn a negative into a positive. You didn't do your research, assumed I was an asshole, and talked to me accordingly (to your credit, you corrected your mistake later, after I did your research for you). Magog blocked me twice--and undid his own blocks both times--because he didn't pay attention to detail. The recent change patrollers reverted me 3 times without even bothering to look at the Talk page--again, a failure to really care about the facts. I've tried to research some of the issues I've seen on this board that caught my attention. I always give up because it is hard and not that important. It takes a long time to sort out the history of a dispute. Nobody cares that much, nobody will bother. What is written here is not written by "the community." It is written by a few complainers with a prior history of conflict with me, and with a track record of distorting the facts. Mindbunny (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pay attention to detail" and "really care about the facts": it wasn't me that entered your Village Pump discussion. Don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. The "you" in my comment refers to Bearean. Mindbunny (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you had previous conflicts with Bushranger and B? You've had a conflict with B since s/he left the post above but was there one prior? How was my response at the Pump antagonistic? I cited WP:BOOMERANG because you were guilty of calling Tide Rolls polite warning "vandalism" when you were there to accuse others of misusing the term. I didn't assume you were an asshole...I couldn't make up my mind whether you were a klutzy, complaining noob or someone's sockpuppet. I asked for diffs of what you said because I overlooked them (a mistake but not for lack of looking). I helped you by linking to the diffs once you pointed them out.

Ever since that time, I have been watching you. You really edit in just 2 articles primarily...and unfortunately the edit-warring and disruptive patterns are in both. You've proven above that you are willing to edit war regardless of policies or consensus and I'll add that I've seen you wikilawyering (that is most of what you do) to the point of being disruptive. Those two articles have ping-ponged back & forth in my watchlist with you arguing way too hard for you to have been anything other than someone's sock. Newbs don't jump into BLP arguments and initiate ANI threads or ask for automated tools to be created which penalize RC patrollers and vandal-fighters. I have yet to see you really compromise anywhere or admit that maybe the problem is yours. Sit back and look at the number of folks telling you to consider your actions...stop accusing everyone of being assholes and that everything is broken because things don't go your way. We're trying to clue you in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I argue and wikilawyer, and also refuse to respond and edit without discussion. Both are true. It makes perfect sense. I edit war against consensus, although there is no consensus and I'm not trying to change any article. That makes perfect sense too. I edit war regardless of polices, except for when I cite policies such as BLP and BRD, at which point I am being disruptive. That's fair. Thank you for teaching me. Mindbunny (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? Don't you think there might be a clue in so many saying pretty much the same thing about you but from different incidents? Or do you just think everyone else has got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't. The only editor here who has actually edited with me is you. You could go round up some other editors from Lara Logan, while ignoring those who agree with me. Given your prior interactions with me, I believe that's exactly what you'd do. You are dishonest. You say I tried to add things I didn't try to add, that I didn't explain my objections when I did, that I'm promoting an anti-Saudi POV when I'm not. You cherry-pick links and diffs to present a slanted view, and that slanted view affects the first impressions of others. Also affecting first impressions is my Talk page. It is plastered with erroneous warnings from recent change patrollers--not once, or twice, but three times. All invalid, but nonetheless giving a certain impression to visitors. (Amazingly, the patrollers all claim it's not their responsibility to take 60 seconds to look at the Talk page to see if what they're reverting really is vandalism. Like I said, the community is disorganized and careless.) My Talk page is plastered with block notices that never would have happened if not for the false positives by recent change patrollers. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin, but nonetheless it give visitors a certain impression. Erikeltic showed up and bared his fangs and outright threatened to edit war with me at 10 AM sharp the following day. Typically, you linked to this as evidence of my disruptiveness. You are dishonest. I'm not going to comment here again. Mindbunny (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I'm the mastermind behind a conspiracy against you. I can see you've decided to improve first impressions of yourself on your Talk page.DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny is reverting cited material from the London Times declaring it "has no consensus". This is making good on the promise of edit-warring. Please block...enough is enough.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block From checking this and looking at this editors manner of responses it's time to issue the block. The reverting is continuing at the page which is not good. The uncivil manner of talking along with being totally disruptive I think the time has come to allow the block so that real work can be done at the articles. I also think that this editor should be made to put their other account name on this account since cleanstart has been breached. --CrohnieGal 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Could an administrator now make a decision on this please. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, now this this account is just an edit-warring SPA. DeCausa (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BLOCK NEEDED Yep, just coming here to make the same point. You were quicker. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Associated thread

See below for a broken continuance.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Outing comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

RFC: Does it qualify as WP:OUTING to repeat personal information (specifically, a name) provided by an anonymous user that has not been redacted? If so, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of why this is the case. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across this“outing” comment made by User:IntrigueBlue. IntrugueBlue claims he based his outing comment on this post purported to be placed by the person who has been outed. Given the extensive vandalism that has been going on at the Sunshine Village article (much of it directed at the person who is the subject of this outing), I think it would be wise to follow the procedure explained at WP:OUTING, to make a request for Oversight to delete both of these edits from Misplaced Pages permanently – but I do not know how to do that. Fages (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have RevDeleted the supposed "self incrimination" and WP:Outing issue. I shall leave IntrigueBlue a gentle reminder not to believe unreferenced content on WP and a strong hint not to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The following edits concerning the WP:Outing issue may have been missed for the RevDeleted process:

• (good faith removal which actually serves to archive the outing)

Fages (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) --Errant 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to RevDel my edit, which redacted the discussion? I thought that deleting the edit immediately before mine would prevent the material I removed from being visible in the diff. January (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I understand how this was a contravention of WP:OUTING. From the linked description (emphasis mine):

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.

The IP user in question posted their own name in relation to an edit, which I then repeated elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken, the individual did not redact this self-disclosed information, so the last sentence in the quote above does not apply. It wasn't my intention to incite harassment, merely to make other editors aware that someone with a strong WP:COI was repeatedly editing the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, an ip posted under a name which they said was theirs - we have no evidence that it was; it may have been a Joe job. As such, saying an ip is who they claim they are can be considered trying to disclose an identity without knowing that the individual has released that information. I know that it is a tricky concept, so that is why I only advised you and strongly urged you to be more careful - privacy expectations is such that the usual response to a disclosure attempt is an official warning or even sanction. To sum up, we do not know for sure that the subject has edited Misplaced Pages and that noting they have by referring to an ip comment claiming to be that person is considered WP:Outing - and it should not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What? The IP claimed to be the person. While that may be a lie, it is absolutely not |outing]] to repeat that claim. It may be wrong, but it has repeatedly been held that as soon as a person outs xyrself, it's no longer outing to repeat that claim. If I state here that I am John Travolta Madonna Joe McJoeyson , it doesn't matter whether or not that's true--any other editor is safely able to repeat that information ps, none of those are true. There is no violation of policy here. Furthermore, that RevDel was not appropriate: editors are allowed to self-identify. Now, if they did so without realizing the consequences, and later asked for the info to be retracted, it could be allowed, but I see people self-identify all the time and I've never once seen that self-identification removed (outside of minors giving too much info, but that's not the case here). I believe both LessHeard vanU and Fages need to explain more clearly why they've contravened policy here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and ErrantX, since xe's the one who actually did the revdel. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply followed up on action already taken (i.e. one revision was removed and someone added that there was more), you'd have to ask LessHeard vanU. --Errant 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, from WP:OUTING;"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." On the basis that you, nor me, cannot confirm that the ip is the person they say they are (as you note, you can call yourself anyone) it can be taken that they are attempting to connect a real person with an ip address - and by confirming it, without knowing it is true, you are involved in outing that individual. I would really appreciate it if you would AGF that what I am saying, although quite arcane, is correct, and that I have been exampling as much good faith as I would want you to extend that I am explaining and providing a rationale for my comments. You made a mistake; we all do, and it is hoped that we recognise and understand the situation and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I AGF that you think I (well, actually Intrigueblue) made a mistake, but I actually think that you made the mistake. This was an editor posting personal information about himself. It may be a lie, but it was not posting personal information about another person. By your logic, I could never repeat anytime anyone self-identifies. For example, on your user page, you claim to be "Mark James Slater." By your logic, I "cannot confirm that you are the person you say you are" because "you can call yourself anyone." Thus, by repeating what you yourself have written, I am violating WP:OUTING. A lot of IPs sign with a name, because they don't know how or don't care to bother creating a Misplaced Pages identity. By both the implied logic and the explicit wording of WP:OUTING, I may refer to that person by that name (of course, accounting for the possibility of dynamic IPs). So, if you're confident in your interpretation, I would like to you to clarify under which circumstances referring to a person by a name that they have themselves revealed is acceptable, and when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

“Confirmation” presupposes additional knowledge. If I had somehow gathered the named individual's IP address from elsewhere and stated that indeed the statement was correct (or that it were incorrect), I would be providing confirmation and giving “feedback on the accuracy of the material”. I never made any such attempt to confirm or deny, only made the good-faith assumption that the anon user's statement was correct and repeated it elsewhere, as explicitly permitted in WP:OUTING (see bold text in blockquote above). As for your comments, AGF does not mean “assume that I am correct”; I don't attribute any malice to your perspective, merely a faulty interpretation of events and/or of policy. I hate to be stubborn, but your subsequent attempts to explain your reasoning seem to require a leap of logic that I'm not following.

Regardless, I would like to hear you justify using RevDel unbidden on a user. Can you redact John Travolta's comments above because you think he made a mistake in posting his “name”? Can you redact this post because I just “confirmed” that Qwyrxian is John Travolta? What if I stated on Talk:John Travolta (which I won't) that Travolta was editing the article under the name Qwryxian? Where does the distinction lie? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use common sense and reasonable judgment, taking into account the nature of the claims, and the type of person named (in terms of their likelihood to inspire imposters). It's not helpful to concoct weird edge cases and wikilawyer over them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then in this case the RevDel was even more inappropriate, because, due to the edits the IP made and the deleted statements made on the talk page, it seems highly likely (i.e., common sense) that the person is who they claimed to be. Again, this is common practice for IPs, to "sign" in plain text. Again, by LessHeard's logic, if an IP writes something on a talk page, and signs it "Bob Bobber," and then in the reply I write, "Bob Bobber, I think you're wrong," then I am guilty of outing. If an IP or user self-identifies, then that automatically means WP:OUTING no longer applies, and the policy makes this explicitly clear. If a second party says "That IP is actually Bob Bobber," then that second party is outing, and if I repeat the second party, then I am also guilty of furthering the outing. It really seems very simple to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that unlike an account, an IP's edits cannot all be assumed to have been made by the same person, so if someone editing as an IP self-identifies that should not be taken as an admission that all edits made by that IP were theirs. In this instance, it could be a shared IP address for a company (quite possible considering the variety of edits from this IP). January (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point. It doesn't completely address the underlying issue, but I should perhaps have been clearer about the uncertainty of the matter in my original statement. As far as I can recall (the original has been RevDeleted), I said, “It seems that has been editing Misplaced Pages using IP .” I didn't state categorically that IP = name, though I did neglect to indicate that IPs can of course be shared by multiple people. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) I think we are analyzing this under the wrong policy. It's not really outing. But it is a violation of WP:BLP since it is making the obviously negative claim that a certain living person has made COI edits, with no support whatsoever in reliable sources. As such, it is properly revdel'd (WP:GRAPEVINE, etc.). T. Canens (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems much more applicable. However, the individual in fact made a self-identifying post on their own biography. I did reply to that post, but provided no additional information there. I repeated that information on the article about the company owned by this individual, which to me is a reasonable conclusion of a COI. And indeed, the IP in question had made clearly COI edits to the article, so I think the warning to other editors had merit. Was it jumping to conclusions for me to say that A was editing C because A had IP B and IP B was editing C? Maybe it would have been more appropriate for me to say that IP B was making strongly POV (but not necessarily COI) edits to C and leave it at that.

However, if my actions were inappropriate, how is it different to dedicate an entire section and even an entire article to the same subject? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has a promotional tone, and at the time was semi-protected because of repeated attempts to remove the material in the diff provided. That makes it obvious that there was COI editing going on, there was no benefit to speculating exactly who was doing it. Re your second point, as T. Canens says it's an unsourced assertion about a specific living person, and is quite possibly incorrect (I'm convinced by the variety of edits that others have edited from that IP). January (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailguy

Anyone any clue what User:Highspeedrailguy is up to at his user page? I know he's caused trouble before - is any action needed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by NuclearWarfare. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was skeptical of the WP:GOTHACKED explanation the first time around, but this is just getting tiresome. This is the 8th (!) account or IP he has edited under due to clean starts, renames, compromised accounts, etc., and despite the efforts of a number of editors to guide him in the right direction, he just can't seem to avoid the drama. I think a short-term ban is in order. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I find it hard to believe the "hacked" story, especially as he seems to claim he was online at the same time as the hack - there are only so many times we should fall for "The sky is falling". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Left a final warning. T. Canens (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I support Tim's warning and thought process behind it. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above. Editor has rebutted the presumption of good faith, and is no longer entitled to AgF.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Further warning requested

Enough is enough. This user started as User:Perseus, Son of Zeus, then User:Perseus8235, then User:Highspeedrailguy. Now editing as User:173.49.140.141. Only the Highspeedrailguy account is blocked. This user has repeatedly requested deletes of talk pages and user pages, and is a highly disruptive user. Further examples include SPI accusations, cleanstart attempts, odd village pump requests, revealing personal information inappropriately, bad CSD tagging, Misplaced Pages account being hacked at least twice...the list goes on. I ran CU and found an additional linked account, User:Sheep Say Baa, which I blocked, and which he later claimed was "his brother".

This user seems to believe that only editing from one account at a time is within policy, and does not seem to get that disruption is a blockable - and bannable - offense. I would warn him myself but that would be poor form, as I've tried to engage, and have expressed some frustration myself. Having run a CU (and blocking an account as a result) definitely makes me involved. Would someone take a look and put him on a very short leash? I am thinking of something along the lines of one account, period, and further disruption will result in a ban, not a block.  Frank  |  talk  22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User is aware of this renewed discussion.  Frank  |  talk  22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support a one-account restriction. The question is, which account? I believe both User:Perseus, Son of Zeus and User:Highspeedrailguy are permanently blocked as compromised, and him editing under an IP or IPs is not ideal given the obvious need to keep an eye on his edits. Does he get a new account, or should he resume editing as User:Perseus8235? Whatever account he chooses, I think we definitely need to proceed with the understanding that it's the last account he gets: if it gets either compromised or "compromised", that's it. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. He's had, what, eight chances? He needs to, as he said, focus on grades, and not let hackers distract him from RL. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? A 3-month block? Indef? 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd think a reasonably lengthy ban would be in his own interest as well as that of the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this was marked as resolved, however the Perseus8235 account is not blocked... --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what got resolved exactly... the IP he's been using is unblocked, as is the Perseus8235 account. We also need to decide what his main account will be, for the purposes of the inevitable unblock request. My suggestion would be to consider Perseus8235 to be the main account, block both it and the IP for 3 months for disruption, and make clear that (1) Perseus8235 is to be the only account used, and (2) further disruption either from that account when it is unblocked in 3 months, or from any socks during or after the block, will extend the block to indef, and will likely lead to a ban discussion. The other accounts are indef-blocked at the moment, and should stay that way. I think a permanent ban is premature, but a 3-month block/ban of any editing would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Perseus8235 account unblocked, if he chooses to come back, he should not make any new accounts. I don't think restrictions are necessary; if something happens again, block indef. Eight chances is too many. He's already stated he will not return, though, so hopefully this is not needed. In reality, this is just an editor who needs to focus on life now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny story...

User:Secrets floating in the sea is a  Confirmed sock of Perseus. TNXMan 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Perseus8235; user is either displaying absolutely no control of any accounts or is playing games with us. –MuZemike 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. So much for not returning. This is just sad. I think "come back in three months and don't sock in the meantime" would have been the best thing for both him and the project, but I can't really argue with an indef either given the obvious not-getting-it. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he came to my talk page asking to be adopted, other than to waste my time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicide threat reported to WMF already. I think it's time to let them handle this now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just taking the piss - has been all along. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly. But regardless, passing it up to WMF was the right thing to do. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User has been active on Simple under Highspeedrailguy in the last few days. Should some note of this be made there? I could just see him trying to hang around over there and cause trouble... -PrincessofLlyr 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of his activities here, his first Simple edits appear to be edit-warring with an antivandalism bot, which isn't too encouraging. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. But is it advisable for me, or someone else, to make a note to active Simple editors to keep an eye out for him, or just leave it for them to figure out? I'm semi-active on Simple, and I know of at least a few cases recent cases where problem users from here just continued their problem behaviour on Simple, exhausting AGF until they were blocked. PrincessofLlyr 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to give folks over there a heads-up. I note that he's registered simple:User:Perseus8235 in addition to simple:User:Highspeedrailguy; no idea what other accounts he may have over there. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the Perseus account. I checked the latest one (Secrets...) and didn't find it registered. I have left a warning note on his talk page there and will post something on the noticeboards for the general community. PrincessofLlyr 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm considerably active at Simple English, so I'll keep an eye on him. This whole incident has been ridiculous.
And I can't help thinking that there's something to do with Access Denied here...(unless the CU evidence can say otherwise), but that's another story. Goodvac (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TheLostHero2012

This user edits against consensus. He/She also has never even tried to explain their actions. This user has never edited a talk page or even leaves an edit summary, He/She doesn't understand that Misplaced Pages is a community. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure TheLostHero2012 won't care, and won't respond here, thereby maintaining a record of not having a single talk page edit in the contribution history. For the most part, edits don't seem to be disruptive, and there isn't much I see that demands discussion. Failure to give edit summaries is a problem (because it increases workload for others who have to check the edits), but isn't really a blockable offense. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He edits against consensus. Like on Generator Rex. He keeps on adding characters that other editors have found not necessary. I feel he needs to be blocked, thereby forcing him to learn how Misplaced Pages works. JDDJS (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He needs to communicate, full stop. I've told him that and said he'll be blocked if he won't communicate and work with others. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller. I 100% agree with what you said above and left on his talk page. JDDJS (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, he edited without consensus. JDDJS (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm and 1RR on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

Emmanuelm (talk · contribs) -- The article in question is subject to ARBPIA. I note two reverts in less than 24 hours: (edit summary includes "reintroduced") and ("complete re-write"). The editor was blocked for 1RR on this article just over a month ago; in addition, there was an ANI discussion a couple of days ago on the same issue , resulting in a warning (because of "misinterpretation" of the 1RR policy). It would be difficult to conclude that the message is getting through. There is some pretty heavy POV-pushing going on, which needs to be dealt with in its own terms -- but the first step imo would be to insist on putting a stop to the 1RR violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not pay attention. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that it isn't clear enough how both of these edits are reverts. This one restores the following text (for a second time after I had removed it twice):

His job description, or U.N. mandate, deliberately excludes Palestinian human-rights abuses. As Dugard said on October 19, "I have a limited mandate, which is to investigate human rights violations by Israelis, not by Palestinians." The pre-determined outcome, however, has never been a problem for this lawyer. Far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe this way: "Today I deliver my annual criticism of Israel’s human rights record."

The source is an op-ed entitled "The U.N.'s Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers" -- so among other problems this editor is putting statements like "far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe" in the voice of Misplaced Pages, not of the writer.

The second one changes an assertion that the Israelis bombed two schools in Gaza to an assertion that they bombed only one. "Sorry I didn't pay attention" might be adequate the first time -- but again we are now on the third instance of a 1RR problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The first edit is indeed a revert but it is one of many edits on this particular topic, discussed at Talk:Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations#Bayefski on Dugard; thankfully, we now seem to have found a text & sources that satisfies everyone. The second edit is not a revert, it one step in my rewrite of the text to better reflect the source, including the addition of a new source and a Wikilink, all pointing to only one school bombed. Bottom line, I am not a bean counter, I am only trying to improve this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Emmanuelm (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A two-month I/P topic ban has been proposed at AE by EdJohnston -- perhaps another admin or two could weigh in and/or close? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper posting to my talk page

I have repeatedly requested that User:Ronz not post to my talk page. She/he has ignored my request. Is there a way to block her/him from posting to my talk page? History: On Feb. 25th, after s/he templated my talk page and that of two other editors with whom she is involved in a dispute, s/he edited my talk page to restore an unpleasant message from her/him that I had deleted: . I responded that the template was inappropriate: . On February 28th, after many more unpleasant postings to my talk page, I asked him/her not to post on my talk page any more in this edit summary. S/he then immediately posted again, so I explicitly asked, on my talk page, that she stop posting to my talk page: . Since then, she/he as continued posting to my talk page: , , . Please note that in a 3rr warning on Ronz's talk page yesterday, admin. Beeblebrox concludes: "You are way beyond 3RR already. Discussion is what we do instead of edit warring, it is not a free pass to continue warring behavior". In declining Ronz's request for page protection at Musical theatre, Beeblebrox wrote: "So talk on the talk page and stop edit warring. This could easily have boomeranged on you, I would be completely justified in blocking you right now, so cut it out or you will leave no choice." You may also find the recent discussions at Talk:Musical theatre of interest. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say that your reply to Ronz's apology was less than graceful. I've blocked Ssilvers for edit warring on Musical theatre. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason you blocked one participant but not the other? Shell 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Prompt block review requested

I'd like this block reviewed, please. The diff cited is three days ago, and blaming Ssilvers for this edit-war (no one else was blocked or even warned) seems bizarre. I also note that Ssilvers has been editing for five years, has 70,000 edits, has (had) no block record, and appears not even to have received a warning, which is certainly in order before blocking a good-faith user of this tenure. (Disclosure: I have met Ssilvers at meetups and at the Gilbert & Sullivan Society and cannot claim to be entirely disinterested.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

People are routinely blocked these days, while those who should be don't; it's no surprise. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good-faith editors should rarely, if ever, be blocked without being warned first that their behavior is problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I support an immediate unblock. There doesn't seem to be any warnings and there was little harm being done to the encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock Seriously? -FASTILY 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I should be clearer. I'm not saying he should be unblocked, I'm saying I did it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - Lulz. If Giano had said something as milquetoast as that, we'd be giving him barnstars for his improved tone and congeniality. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

↑ -FASTILY 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been unblocked, thanks to everyone! May I delete all that block stuff from my talk page? And, can it be cleared from my log? Also, in view of this, I'd like to broaden this ANI inquiry to request that someone review of the edits at Musical theatre since February 23 to see who has actually been edit warring there, and what the consensus actually is (as opposed to what involved editors say it is). For example, see these reverts, all within a 24 hour period that violated the 3rr rule: , , , , , . Thanks for help and/or advice. BTW, I agree with the blocking admin that I handled my responses to Ronz poorly and hope to do better in the future. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. It can't be "cleared" from your block log as in memory hole cleared, but my unblock rationale tried to make clear that I wasn't just unblocking to be nice, but that people actually thought it should not have been made to begin with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note The dust seems to have settled while I was asleep, but I feel I should point out that I specifically warned Ronz to stop edit warring and he simply removed the warning and seemed to be saying that I don't understand the situation and need not be concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  I removed the notice because I had already taken steps to resolve the problem (20:11, 2 Mar), and indicated it in my edit summary (21:17, 2 Mar). I followed up with Beeblebrox, explaining that I had already promised to stop editing the article for 24 hours and to observe 1RR thereafter (22:11, 2 Mar). I indicated this on the article talk page as well so others could find it more easily (21:23, 2 Mar) --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronz it seems does not like such evidence left on his talk page. His modus operandi is to spread the discussion around or to insist on placing the conversation on an opposing editor's talk page so people investigating have a harder time piecing things together and to shift blame onto the editor he is in dispute with by making it appear he is reasonably conversing with them on their talk page while simultaneously baiting them and planting diffs that support his view and disparage his opponent. It is surprising how effective his tactics are in bamboozling admins. The sophistication of it when one realizes what is really going on is troubling. I suggest admins wise up to it to avoid mistakes like the one committed in this case. Lambanog (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User Toddst1's blocking in general

As I was looking into this block by User Toddst1, I noticed another section about blocking for 3RR for a separate user on a separate issue, which you can find here. Going to the talk page of the user that was blocked, I found this section. I then proceeded to the article in question where the reverting took place, namely Thiruvananthapuram. I then looked at the history of the article, found here, and became instantly perplexed. User DileepKS69 had not violated 3RR as far as I can see. In fact, going back to the 22 at least, s/he hadn't reverted more than once within a 24 hour period. What the 3RR seems to be based on is the series of 4 edits made on February 25, which were, it seems, all reverts, but there were no intervening edits by other users. As far as I know, doesn't that mean that it qualifies as a single revert? A series of edits without any intervening edits by other users, I thought, counts as one edit or revert in terms of breaking policy. Silverseren 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't count and isn't 3RR, but who cares if the worst that ever happens to you is a cute little trout on your talk page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is really not helpful. :/ Silverseren 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Un-sarcastic? What is this section for? You know that nothing is going to happen; the only thing people get desysopped for is when they go to someone's house and stick an iron rod up their ass. We can give a "warning" or a slap on the fictional wrist, so go ahead. Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both blocks appear to be inappropriate. Are there further similar instances? N419BH 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't checked. I'll take a look and report back. Silverseren 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just from his talk page for the past month, I don't see any other outstanding incidents, but I am relying on the blocked people to comment on his talk page, which isn't really all-encompassing. Silverseren 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be better suited for a) a nice discussion with the admin or b) an RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to bring this to people's attention. I am not opposed to either course of action. I was actually hoping that Toddst1 would respond here himself. Silverseren 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My next question is actually exactly that, has this been brought to the admin's attention previously. If it has, then we're likely looking at a RFC/U. If it hasn't, then we're likely looking at a discussion with the admin. N419BH 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean has he been informed of this section or has he been reported previously for similar actions? Silverseren 05:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I informed him of this section. What I'm wondering is roughly how many incidents of questionable blocks we are dealing with, and has his general blocking behavior been the subject of previous discussions. If we're only dealing with a couple recent iffy blocks we don't really have that much of a problem; everyone screws up from time to time, including admins. If we're dealing with a longer-term problem then we have issues to discuss. If it's been discussed previously then we likely have a RFC/U on our hands. If it hasn't the first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the problem with the individual. So my question is really to determine the extent of the problem and where we are in the dispute resolution process. N419BH 05:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're being a little to quick to light the torches and wield the pitchforks here. Two possibly bad calls on blocks does not a bad admin make. A quick perusal thru ANI archives for topics on him show one that apparently went nowhere and one that WP:BOOMERANGed on the reporter. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I have always found Toddst to be an excellent admin, often in trying circumstances. We all make mistakes and I have more than one misjudged block on my own record, as I'm sure do the majority of admins who use the tools on a regualr basis. Let's back up a little bit and examine this in the context of his thousands of highly effective actions (including over 8,000 blocks). Maybe part of the reason good admins are so hard to find is that folks at ANI are so quick to turn things into a lynch mob? If there are genuine concerns about a particular admins' actions, the correct venue is their talk page and then a noticeboard iff and only if it can't be resolved amicably. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to users getting the impression that there are witch-hunts. Give the guy a bit of good faith and chance to respond; it seems quite obvious that he went offline after blocking (possibly to sleep or work or whatever other engagements he has in real life). People can make big mistakes, even under great pressure, but can graciously address them, and in such instances, there's no need to jump at all. It would be a different story if there was already knowledge of several previous instances which show for poor judgement where the post-handling of those instances was also concerning. Given that there is no knowledge, and this isn't even at a point where we can determine if this particular incident is resolved or not, this subthread does seem to be unhelpful altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH: It's going to be rather difficult to determine that, considering that Toddst1 is an admin who is involved in a lot of blocks. As other people have put it before, he is the admin that is complained about the most on ANI. However, most, of these reports are entirely unfounded and the original poster gets reblocked or warned. If there are other cases of questionable blocks, one would have to wade through all these other discussions.

@Tarc: I'm not calling for him to be de-sysopped here or anything like that. I'm just wanting him to be more careful in his blocks and, especially, to be nicer to said people. I'm also noticing a significant amount of incivility on his part toward the people he blocks, whether they deserve the block or not. Silverseren 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So really what we're dealing with is a couple iffy recent blocks; nothing more. People screw up from time to time. Let's see what his response is in the morning and go from there. N419BH 05:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Silverseren 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you never do anything, you never make a mistake. Agreeing with Tarc in this thread. An active admin who makes many appropriate blocks will make a few in error, and regrettable as that is, the real test is if he is responsive when questioned on the mistakes. He has done a lot of good work as an administrator. Does he correct his errors and strive to improve performance? Civility is appropriate even when dealing with those needing a block. Edison (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Edison. I admire Toddst1's work on Misplaced Pages. I have not looked into the details of this report, but have seen a lot to like in the past. Jusdafax 09:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From Toddst1

Hey folks. I’ve been out for a while. Just checked back in. I’m not going to try to defend my apparently ill-advised blocks today. Apparently I F-ed up. Apologies to all involved and no malice intended. Consider a trout (or maybe a salmon - they're bigger) - applied.

I will say that I had a RL incident earlier in the day that I’d rather not get into that probably contributed to a lapse of judgment.

If folks want to conduct a broader review of my many blocks, please do so. I've been a particularly active admin and there's a lot to review and probably a lot to improve upon. I will say I've always tried to act at least in good faith and to defend the principles of the project. I'm sure there are many opportunities for improvement in my history.

I think it’s time for a wikibreak for me. If my peers are amenable, I hope to be back in good form soon. Thanks for your patience. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's no real point in responding to this, since you left on a Wiki-break, but I suppose I will anyway in the hopes that you'll read it when you get back. First off, you are an amazing editor Toddst1 and I know situations like this are few and far between in terms of your editing and your active work as a blocking admin. The one thing, however, that I would ask that you work on is your attitude toward the people you block. I've noticed that you are generally quite curt, if not outright rude, toward them when they come to you seeking answers. Even if some of them are obviously not on your talk page for the proper reasons, that doesn't mean that you should respond badly to them. If you could just work on this when you get back and also be a tad more careful and less impulsive in how you block, I think events like this will stop happening, for the most part. Silverseren 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarc

Could someone possessed of more patience than I can currently muster please impress upon Tarc (talk · contribs) that calling one's fellow Misplaced Pages editors "undersexed basement-dwellers", and suggesting that they "worship a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl", is less-than-ideal behavior? Kirill  04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not necessarily wrong, but it's unfair for him to generalize that way. It's a cute cartoon character. But apparently some read far more into it than mere cuteness. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment #1 was a bit heavy-handed upon reflection though it is from almost 2 weeks ago, you're a bit late in the game if you're gonna carp on that now. #2 is what it is; many people, mainly from one niche wiki-project, are screaming to the rafters that precious Wikipe-tan is not lolicon, when it, um, kinda is. This stuff is swill, leftover from a bygone era of the Misplaced Pages, and it should not be given an ounce of room in project-space. As some opined in a recent AfD on a related page (linked below), this is the sort of thing that drives away potential new editors, particularly women, which has been a concern voiced at the highest levels of the WMF of late.

At the very least, this An/I should bring Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination) to the attention of a wider audience, just as the last one didn't really see a groundswell of opposition til the pro-tan clique tried to railroad the nominator into silence in an earlier AN/I filing. Good job, Kirill. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of possibly going over old ground, could you supply a diff or two where women stated they were leaving wikipedia because of this cartoon character? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was referring to was several respected (IMO) editors opining to that effect at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, not a specific person saying "I am leaving because of this". Tarc (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they're making assumptions. Unless they are also providing diffs? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There are making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions, yes. I don't mean to be rude, but does this tangent have a point? I never claimed specifically that women are leaving or refusing to join the project because of the presence of this Wikipe-tan project-space page, I only noted that others called for deletion of a related -tan page based on presumption of such. It seems like you're setting me up for a fail because I have no diffs for something I didn't really say in the first place. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to get my head around what the real issue is. Apparently there are variations on this kind of cartoon character which are X-rated. But does that automatically mean that any representation of an anime character is suspect? The key question: Is there reasonable evidence that the continuing presence of this cartoon figure could cause significant damage to wikipedia's reputation? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest. And others, apparently, though I certainly don't claim that others share or approve of my colorful commentary above; that's my responsibility and mine alone. Are all the images of this thing overtly sexual? No. But IMO there's enough of a taint with past imagery...whether it was the blackface or the french maid outfits of the "Think of Wikiped-tan" image gallery, or the outright pornography that Jimbo deleted from Commons a ways back...that I think this stuff just needs to be buried in a deep, dark hole. Tarc (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Explict stuff can and should be gone. But the "normal" stuff is something most people either enjoy or couldn't care one way or the other about. Saying that we need to discard all of it because some of it was bad is classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and claims that "women might be driven off" sounds like a textbook case of WP:BEANS to me. Contrary to the popular stereotype, there actually are a lot of women who are fans of anime/manga. And we have a lot of more important things to do rather than debate over whether G-rated cartoon personalisations should be trashed because some idjit was stupid with R/X-rated versions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're seeing stuff in it that I'm not seeing. However, I'm not up on this "lolicon" stuff. Given that Jimbo is the visible face of wikipedia, has anyone asked him about this? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's commented about it recently:

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales

As far as I can determine, while he's not a fan, he doesn't view the character as being particularly problematic either. Kirill  05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like he would be just fine if it went away, but he doesn't feel the need to force the issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mentions of specific examples, and I don't expect that anyone else has either. It's certainly possible that something of the sort does indeed take place, and it's a worthwhile topic for discussion; but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence either way.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think Tarc's comments about the editors who support the retention of this page are warranted, particularly given the scurrilous nature of the allegations he makes. Kirill  05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; indeed, the diffs linked to in the first post are certainly WP:CIVIL infringements, and even seem (to me, anyway) to be violations of WP:NPA; a "people who state X are Y" statement is no different than "you state X and are therefore Y". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The diffs presented by Kirill appear to show at the very least distasteful comments by Tarc not in keeping with WP:AGF. While one is free to have an opinion on the matter, calling everyone with the opposite opinion what is alluded to above is not in keeping with the consensus-based discussion model. I would suggest Tarc keep his arguments focused on the content, and not other contributors. N419BH 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc should be admonished to avoid attacking those who present views different from his in forums such as AFD. There has been a long history of attacking, demeaning, and ridiculing other editors, both in his comments and his edit summaries, rather than simply discussing the issues in a civil manner as required by WP:NPA. Twice in the last couple of months he has characterized "Keep" !votes as "fraudulent" in AFD , and has shrugged off requests on his talk page , that he strike the incivil postings, just adding accusations of "making up things that don't exist" and then deleting the request (without archiving it). He then characterized a DRV request in an AFD which the closing admin and other characterized as difficult and complex as "To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. ". In that DRV, he attacked several opposing editors with comments such as "That is quite a lie there." Tarc, please do not try to win in every dispute by insulting and attacking other good-faith editors. Discuss the issues instead. When people bring a concern to your talk page, do not just disparage and delete. Edison (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what we call "piling on". My dear Edison, that has nothing to do with this; if you have a beef with something said at DRV then you should have taken the appropriate steps to lodge a complaint at the time, not hold it in reserve to pounce at a convenient moment. Honestly, that turns your complaint into more of a pointy action rather than a legitimate grievance. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as your pattern of attacking others in AFDs is being discussed at this forum, it is an appropriate and non "pointy" time to bring up the long history of such behavior, which is not limited to the one DRV as you claim, at which others noted your past habits of such behavior. Clearly you want any complaint limited to the one individual abuse without demonstrating a pattern. That way each personal attack, taken by itself, might be insufficient to justify a block or a restriction of some sort, than a larger pattern might require. This thread should not be an AFD or a DRV as such about any one article. Edison (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base ;) This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. :) Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images, however, are concerning. I have nommed one for deletion to test the waters over removing the worst offenders. --Errant 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment if as Tarc says "images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest" then I strongly suggest he never looks at a family photo album. Exxolon (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  This strawman has been attempted in the MfD several times, and easily refuted. I am speaking about THIS image in THIS specific context, not of imagery of children in general. Please don't attack positions that I am not actually taking. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of this we still have the same issue; a vocal faction decrying attacks on their "unofficial mascot", a mascot that was until quite recently used in some merely suggestive imagery, and some outright pornographic. I'm sorry if said faction feels aggrieved, but understandably there's very little tolerance for what this image has been put to use for. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• At the end of this we still have the same issue: Tarc still dodging acknowledgment that his attacks on others, in multiple AfDs despite his own strawman, are unwarranted and violate the basic principles of Misplaced Pages.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Copypasta of someone else's words with your own twist at the end really isn't a productive, helpful, or rhetorically imaginative response. Regarding the comments, perhaps in the future I shall think of more creative and less directly caustic ways to express my disdain for those who are in favor of retaining suggestive imagery in project-space. At the end of the day, a WP:SPADE is still just that. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just a comment on the original complaint. Which seems to have been successfully obfuscated in the ensuing conversation. Tarc is experienced enough and literate enough to not engage in personal attacks. Tarc started in the right direction when he called it heavy handed. Though he veered in the wrong direction IMHO when he qualified that admission, and then focused on the fact that it was two weeks old. But for those comments, I would have viewed this as much ado about little. But under the circumstances, I would simply caution him to cut it out. He can make his point while remaining civil, I'm sure, and I expect it would be more readily received were he to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, I don't ever seem to recall Tarc assuming good faith or being diplomatic about anything. He may indeed do so on occasion, but what sticks in my mind is a series of posts (e.g., at DRV) that demonstrate overtly and overly partisan deletionist behavior. The fact that this is an outgrowth of that does not surprise me at all; the fact that Tarc has not yet been sanctioned for repeated incivility is more of a surprise to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The above two comments sound like RfC material rather than points relating to this "incident". The issue at hand is not whether or not the editor has a history of being rude, but if particular comments he made about a particular issue were a policy violation. I believe they were beyond civilized discourse and it would be good if he were admonished, but I doubt there is much else to do about them. Should some of you think this and other issues warrant a RFC/U then I suggest starting one. Piling on here is not right though, IMO. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Anyone familiar with Tarc will know that comments such as those leading off this discussion are not uncommon for him. He knows what's appropriate and what's not. Its been duly noted for anyone keeping track, and the ANI can be closed.--Milowent • 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh my. Well, one "final" final note. People attempting to frame this as being connected to acrimonious past DRVs/AfDs that I may have been involved in are barking up the wrong tree. Being frustrated with cliques who scrabble for flimsy reasons to keep articles on 15mins of fame one-eventers is one thing. Wanting to rid project-space of sexual anime imagery that originates in some long-past "unofficial mascot" era and that a growing number of editors feel is not conducive to retaining female editors in the project, is worlds apart. Honestly, a deletionist-inclusionist squabble is kinda insignificant in comparison to what we're trying to pry out of Misplaced Pages: space here. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly we have different definitions of 'sexual'. The truly bad ones have got to go, agreed, but saying that all of them are "sexual" because some are/were is like saying the 24 Hours of Daytona is the same thing as the Indianapolis 500 since both involve cars going around a racetrack. (And there's also a scent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The only thing "sexual" about this image, for example, is that the cartoon character is presumed (though not provably) female. Anything beyond that is prejudicial. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it is a drawing, so whatever characteristics it has are somewhat subjective, but I think it is safe to assume that it is intended to represent a female since I don't detect any hint of a penis in this image and Wikipe-tan appears to have sprouted breasts in this one. Also, the creator of those Wikipe-tan images, User:Kasuga tends to draw pictures of young girls. such as this popular illustration of Lolicon. I'm told Kasuga has created many more like this which are available off-wiki (but not on DeviantArt, who made Kasuga remove some because of "underage nudity"). If you think the sex of Wikipe-tan is ambiguous, you may be thinking of Futanari. User:Niabot is the go-to guy for futanari and hentai pictures here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You never know, where drawings are concerned. It just occurs to me that banning a G-rated drawing because the character has been used in PG-rated, R-rated, or X-rated drawings, makes about as much sense as banning all G-rated illustrations of female humans because some female humans have been depicted as PG_rated, R-rated, or X-rated. Maybe just dress all the females in burqas, and everything will be peachy keen dandy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Your argument is unsurprisingly ridiculous. We aren't talking about banning all cartoon images of young girls everywhere, we are talking about the use of a specific character on this site and why that makes some editors uncomfortable. You have said that there is nothing sexual in the images created by User:Kasuga. Knowing that this same person has had images removed from DeviantArt due to "underage nudity" should make you think about that position again. I'm not suggesting that you see anything sexual in the images, but perhaps you haven't spent a great deal of time wondering why some other editors find there to be sexual overtones in these images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages actually under the heel of this new regime?

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

I would like confirmation from the community that the regime content editors are now under, according to Bwilkins, is in fact actually the case. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Bwilkins felt the need to respond as he did; perhaps you and he have a history I don't know about? Or maybe just having a bad day? But your underlying question is too vague to really comment on; you said to Beeblebrox "You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are.". Could you point me to this conversation? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. I have Beebebrox' talkpage on my watchlist, and I saw a vague yet extremely angry tirade against him. Without trying to clarify, I gave what I thought to be quite gentle, polite advice regarding 1RR. As a response to that, I was effectively called a Nazi and "one of the most problematic" admins on Misplaced Pages. I look back, I have called nobody names, and honestly thinking that Epipelagic has me mixed up with someone else, because becoming the target of wrath for politely helping makes no sense. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was not "quite gentle, polite advice". Every response the two of you made in that section on Beeblebrox's talk page is worse than the comment it is responding to. If you want to solve problems, de-escalation is more useful than escalation. But that's kind of a side issue. The question I have is, what is the background that lead to Epipelagic's first post? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Epipelagic's question, I can confirm that what Bwilkins wrote is correct: namely, edit warring is forbidden and certain articles may be subject to particular additional revert restrictions.  Sandstein  14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But is it true that any admin can unilaterally impose additional revert restrictions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, only where they are authorized to do so by explicit community or ArbCom decision. You are right, Bwilkins's response does not correctly represent policy in that regard.  Sandstein  14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just gonna ask the same thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just up for a moment, it's 4 am where I am. I'll see if I can find relevant difs latter. Thank you for your most "gentle, polite advice" Wilkins. It was you, not me, who called you a Nazi, I merely reflected back to you precisely what you said, which was that my position was "filth". I have no doubt that if anyone had said that to you, you would have blocked them for a long time, and that no other administrator would have challenged your block. But I am a powerless content editor, therefore dispensable and of no consequence. As you say, just filth. One rule for administrators, altogether another for dispensable content editors. Sandstein has endorsed your position of the draconian control admins can exert now, where content editors who try to protect Misplaced Pages may have little leeway, not even to make one revert. Why now would any any sane being choose to be a content editor on Misplaced Pages? Content editors are not posting much on this matter. Perhaps there is too much fear. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My advice to you at the moment Epipelagic, would be to get some sleep, come back here when you're slightly more relaxed, re-read what users (Sandstein in particular) are saying, and try to take a less melodramatic approach to fixing this issue. - Kingpin (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Epipelagic, we forbid edit-warring because content editors may legitimately disagree with each other about how articles should read. The rules that restrict reverting are there to prevent such disagreements from being continued through reverting rather than resolved by discussion. Admins who enforce revert restrictions do not do so to penalize editors or to promote their own point of view (in fact they may not block editors with whom they are in a content disagreement), but to enable pacific discussion rather than confrontative reverting. In other words, revert restrictions are content-neutral, and they apply to all editors (including admins) in the same manner, no matter how much the editors believe that they are correct.  Sandstein  16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is just to indicate that I have read and am aware of all this and basically have nothing to add except that WP:EDITWAR is a policy that applies to every single person who edits here. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Question Who are these "content editors" & how are they different from the rest of us? Can I join this group, or is the fact my account has the Admin bit means I'm not supposed to edit at all? articles I can't think of the last time I put on my special Admin Sam Browne belt & armband, & repressed anyone for anything; I have kvetched (in a general sense, not at any specific person) about how my fellow Wikipedians don't understand what an encyclopedia is or how to do research -- but any Wikipedian can do that & I assume does. But in the last week weeks I started two different articles & improved a couple more from "Stub" to "Start" class or better, so I consider myself a creator of content. -- llywrch (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't work with content in articles where I am acting as an administrator, and I don't act as an administrator on articles where I am editing content. Up until recently that was what everyone expected an admin to do. Lately I seem to be running into an attitude that if an admin is not involved in the dispute they don't know enough about it to be able to tell who is edit warring and who isn't. I utterly reject that viewpoint as it is directly contradictory to the idea that admins use their tools dispassionately without taking sides. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It has the advantage of being consonant with the facts though, at least in my experience. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With appolagies for plagiarism: "Experts are scum: For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War — and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge — get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." That quote is as true today as it was five years ago; and not one of the regular admins here gives a blind cuss. Giacomo Returned 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Beeblebox Hear, hear. This links up with this angry and sarcastic outburst from the same user. I was surprised to see both, and I wonder what lies behind it.

Okay. My outburst was triggered by a user asking me, earlier in the day, what an administrator was. So I tried to explain it to him. I will repeat my attempt here, because it seems to me an accurate account...

That is a very naughty question you asked, about administrators. You must know by now that it is better for content editors to not think about such matters. It is enough to know that... well we really shouldn't even utter the name... that it is the elect you are referring to, the Misplaced Pages overlords, a nobility which is appointed for life. Most of them do good work on various administrative tasks, such as blocking vandals, moderating deletion debates and dealing with spammers. But having knowledge of what it takes to be a competent content editor is not a requirement for an administrator, in fact it seems to be an obstacle. If you wish to become one of the elect yourself, you should make your move soon. Otherwise you are in danger of becoming overqualified.

But then, for some reason, which totally escapes me, they are also given powers to block legitimate content editors. In the minds of some administrators, content editor = vandal. There is a small but very damaging group of administrators who resent content editors who write better content than they can, and try to block them on the flimsiest of grounds whenever they can. I suppose it's just human nature, but it's mean and destructive. If a content editor tries to defend themselves, perhaps by stating something quite factual about the administrator's behaviour, they can block you for "incivility" or "a personal attack", which is their arcane code for "something I didn't want to hear". You then have a block record they will never erase, which follows and brands you, so other administrators and administrator wantabees can see at a glance that your thoughts are impure. Administrators can do this with impunity, they are not normally held responsible.

Administrators of this ilk tend to operate a set of linked delusional beliefs, such as "no editor is indispensable", "content editors are always replaceable", "there is an endless pool of quality editors falling over themselves to write for Misplaced Pages", "we don't need content editors now because Misplaced Pages is basically written", "all we need now are administrators to tidy thing up". There is no vision at all for the quality of the project. I've lost count now of the number of key scholars and scientists I've seen driven off Misplaced Pages by administrative buffoons. These people are not replaceable. Many of the world's best qualified editors willing to work with Misplaced Pages may well have already made their attempt, and will never return.

The administrative set up is very provoking, and the longer you edit the more unpleasant it seems to become. If you want to stay on here as a content editor, then the longer you stay, the more you come under the notice of the more predatory administrators, the more likely you are to have a growing block record, and the more saintly you must become. It is a systematic method of negative conditioning devised, perhaps unwittingly, by the administrative corps, as a regimen of escalating punishment for contributing well to Misplaced Pages. It is perhaps close to point where blocks are becoming badges of honour for content editors, a sign that they are the responsible editors, who contribute the content that needs to be contributed and don't shirk saying the things that need to be said. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The true problem is that content editors cannot become Admins unless they gives up content and fiddle about with categories and other people's typos as writing content alone is not considerd a good enough reason for being an Admin, and the fiddlers (all Admins - like theone who just hurriedly closed this section) will never agree to a change. Tres sad. Giacomo Returned 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus; please give recent examples of how that's been your experience. --John (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to do so at the moment. At the right time and the right place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index

An editor using several IP addresses in the same range has been waging a slow-motion edit ear on these articles, adding unsourced attacks and also abusing other editors. IP has also posted attacks on BLPs, including Antony Loewenstein, Jon Lee Anderson and Orhan Pamuk. I have found at least 14 such IPs, all locating to Colombo.

As well as inserting unsourced hostile material, which has been reverted by at least seven other editors, the IP has posted personal attacks on various talk pages, , .

I'm not sure if this editor (and it is clearly all the same person) has technically breached 3RR; but this is still edit-warring and uncivil behaviour. RolandR (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your header links to the same article twice. I find it useful to use {{la}} in such cases.  Sandstein  14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The IPs referred to are

• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.111
• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.225
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.137
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.23
• Special:Contributions/123.231.84.222
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.184
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.56
• Special:Contributions/123.231.86.167
• Special:Contributions/123.231.88.210
• Special:Contributions/123.231.91.115
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.190
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.200
• Special:Contributions/123.231.95.71
• Special:Contributions/123.231.114.221

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hope Roland doesn't mind: I replaced the duplicate mention in the article with another article edited (in a decidedly biased and unverified manner) by these IPs. I agree with RolandR's complaint, but Roland, let me ask you, why didn't you put warning templates for soapboxing, personal attacks, etc., on all those IP talk pages? It may be redundant in the sense that it may not help, but it shows that you did go through the motions and that the user(s) is (are) warned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because each of these IPs appears to be used for just one day, on a spree of reverts and attacks, and is then abandoned for another. I didn't think that the next IP would look at notices on the user talk page of the previous IP. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies here. Most of the talk pages are still red links. Please try posting warnings etc. in the usual way and then report back here or to WP:AIV if that fails to stop the problem. Thanks. --Diannaa 16:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, for what good it's worth I have warned each of these IPs. But, since the next disruptive editing is likely to come from yet another, there may not be much point to this. When that happens, I will report it here; and I think we may need a range block. Meanwhile, I will request semi-protection on these two articles. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree warning them now is pointless; I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. I meant that while the events are happening, someone should drop a warning on their Talk. For example, they used 123.231.93.190 for nearly an hour, and no warnings were issued. Page protection is a good idea. --Diannaa 17:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This user is continuing disruptive edits from Special:Contributions/123.231.85.184, with edit summaries and talk page personally attacking me. RolandR (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

123.231.85.184 is now blocked. Tiptoety 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that the articles are protected, this user is posting personal attacks on several editors at Talk:Reporters Without Borders from Special:Contributions/123.231.85.97. This looks set to continue RolandR (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the classic "too dumb to stop" stereotype. HalfShadow 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, it appears that the Sri Lankin IP user's grasp of English (as well as wikipedia policy) is not good. If he keeps it up, semi-protecting the talk pages for a little while would probably help. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think his English is excellent. He's having no trouble expressing himself at all. Semi-protecting the talk pages will probably just confirm our rabid racist agenda, racist pro western bias and expose our double standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add the "smiley". :) Although you might be onto something. Maybe he's good at writing English, but not good at reading it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please block my account Indefinately

I'm not sure where to ask this but can someone please block my account indefinately. I am not longer interested in editing in Dramapedia. Due to the number of edits I have done in the past I don't want someone to vandalize anything if my account gets compromised. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Smacks of an overly dramatic exit. If you want to leave then just leave. Flag your account with "retired". No one needs to block your account. If off the off chance you get compromised we can just block you then. S.G. _ping! 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to look at blocking requests for further options. Who (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Its no big deal to me, if knowone cares. I just wanted to try and do the right thing in case it happens. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we do not care, there are just strict policies. Take a look at the link I provided, possibly try the javascript auto-block. Who (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that abandoning you account is the easiest solution. If you really want, you can exercise your right to WP:VANISH. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As the account has over 25,000 edits, renaming by local bureaucrats is not possible. –xeno 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The user scrambling his own password would seem like the best approach. He'd be locked out of his own account, and presumably would end his wikipedia stay "cleanly". (Well, almost cleanly. He had one 16-minute block.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BB, if you want to leave for good, you should just do it by scrambling the password.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The self-enforced wiki-break would work too, as it would leave an "escape clause" in case he changes his mind someday. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"She", I think, as "-ko" is a Japanese diminutive suffix reserved exclusively for female names, which is why The Mikado's character name "Ko-Ko" is a solecism. Rodhullandemu 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why was my comment deleted? It wasn't vandalism. Rodhullandemu 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That may have been an accident. I had to replace one post 2 days ago that another user accidentally deleted...I think timing issues on posts may be causing glitches...I would AGF and not worry about it. But to answer the question, "He" is correct.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The removal occurred here – since the edit summary pointed at a section other than this one, I think the removal was an accident and a result of an apparent edit conflict (only one minute between yours and Malleus' edit). I've restored the comment for you. HeyMid (contribs) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have, sorry Rod.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have scrambled my account password to avoid the temptation to edit. Maybe someday I will return....but unless the drama decreases and the general attitude changes from being less like a High school drama club to being one of wanting to build an encyclopedia (which I find rather unlikely) I will just edit somewhere else, maybe Knol. They seem to be doing pretty good work these days. --71.163.243.16 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious glitch

I never clicked nothing! ;P --Errant 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a mysterious addition of the phrase "Bold text" that I definitely did not put into an edit that I made, even though it appears that I did. It disrupted the editing. Could someone explain how this could have happened and possibly investigate it? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably just a slip of the mouse. If you click the "B" button above the edit window it will insert that. Just make the edit again and use Preview to double-check before saving, and everything will be OK. No harm done. 28bytes (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your second try was successful. 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. While we're on the topic, theoretically is it possible for an administrator or someone else with privileged Misplaced Pages tools to covertly make such an alteration of another person's edit? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes: Nope. (I could imagine that some serious hacking from a dev could do this). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't take all that much "serious hacking"; anyone with write access to the database could do it in five seconds (assuming they knew the database schema, etc.) --jpgordon 17:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could example how someone might insert the term "WP:BEANS" into another contributors edits, with the relevant code? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be quite hard to do such a deception about anything significant without a high chance of it being found after the fact. The db is replicated in too many places and in too many formats (old database dumps are just the most obvious). There's also methods of authenticating audit logs cryptographically to prevent later forgery, used for example in the financial sector, but I doubt Misplaced Pages is bothering with aything like that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What often happens now is the toolbar loads after the edit box opens, moving the top of the box down. The click designed to get focus on the edit box hits the toolbar instead. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

At first thought that would be a likely scenario but on second thought it isn't. If one were to click on that position it would be for editing at that specific position, and the appearance of "Bold text" would be obvious.

On second thought regarding another comment, clicking "Show preview" did not clearly display the undesirable addition "Bold text" since it wasn't near the focus of the editing and it wasn't noticed, but it was noticed when "Show changes" was clicked. 75.47.156.95 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Something permanent?

I just ran across User 216.51.166.26 making this series of edits. Normally I would just add a warning or report to AIV if there was enough warnings recently. However, as you can go and see yourself, I ran across a talk page with a myriad of warning spread out across years. I'm not sure if this is something that AIV would deal with, since this would be the first vandalism since January, but I do think this account should be indeffed, as it is clear there is nothing good coming from it. Thus, I brought it here. Silverseren 17:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of teh stoopid coming from that IP this morning for a full set of warnings. I dropped a uw-longterm on it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Silverseren 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A revdel would be good there also, for (apparently) the same reason as in the next section. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oscar776

Not sure what to think of Oscar776 (talk · contribs). I see up to a level 4 warning for disruptive edits, a very large number of creations that got AFDed or speedied. Nothing is terribly wrong with their edits, but I do have to question their competence:

• Here, they completely fail at adding an image.
• Here, they somehow manage to add categories from a band's article to one of their albums' articles, somehow adding a {{good article}} tag in the process.
• Changing an image's name to the name of a nonexistant image, then changing it back a minute later
• Trying to push Black Tide through GA, showing a complete lack of understanding of WP:WIAGA
• Constant addition of good faith but unsourced material
• Egregious typos
• Creation of very short stubs about songs, with little more content than an infobox
• Complete ignorance of talk page — user has never posted to another's talk page, nor have they responded on their own.

Again, nothing too major at this point, but several small issues put together can become big. This user seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio, and I was wondering if anything should be done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thread got archived in less than a day. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bumping again since I'm clearly being ignored as usual. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like s/he needs some mentoring. I get the sense that s/he is quite young. Blackmane (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably being ignored because no use of the admin tools is required at this time. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Their most recent edits seem harmless. Hopefully they're (very slowly) getting the hang of things? If any bad edits need undoing, go for it, but I'm not sure what else can be or needs to be done. 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand the Hammer's frustration. The user is uncommunicative. I placed a few more templates and a note about an inappropriate image, and I have undone a number of their recent edits. I agree that there is no need for an administrator's intervention since these are not massive edits. Is there any sort of standard offer of mentoring we can make? I think they're not of bad will, but they clearly don't know or realize some of the editing standards here. Any mentors around for a hardrocking kid? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked for admin action because I wasn't sure if his edits were egregious enough to warrant a block per WP:COMPETENCE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddie used to scare the crap out of me when I was 13 (and made me buy their album, of course), but not so much anymore. Younger Iron Maiden fans may be a little slower on the WP uptake, but if he added this classic image from the commons (assuming it's not copyrighted, and not that he uploaded it) to a Maiden article, he deserves a chance. Provided he plays by the rules, of course. Speak up, little Maiden fan! Doc talk 11:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue

The situation at Ritual Decalogue has gotten ridiculous. The article had been stable since July; now a group of editors who work together at Ten Commandments and who once accepted that version have been deleting sourced material, adding info they know to be inaccurate, and making the lede about the name of the article rather than about the subject.

On stable articles they work on (such as recently with myself and Jay at Holocaust Denial), they quite rightly require refs for any changes, and do not expect refs to revert unref'd changes. However, they have a long history (over a year) of making changes to other articles without references, and then demanding that refs be supplied to restore the stable version.

In this case, they have deleted the well-sourced statement that the laws in Exodus 34 are called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible, and have added the inaccurate claim that the better-known Ten Commandments are thought to have been composed at a later date, ref'ing a discussion of 19th-century scholarship to justify that, and replacing a more accurate statement summarizing three common scholarly interpretations. The also use the wording "The Ritual Decalogue is a term used in Biblical criticism for a list of commandments given in Exodus 34". That violates the MOS, in that articles are supposed to be about their subject, not their title. And they've deleted various alternate names used in the scholarly literature.

We've edit warred over this; they insist that I cannot revert to the stable version without references. Well, more refs are a good thing, so I recently listed nine references on the talk page that Exodus 34 is called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible: not that biblical critics think it is, but that it simply is, and that biblical critics debate why it is. The refs I supplied are Jewish and Christian, liberal and conservative; they include refs that are used on multiple biblical articles on WP, as well as such obvious sources as the Oxford Annotated NVSV Bible. One ref is from an evangelical publishing house that finds this a difficult passage, as it doesn't square with their understanding of the Ten Commandments. They are not engaging in biblical criticism, but nonetheless state that the Bible calls the laws in Exodus 34 the "Ten Commandments". I've also supplied references for the alternate names. All of this was just reverted.

I don't assume good faith any more: Well-referenced material is deleted, along with the references (with no indication that the refs are in any way inadequate), while a knowingly inaccurate definition is added. The literal reading of the Bible is not the traditional understanding of what the Ten Commandments are, and we say that in the article (perhaps we could go into more detail, if they like), but there is a concerted attempt here to censor the Bible itself, to deny that it says what it's so easy to demonstrate that it says; and also (I don't know why) to misrepresent what scholarship says about it. Variations of this argument have gone on for years, with these same editors, and numerous scholarly interpretations have been discussed in addition to the single old view they keep adding to the lede, a view which one of the editors says is anti-Jewish, but nonetheless seems to prefer.

They succeeded in getting all mention of this third version of "Ten Commandments" removed from the lede of the Ten Commandments article, and I long ago gave up on trying to fight them on that, but now they've brought the fight to the one remaining article that covers this material.

I'm going on vacation and don't know when I'll next have an internet connection, but this really is ridiculous. Please help! — kwami (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are in the right place for this request. It is a content dispute. Try the religion project, or NPOV/N or even perhaps the FT/N if you think they are pushing a fringe view. I'll have a look see myself, but I'm not sure what an administrator is going to do about any of this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Something strange going on here

I've been seeing a series of one-line articles created on possibly NN books. Each article is from a different new editor. There are definite parallels in the editing and edit comment style, so I think it's a WP:DUCK case that there is a sock parade in progress. None of the articles are really speedyable, as books do not fall under A7. This whole thing is just really strange to me. I'm really not sure what the point of it all is. SPAM? They seem to be from different authors and different publishers. Anyway, so far I have been tagging and/or PRODing the sub-stubs. Not sure what else could/should be done here. Articles found so far include: Bang !, Beige (novel), True Believer (novel), Viking Warrior, Love Sick (novel), Ask Me No Questions (novel), and maybe Crescendo (novel). The last breaks the SPA pattern, but there are edit comment similarities. Maybe just coincidence of timing, though.

I'll next work through notifying the different accounts of this thread... - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from this, it's part of Misplaced Pages:School and university projects#Durham School of the Arts YA Novels Project (Spring 2011)... — Scientizzle 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

More info here: User:Roseclearfield/Durham School of the Arts YA Project Page — Scientizzle 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should probably remove your PRODs and give these new editors time to sort out how to improve the articles. Their teacher will likely help them. I doubt a teacher would have assigned these books without them being notable. Silverseren 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Already done. I'll leave the tags for now, with the hope that they will guide the students towards key areas of needed improvement. Anyway, thank you, Scientizzle, for your help identifying what was actually going on. I had my mind so set on "Sock Parade" that "School project" never entered my mind. But even "Sock Parade" really made little sense, because I could not think of a "Why" for someone doing that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And "School Project" explains the one that broke the new editor pattern. That one was from the one student who happened to already be a WP editor. :) (I'm guessing, but it fits. :) ) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the last article that broke the pattern, it might have helped clear things up before having to file this report if you had looked at said user's userpage, since it explains this school project thing. Silverseren 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:TROUT accepted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be mean. :P I was just pointing it out. Silverseren 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm all for getting new accounts to create new articles, but wikipedia shouldn't be used as a test project for a class. If the teacher wanted the students to experiment with wikipedia, they could have created sandboxes in their user space. --Jojhutton (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid your opinion is at odds with the common consensus and foundation stance that supports collaboration with school and university projects that are done as such. Silverseren 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Asking them to start on userspace would be a good start indeed. Although this shouldn't be a test ground, basically that's what it is basically for all new users. Whether or not a teacher has them do it, or they do it on their own, it's only going to be our help, guidance, and helpful criticism that will improve the editors and their articles. I just spent like an hour doing one of these books which really did seem like it should have been speedy del, but turned out she was quite notable, just not well known. Who (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From the project director: Students are starting userspaces, not to fear. But in order to put the Educational assignment tag up we just needed to create a few stubs (less than 10). For these books I will follow a different procedure next year. Again, not to fear, students are not experimenting on Misplaced Pages. Not to fear, not to fear. Best, Roseclearfield (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So...what happens to your student's projects if other Misplaced Pages editors end up improving their pages tremendously? Because I am severely tempted to help out with these book articles. o_o Silverseren 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good question, since I seriously updated Ask Me No Questions (novel). Oh well Who (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on the particular case, but in general I don't think that should ever be a big problem, since it is relatively easy for the teacher to examine the user contribution history or the article history to get an overall idea of how much input the student has had into the end result. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But if we (WP regular editors) do all the work, and leave little available work left for the students to do... - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

May not be an issue. Looking at how the page for the school project has developed over the last few hours, many students are selecting books that already have robust articles to "improve". If a student is going to find enough to improve on one of the "Twilight" articles, I don't think we need to worry about us leaving them with no work on brand new articles. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The critical reception section could certainly improved on that one, at least. There has to be tons of articles reviewing the book out there, more than the four reviews that are currently listed. And Meyer has gone on extensively in interviews about her development of the books, which can be used to expand that section. So, yeah, there is actually quite a bit that can be done, considering each of the Twilight books should have more than enough info out there for them to be raised to featured article status. Silverseren 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If it's a new/stubby article then it can indeed be a difficult balance. An approach I take is to focus more on making recommendations and suggestions on talk pages (user or article) of what needs to be changed, rather than just fixing it myself as I would normally do on other articles. Of course this doesn't mean avoiding editing the article at all. And it can take (a lot) more effort for the same immediate result. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. How Misplaced Pages has changed over the years. I remember giving a presentation on WP back in 2004, which included me demonstrating how to create an article. (Last I checked, that article hasn't been deleted. Probably hasn't been worked on since then, but that's another issue entirely.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the WP:Online Ambassadors to monitor the articles which the students have tagged as educational assignments. I am also one of the major contributers at WP:Novels and will help keep an eye on the student's contributions, Sadads (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasty decision

Dear Noticeboard supervisors:

I recently had a page, Argentine people of European descent, deleted because, according to Beeblebrox, "a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article" (see: User talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy deletion). This "same article" refers to White Argentine, which I did not write, but was deleted on February 11 by Beeblebrox because it was a "synthesis" (see: ). I felt at the time that the article was improperly (perhaps offensively) titled, and argued that it nevertheless contained a lot of valid facts and history that could be rescued by excising references to "white people" (the "construct") and refocusing the article on the relevant facts and history.

I believe that Beeblebrox is simply using his administrative privileges to have an article deleted without providing spefific reasons. He made blanket statements accusing me of simply "rewriting" something he had deleted, simply beacuse it looks similar to the other one. I added the new entry being very aware that it would be scrutinized for any bias, racism, or synthsized constructs. I began by cutting out the unsourced list of notable examples in the infobox, any mention of "white Argentines" (except to say the term is, indeed, atypical of Argentine speech), and any inference thereof. I left only the history and data, which are well-referenced. Lest we forget, the existence of Argentine people of European descent is self-evident, and in no way derides other communities in the country. Nor would the article fail to meet standards of fairness, sources, and thoroughness met by those on White Latin Americans, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries.

The fact remains, however, that 6 million Europeans settled in Argentina from the 1850s to the 1950s (including every great-great-grandparent of mine, I should add), and that their descendants have forbears from several different nations, since, much like in the U.S., there was a lot of intermarriage between them. I can't imagine how what I wrote on this particular group could be either offensive or fictitious, and I invite you to take a look through the cache of the deleted page.

You can be sure that I would keep a close eye on the aricle to make sure no one added any language that pushed the idea that "white Argentines" is a valid term, or that all Argentines who happen to be of European descent are "white." Some are, some are less so - but they are of European descent and in that way, distinct from Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, and Afro Argentines (who each have their own story).

As I mentioned to Beeblebrox, I take my contributions here seriously, and I certainly took his opinions from February 11 seriously. I just feel that Beeblebrox is rushing to judgment in this case.

I appreciate your looking into this for me, and am available should you have any quaestions.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All I did was nominate it for speedy deletion. It was deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs). I have informed him of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sherlock4000:

Step one: Talk to Ronhjones.

Step two: if necessary, bring it up at WP:DRV, which is set up for issues like this.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Another point to consider here is that the 'new' article used large chunks of the old 'White Argentine' article, but without any attempt to provide an editing history - thus plagiarising the works of unattributed authors, and possibly also breaching copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good point. If the previous article text is to be used it should be restored with it's history intact before being re-worked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't necessarily count that against the editor, since it's not immediately obvious how a non-admin can do that (or that it should even be done at all). This guideline does not address the issue, for example. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is held against him or not it will need to be rectified if it is decided to allow this article to be recreated. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Reusing deleted material is the relevant guideline. I'm not sure how users would find their way there, so adding a link from WP:Recreation of previously deleted pages would be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Block needed

Can someone block 24.189.170.26 as WP:Block Evasion of 24.189.168.173? I am also wondering if a rangeblock is possible. They have edited under 24.189.170.26 24.189.168.173 24.189.21.22 24.189.171.59 and possibly more. Thanks, —GƒoleyFour— 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Also edited under the accont NYCSlover (talk · contribs · block log). —GƒoleyFour— 00:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: A rangeblock does not seem feasible, although further disruption might change my mind on that point.  Frank  |  talk  01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel

Lara Logan & Berean Hunter

Lara Logan probably needs full protection again. Third time in two weeks.

I believe the BLP concerns suggest that it should be protected without the material that describes her sexual assault in anti-Semitic terms, and is sourced anonymously.

Some of the edit warring is due to editors whose editing is consistently oriented toward "Jewish politics" (can't think of a better term). At one point, the use of anti-Israeli propaganda by Egyptians was mentioned three different times in our two-paragraph coverage of her coverage of Egypt.

User:Berean Hunter is very plainly trying to draw me into an edit war. His only edits to the article have been to revert my reverts. He doesn't seem to have read the Talk page, as he is unaware that there is a lack of consensus about the additions, even though the Talk page is utterly plastered with arguing about it. He doesn't seem to know (or care about) the history of the article, and that several editors have removed the material he is adding. He only arrived at the article by following me to it, after becoming involved in a different dispute. There should be a policy against following an editor around from one dispute to another. Nobody could possibly think the anti-Semitic material has anything like a consensus (I say more about this on the Talk page). It has caused the page to be protected twice, has been the subject of an ANI, and BLP noticeboard discussion, and two very lengthy threads in Talk. He reverted me using Twinkle (I don't fully understand the anti-vandal technology), and dumped a template warning on my Talk page. I followed a link which says very clearly that that is an abuse of Twinkle.

I don't care if I am blocked, so I don't care if Berean is blocked. I'm not requesting that. That would feel like two third-graders getting in a fight and then trying to get the other one in trouble. Berean needs to be warned that he should be editing the article because he cares about the content, not because he has taken a dislike to an editor. If I need a mentor or a warning, that's fine too. Mindbunny (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified Berean that you have posted this enquiry? See the notice on the top of this page. --Kudpung (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgot. Doing now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbunny (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a reason this is a seperate section from the existing thread on the topic? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no existing thread on Lara Logan and Berean Hunter. There is a thread about me and my behavior, a topic that had already been discussed to death. That thread is a gathering place for people who want to see me blocked. I'm not interested in discussing whether anybody should be blocked. First and foremost, I wanted Lara Logan protected (without anonymously sourced descriptions of her sexual assault). That's done. I also want some insight on the community attitude toward following an editor from one dispute to another solely for the purpose of reverting him, which is what Berean is doing. Mindbunny (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the normal location to report a BLP issue is WP:BLP/N. Also, should this not have been a BLP issue, I would quote WP:DRNC. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Berean Hunter

Lots of bad faith and bad assumptions.

First, I read (out of interest) & watchlisted the article when the news story broke. I didn't edit the article. When the first ANI thread occurred, I went to the talk page and cited WP:NOTNEWS which was backing your position and encouraging others to wait for better sourcing and leave material out. (diff) (edit summary:let the dust settle). My next comment was to an editor who implicated that you were a sock puppet and I defended your position on AGF. (diff) (edit summary:foul ball) When the editor continued on your talk page, I took a position of defending you then. (diff) (edit summary:account for the accusation, please)

You attempt here in your comments to implicate an anti-semitic theme. I don't see where you are getting that from but I assure you that isn't the case. That crowd shouting "Jews" or "Israelis" implicates their idiocy and ignorance.

I've begun reverting you because I see you edit-warring and being disruptive as your intentions were stated in the thread above that you would edit war to keep material out. When an editor placed a correctly cited contribution you reverted citing "no consensus, see Talk", I felt this was disingenuous particularly since you have no consensus on your side. You claim so, but it is like many of your claims and embellishments ==> false. Kind of like your claim above, "that several editors have removed the material he is adding"...apart from you, precisely one editor has removed it and that is the admin who protected the page. I've had nothing to do with the other times that the page was protected (I assume that I have something to do with the current protection...only that admin could say).

The template I dropped on your page is for WP:OWN and has nothing to do with vandalism. You cry wolf abuse and clamor for a policy change at the drop of a hat when you lack understanding or more than likely becasue it is tactical. I no longer assume AGF with you since you are dishonest and attempt to construe that which isn't. But go ahead and explain why this is an abuse of Twinkle.

"Berean needs to be warned that he should be editing the article because he cares about the content"...what policy does that come from? Why would you ask admins for something like that? I revert vandalism or fix things in articles that I couldn't care less about. The subjects being unimportant to me, I do so because because the project is important to me. If a vandal hits an article on my watchlist, I not only revert him but I chase down whatever else he hits. I don't care about Pokemon but I will try to keep the vandalism out of it. What do you really want in posting here?...and yes, this is related to the above thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Shugborough inscription

It looks like there's a slow-burn edit war going on at Shugborough inscription, between Elephantwood (talk · contribs) and a number of IPs. I've issued warnings to Elephantwood and to the IPs, but judging by the discussion at Talk:Shugborough inscription and the linked Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Shugborough Inscription, I'm really not sure what's going on and whether any other action is appropriate - perhaps a protection? (Just off to inform them all of this discussion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And I see Elephantwood has blanked the edit-war warning and the AN/I notification. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

...and calling someone "a nutter" is not particularly civil. Does it seem odd that a newbie with an account less than a week old with 23 edits is making a 3RR report? DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

hi Zebedee, I also noticed elephantwood calling the IPs names and blanking my NPA warning --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a POV issue on both sides, with Elephant knowing the system and attempting to mask his own POV in policy-adherence? Elephant is somewhat against this Morton report thing. No assumption of good faith on my part I know! :) S.G. _ping! 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Yes, I read the warning and took it on board before blanking it, and I have apologised on the talk page, unreservedly, for calling someone a nutter. Might we focus on the editing issue? Would it matter if I were a 100-thousand edit man masquerarding as a newbie?Elephantwood (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if you were a blocked 100,000 edit man would it matter, I would think. Content issues aren't really for AN/I or 3RRNB - perhaps a WP:Requests for comment template on the talk page might help draw attention to it. It would definitely be better for the content issue than here. Doc talk 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood was caught replacing a Telegraph citation with an unavailable lesser source, thereby suggesting that the Morton Solution was not widely publicised. When this source was to hyperlinked Telegraph citation, he reverted it again. He at first appeared to want all mention of this solution removed from the page, using two long discredited pseudo-historical theories to back him up. He has also made very selective representations of Morton's official site (Morton denies any connection with the Grail and is clearly an outspoken enemy of pseudo-history). Now Elephant has reverted Paul Barlow's work again, thereby lending unreasonable emphasis to the Grail angle. Here is the question: is Elephantwood really the man to update this page? Or has he lost all credibility as a wikipedian? 85.179.143.97 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Doc! I'll do an RFC. 85 has just reverted again, and I've posted to the edit-warring noticeboard to air my suspicion that he is actually A J Morton himself. Thanks again.Elephantwood (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist, so I have been margnally involved. The account Elephantwood came into existence recently apparently with the sole purpose of minimising reference to Morton's theories on this page. Elephantwood brought the matter to the Fringe Theories board page (Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Shugborough_Inscription), where he/she attempted to portray Morton as a "fringe" writer, apparently deliberately phrasing accounts of some of Morton's views in a misleading way in order to make them appear to be New Age nonsense. Meanwhile the IPs are trying to Big Up Morton (who also has his own page A. J. Morton and already appears on others: Evonium). This has all the appearence of a personal grudge-match of some sort. Morton's views seem notable, but are far from definitive. However, they should be mentioned with due weight and without being misrepresented to the Misplaced Pages community. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a view of A J Morton's theory, and this has certainly come out in some of what I've posted to discussion pages. But I don't think he's New Age. More importantly, I don't think I've ever described his theory in a POV way in any of my edits. I just think it should be listed along with the other theories of an acrostic type. If you think any of my edits have been POV, or grudgily anti-Morton, please can you identify them. Thanks! (Or alternatively, of course, accept my point that I haven't made any edits of such a kind, which I think is what you'll decide to do).Elephantwood (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To debate the matter without resorting to bending Misplaced Pages policy (I am not insinuating that you have done so) is fine. That is what Misplaced Pages is all about. It does not require admin attention to do so, so if all parties are happy to continue this then admin intervention isn't particularly required. S.G. _ping! 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

German IPs have been the major contributors to A. J. Morton, which is written like a book cover bio. Strange coincidence. DeCausa (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I contributed to these pages too, so you are probably still just looking at my IPs, like I have said (this is why they are german). Most of my edits were to remove obvious promotion. I don't think I've made any objectionable edits, most were about shortening or even a little disparaging. So I live in the same city, well Berlin's huge. And anyway, the original edit, the edit Elephant wants removed, was NOT made by me. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the article as it stands.On the talk page, I've asked "85.179.143.97" to make a case for the change they want to make, which would give more importance to A J Morton's article. The latest contribution there from "85.179.143.97"'s reads like the work of someone who is very 'owny' about A J Morton's website, who knows it very well indeed and is miffed that certain material there hasn't been given the importance they think it should be given. It's very different in style, tone, and vocabulary from the two more girly posts saying "So I live in the same city" and "You are pointing your finger at the wrong editor".Elephantwood (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I closed a complaint at AN3 by Elephantwood without being aware of this ANI discussion. See WP:AN3#User:92.231.189.224 and User:85.179.138.8 reported by User:Elephantwood (Result: Protected, submitter warned). As a result of that complaint, I fully protected the article for a week. After reviewing the matter I suggest that Elephantwood is on thin ice. The recent creation of his account, apparently just to edit war on this article, the personal attacks, the apparent detailed knowledge of Misplaced Pages by a brand-new editor, and his prompt removal of all warnings from his talk page suggest that his intentions are not good. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Owny?" Oh gimme a break. "knowy" maybe. I've done nothing wrong. I don't even particularly object to the subheading being reverted, having never put it there in the first place. What I do object to is EW's self-appointed status as page admin when his behaviour and his motives are clearly suspect. So much info on Holy Blood Holy Grail with little comment. Three sentences on a realistic sounding solution and war breaks out. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Esfericum

Found User:Esfericum vandalising User:LibStar user page and leaving an accusation of racism. I reverted him and left him a warning. He responded with more allegations of racism and antisemitism as well. Is this acceptable behaviour? English appears not to be User:Esfericum's first language. 86.159.91.236 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruptive addition of non-notable person to assorted articles in spite of warnings. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the current policy on "Shit lists"

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

I've asked an editor, User:Jaknouse, to remove this User:Jaknouse#Editors on my Shit-List, and they have polity declined . What is the current policy on this? Heiro 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There are precedents but I don't know if there is specific policy. Somewhere between WP:NPA and WP:BAIT (maybe a WP:GRUDGE). It's a no-no for me. S.G. _ping! 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I did this specifically because there were two individuals who took action that I regarded as highly illegitimate and certainly not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and I LITERALLY COULD FIND NO OTHER RECOURSE. Both of these are individuals who hide their identities. You will notice that I am quite up-front about who I am. jaknouse (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You should still be above that sort of thing. HalfShadow 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The user's first entry was nine years ago. Surely he should know better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Enemies lists" are not allowed, and will typically result in a block if an editor refuses to remove such. If the editor is having problems with particular editors, he already knows who they are, and listing them is a WP:POINT violation as well as a personal attack. If he has issues with users, he needs to take those issues through proper channels; here, or dispute resolution, or sockpuppet investigation - or just have a conversation with a trusted admin. The user should be told, in no uncertain terms, to remove the list. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have to find any recourse, jaknouse? S.G. _ping! 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy is Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, per nutshell "Comment on content, not contributors". As BB says, the editor knows which editors he has issues with - listing them for the review of others is inappropriate and uncollegiate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare has removed it. S.G. _ping! 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - WOW, I'm not on it. I thought I was on everyones shit-list.Joking aside, I have seen others create lists similar to this, although not as harsh, usually calling the list user pages I have contributed on, or something to that effect. Not a big fanof enemies lists, and this one did seem a bit brash and to the point. Not exactly a candidate for consensus builder of the year.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment