Misplaced Pages

Notified Depeip. Isn't that a component of the rockets used in the conflict? ThuranX (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems more like a joke than a threat to me, but what do I know.--] (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Atlan, you're right, and you know enough. GHcool phantasises a tshread, and his friend ThuranX raises the dust. Both waive the Israel flag. Jew-1 helps jew-2 to make a row, and/or vice versa. Interestingly, at this same time GHcool is losing the dabate on renaming the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (into Israel-..., the state. The state that drops WP). Changing his arguments and subject every line. I pointed this out to him. Of course he feels threatened. He is. In fact, he is already been hit. Doesn't want to know. Bad for Misplaced Pages. -User:DePiep 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Untruthful behaviour by User:GHcool and his friend User:ThuranX. Smearing my name. User:DePiep 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor and redact that. I only know of either of you two by YOUR actions as reported here by HIM. You can add another layer of tinfoil, but there's no conspiracy here. If you want to continue the personal attacks and antisemitism, there are other places for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting refactoring. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the thread at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is part of a heated dispute over a fairly minor point -- whether to call the article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israel-Palestinian conflict". (Somewhere in Misplaced Pages someone must have observed that as the matter of a dispute in Misplaced Pages approaches lameness, so the disputants are inversely passionate over the matter.) Both sides need to calm down & work harder to find a consensus than to give the article the "right" name: this is why we have redirects. And if wishing people "white phosfor" is your idea of humor, DePiep, I suggest you save your humor for other discussions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RE ThuranX: Both you and GHCool have the Israel flag in your User-page. Why disallow me calling you jews?

RE Llywrch: I did not call it humour. Atlan did.

RE Llywrch: why a fairly minor point? I truly think and write it is to be named different. Why not discuss it (be it minor or major)?

RE Llywrch: Why cool down? Why not read that GHcool is changing topic, every line he/she writes?

RE: ThuranX: What do you mean by refacor and redact?

RE: ThuranX: I am ON topic. Why make it personal? What is personal? Why follow GHCool?

RE: ThuranX: fuck off introducing antismuumitsm.

RE: GHCool: where are you? Israel is throwing white fosfor.

--DePiep (talk)

Your antisemitism is excessively problematic, and you made it personal by bringing MY Judaism into this. I saw this because it was posted here. I didn't look at GHCool's page to see if he's Jewish, that's not how I decide who's right or wrong. Refactor your antisemitic nonsense NOW. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not antisnmuttreiscx. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't even type out the word, thus allowing you to appear to be protesting, while neither admitting your behavior nor denying it. Such mockery is just perpetuating your attitude and behavior. By the ways 'you Jews' is far more likely to be used in an insulting manner than 'jewish editors' is. I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems raised ,though, nor have you removed your Personal Attacks. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked/stated five questions above (see RE ThuranX's). Not one reply. Your reply is saying excessively problematic. Sure. For someone.

I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems , you write. Actually, I am still adressing & discussing GHCool's on/offtopic-remarks in the talek. I suggest you help GHCool in reacting in-topic. GHCool needs help. The title should be Israel-Palestinian conflict.

By introducing antisesrlketyrip here you are degrading Misplaced Pages's quality. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is "antisesrlketyrip"? As for the questions you asked ,let's see. You use Jew as an insult, and tie to to me acting as part of a Jew Conspiracy, which is a paranoid personal attack, and antisemitism. I did not say anything about a 'minor point', that's another editor, go insult them for an answer. i answered the 'personal' issues: Your bigoted attacks makes it personal. What the fuck is "antismuumitsm"? As for white "fosfor<sic>", you talked about other editors beign attacked by it, whether or not Israel uses it is irrelevant. The title of the article is irrelevant, because your actions on that talk page are the subject of examination here, not the title, which should be worked out on the page (But since you asked, your proposal reflects a viewpoint that an entire nation is making war on individuals, when it's individuals attacking individuals, and the title should reflect such.). Now try to say "antisemitism", instead of mocking it with your smacking of the keyboard. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

@llywrch, I personally don't care if its "Israel-Palestinian conflict" or "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." It makes no difference to me whatsoever and I am not passionate about this extremely minor, virtually meaningless point. I simply object to editors "wishing" violence against me (particularly editors who appear to have an irrational hatred of Jews). --GHcool (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I was merely practicing "assume good faith" by entertaining the possibility that DePiep's comment was humor. Offer a bit of gentle advice & maybe all parties involved will step back from the cliff's edge. Too bad he said he wasn't joking. -- llywrch (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• 24-hour block. I've reviewed User:DePiep's conduct; it's clear that the comment was meant as a threat in User:DePiep's own words: "Of course he feels threatened. He is." Afterward, Depiep vandalized User:GHcool's user page, apparently retaliation or following through on the threat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Carlos. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Carlos. --GHcool (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• 72-hour block. I have also reviewed User:DePiep's conduct in response to an WP:RFU request he filed. He was obnoxious, unapologetic and had written what had to be among the top three or four inflammatory and disruptive unblock requests I have ever read. I liked it so much that I upped his block duration to 72 hour. Maybe a few days to reflect on Misplaced Pages policy might make him a little more willing to cooperate. Trusilver 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even better. ThuranX (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Trusilver's comment. I've seen more than 3-4 unblock requests which were worse that that one; it was pretty run-of-the-mill, to be honest. But I agree it deserves at least a 72-hour block -- which is what matters. -- llywrch (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Elonka (talk · contribs) has made an arbitrary and antagonistic decision to place an attack list here. It was done by Elonka, a wholly involved editor in various pseudoscientific topics, to poison the well of editing. She is singlehandedly interpreting Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist as her basis for doing this, and I do not see where she has the right to do so. I have tagged the thread and asked a really uninvolved admin to delete it. I'd ask that it be oversighted too, but I don't want to case another kerfuffle. OrangeMarlin 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While it might be removed - why would it be oversighted? That's a step too far for me - it doesn't reveal any Personal history, fail foul of WP:BLP etc. Removed - yes, erase - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reaching on that one, of course. It's just that the attack list remains in the history of the discussion. Deletion by an admin is sufficient, just not perfect. OrangeMarlin 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you note my verbiage, I said "I'd ask" not that I was actually requesting it. OrangeMarlin 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned that your behaviour is on course for being sanctionable and you... keep on with the exact same behaviour? Well done. Sometimes I think the ArbCom vacated the OM case too rashly. Sceptre 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre: focus on the issue not on the person, and beware WP:NPA. Now then, can we all discuss the issue of the list with animosity toward none? The list has proven to be disruptive, divise and has had a chilling effect on a conversation that was proceeding apace toward a resolution. I have my doubts that that was Elonka's intent (although measuring intent is at best difficult) but it has been the effect. Let's focus on that, shall we? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, vacated what case? I didn't know they vacated a case about Elonka? Or Pseudoscience? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Orangemarlin was vacated after you promised to stop being disruptive (and that's not a personal attack; the ArbCom did find you had engaged in personal attacks and the like). To be honest, I don't see what can be done here. The exacta of it being another Elonka thread and another of your ANI threads makes it kind of hard to take this seriously. In any case, I really don't want this to be dragged into evidence of my super-duper-ID-cabal-stalkathon™, so I'll just post this and be on my way. Sceptre 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever its intention, that thread has had no apparent effect other than to spew an additional 23 kB onto an already noisy page. I am not certain that administrator attention is required, but I suspect that the original poster desires that removal be performed by an outside party. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat: let us focus on the issue. Sceptre, that you and OM do not play well together in the schoolyard is well known, but let's assume that recess is over and class is back in session. Focus on the issue.

Another Elonka thread? What are you saying: that she's here so much in some capacity that wee should just ignore the issue? Or is it that as OM raised the issue it should be ignored? In either case, you would be wrong: this issue needs to be looked at seriously and without prejudice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka is one of our more controversial admins, I'll admit. People complained about her a lot about her capacity overseeing the Israel-Palestine articles (which were, more often than not, instigated by POV-pushers who didn't like her attempting to keep the peace). Such threads tend to get boring after a while. That, and OM appears to have really thin skin. Quite a few things he complains about, most people take in their stride. Sceptre 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the personal comments. STOP! Basta! Ist genug! Alto! Capisce? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My actions at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts are as an uninvolved administrator, trying to stabilize an article that has been in such severe disputes that it is currently under indefinite full protection (not by me). Several editors have been using the page as a battleground in the pseudoscience wars. I have been attempting to help stabilize the article, by invoking the discretionary sanctions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That some of the battling editors don't like this, is par for the course in arbitration enforcement matters. A few of the editors (such as Orangemarlin, Verbal, and Jim62sch) are accusing me of being "involved" and therefore forbidden from using admin tools, but their claims are incorrect. I am neutral in the dispute, and have no preference on the article content, as long as it abides by policies. I've never been involved in editing this or any other articles in the topic area, and I have been doing my best to issue warnings evenly to both "sides" in the dispute. Additional administrator attention on the article would be appreciated, though be warned that the flame wars are intense, so put on your asbestos booties before entering.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a completely uninvolved administrator, my inclination would be to remove it. It doesn't serve any majorly useful purpose, and, as can be seen from the discussion page and this thread, serves only to increase the amount of drama, of which there's enough already. Black Kite 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I suggested at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Discussion, we can probably just move it to a subpage, as was done at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. This kind of list technique has been very helpful in managing a variety of complex and chaotic disputes. It helps administrators identify which editors are on the page, who's under sanctions, for how long, when they were notified, which editors are SPAs, etc. It's also very useful for the "after the fact" discussions, to track exactly what administrator actions were taken, and on whom. For example, months later, an administrator might be routinely accused of "blocking people left and right", but when there's a recorded admin log of exactly what took place at a given article, it's easy to see exactly what actions were taken, rather than relying on biased exaggerations. --Elonka 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Elonka's intervention on this article does not seem to have been particularly helpful. A number of administrators and one arbitrator have advised her against some of her pointed talk page warnings. Her idiosyncratic strategy for managing fringe science/pseudoscience articles could possibly be profitably discussed in the current fringe science ArbCom case, which until now has not examined the actions of specific administrators. I don't think most editors will agree that there is a parallel between opposing groups in nationalist-related articles and those editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, as Elonka has suggested. It would certainly be going out out on a limb to suggest that those representing the academic community of scientists form an "opposition group". After all articles on science on wikipedia must concentrate on mainstream science, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica does. The article chiropractic is much better managed now by editors like User:Eubulides who have some experience editing this kind of article and are medical experts. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Elonka's intervention has been and continues to be disruptive, and has increased the tension on the article. It has caused multiple problems and solved none. It should not be moved to a subpage, it should simply be removed. Although Elonka may be uninvolved in any content editing on the page (I haven't checked), she is deeply involved with many of the editors concerned (having repeatedly asked for several to be banned, for which she has been sanctioned by outside editors, while defending editors which were later banned). Her input to the debates is welcome, but her self-appointed role as a small-minded county sheriff is unwelcome and unwise. She is very involved and not at all neutral. She hasn't helped solve the problems (that was happening anyway), instead she has added new problems. Removing her from her role here would be removing a problem. I see above she is trying to scare off other admins by saying the flame wars are intense - this is not true, not that I've seen. The only person to have been "flamed" is Elonka herself (justly) for her disruptive actions. At the very least the list should be removed. Verbal chat 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to this talk page discussion and I am an admin. I do not think I have edited the list itself, so I am uninvolved. I do however have a POV. I believe this list would be best deleted, but two AfDs have said otherwise. I am far too busy at present to keep up with this vast discussion. Trying to read and keep up with that discussion over the last few week, does lead me to the view that Elonka's intervention has not been particularly helpful. It has just increased the volume and the noise, when it was possible that issues would get resolved. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, I think you are confusing the list article with the list of editors on the talk page of the list article. It is the list of editors which is causing the issues, not the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has indeed been to Afd. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing that. I was just giving some background before both explaining to anyone who knew I was an admin why I was not being an admin on the list as Elonka is trying to do, and why I think her intervention on the talk page of the list is unhelpful. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What a colossally bad idea. Elonka's NOT neutral in re: Pseudosci, and this essentially becomes a 'naughty list' with the undertone of 'all you, I'm watching you, waiting to pounce and punish.' This is a chilling effect for BOTH sides of this already contentious issue. No one is served well by this, and given that Elonka's published a list of who she's thinking about with regards to this title, I say that it represents a permanent conflict of interest for her to use her admin status in resolving anything with regard to any editor listed, ESPECIALLY as connects to Science and PsuedoScience related articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThuranX, I agree with you. I cannot understand why Elonka thinks she is neutral. Elonka, please listen to those that do not see you as neutral -- if you were neutral, why all these comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2009

I've already tried, several times, to explain the concept of perception to Elonka. Either I'm explaining the concept poorly, or she's just not getting it (unwillingly or otherwise). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the list in question, I must say that I take no issue with the presence of said list nor with the involvement of an uninvolved administrator such as Elonka. I truly feel that any disruption that has come to the page following Elonka's arrival is not a fault of Elonka but rather the enormous amount of venom that follows her in the form of "anti-Elonka" editors. Several of the complaining parties have previous grievances with Elonka yet had little to no recent meaningful activity at the List of Pseudosciences and Pseuodoscientific Concepts article and talk page. Since her arrival, these editors have popped up out of the woodwork mainly to complain about Elonka's presence (most of them in an uncivil manner). Elonka has the best intentions to bring peace to an article which was in the middle of edit war turmoil just before she arrived; and though I am not thrilled to be on the list of "Editors notified of restrictions", I do recognize that I that I was fairly warned and that my presence on said list does not imply that I have been disruptive. Could the discussions move forward amicably without Elonka's or another uninvolved admin's presense? Quite possibly. Other than those complaining about Elonka, the majority of the editors have been quite civil and open to listen to each other's thoughts and suggestions. However, with Elonka (and SoWhy) present to monitor the discussions, I for one feel much more comfortable. Perhaps if those who have a personal grievance with Elonka would just chill-out and focus on the content discussion at hand on the page, there wouldn't be a need for all of these pointless histrionics. -- Levine2112 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you take no exception. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The administrative list on the list talk page is fine. It sticks to factual assessments of editors involvement in the page. If you have a problem with an item on the list, focus on that. If you dont like Elonka administrating this page, find another uninvolved admin and ask them to add their name to Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Administrators_monitoring_this_page. If other admins are doing the work, Elonka will be left with nothing to do. John Vandenberg 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that your last sentence, assuming it was not sarcastic in a way that paints Elonka in a bad light, is simply silly, yes?

The list is not fine only, and this is tenuous, in theory. In reality (as our presence here shows, it has been unhelpful at best. It's effect has been to disrupt, divide and derail helpfull conversation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is fine? By what standard? Its not helping the encyclopedia. It is harming it. That is the only standard. KillerChihuahua 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or use admin recall, since Elonka promised to be open to that. Oh, wait, no, she reneged last time there was a COI problem, didn't she? I would not try to administer that page and Elonka should not either due to many past disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one wants to be impeached, do they? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-seven good faith editors recalled her. She didn't like the result. OrangeMarlin 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that's more indication of a flaw in the recall process (and really, any other straight voting process) than any fault of her own; that recall proposal was seen as a disruptive ethnic-fuelled vendetta. And you know how powerful voting blocks get; Jimbo almost had to step in during the last Arbcom elections because of vote rigging. (and OM: 50 editors opposed that same recall. Nice try.) Sceptre 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed her pledge. OrangeMarlin 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed yours. Sceptre 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not about OM, it is about Elonka's actions" is causing comprehension difficulty? Is there some way we could better explain this so that the comprehension difficulties can be attenuated? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please exemplify by way of diff how Elonka is not uninvolved at this article? -- Levine2112 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka continues to add names to her attack list here. This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that, in demonstration of evidence that Elonka has a conflict of interest, and further, the appearance of Vendetta behaviors, at least two of those who supported her Recall are now on that list, Verbal and MathSci. As such, she's making them into bullseye'd targets. Since she has no interest in removing such an attack, nor seems interested in stopping until this is settled, I'm heading over there to remove that attacking hitlist immediately, per BOLD. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka's intervention at the Muhammad al-Durrah article succeeded in remarkably calming down a very troubled article. Jayjg 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So? OrangeMarlin 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The point I think Jay is trying to make is that Elonka is *gasp* trying to work for the good of the encyclopedia! Sceptre 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But so what? We aren't talking about "intent" we are talking about outcome - Methods that might work at one article might be completely useless at another. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to see this as a good-faith attempt by Elonka to resolve part of this thorny dispute, instead of an attempt of undermining NPOV; don't let history repeat itself. At the moment, this is becoming a cesspool of bad faith (which, admittedly, wasn't really helped by some of my comments). Can we all try to steer towards being like Richard Dawkins, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Sceptre 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is (and this isn't directed only at Sceptre, but also to Levine2112 and anyone else with similar sentiments) Elonka has been playing "uninvolved admin" for four months. There comes a point where you aren't "uninvolved" any more and you are heavily involved. She isn't a neutral party trying to resolve a dispute, but, rather, a heavily involved party and a party to the dispute. --B (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed by ThuranX, re-instated by Jayvdb. I have to say, I don't see what the list is achieving (well, I do - a large amount of pointless drama) by existing here. I don't know of any precedent for this, and without taking sides whatsoever, the fact that Elonka is adding people to the list who she has previously been in dispute with is unhelpful even if the list makes it clear that no aspersions are cast on those in the third section. Black Kite 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, out of this thread, please. You commenting in a thread started by OM is going to do nothing but stir the pot. No comment on other matters. Moreschi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• To review a previous such "list of editors" in a different topic area (Israel/Palestine), and see what it looks like after the dispute is finally resolved, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9#Conditions for editing. Before my arrival on that particular page, the article had been in a state of more or less constant edit-warring and disruption for a long time. However, once the list was provided to give more structure to the dispute management, administrators were more effective at reducing the chaos, and the article has been stable for months now. This technique is not called for on every article in dispute, but for very complex situations, it really can be quite effective. For an example that's more directly related to this particular ANI thread, anyone reading here can simply scan the list of editors on the pseudosciences article, to get a quick-reference on which voices here at ANI are participating as "involved" or "uninvolved" voices in the dispute. It's a definite time-saver. --Elonka 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Re "involved"/"uninvolved": Thanks for the explanation, Elonka! That makes sense! Now I see why the last part of the list can be useful. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see how this list is a good idea. It should have seemed obvious from the beginning that it would probably spark an edit war. I also have a difficult time seeing Elonka as a neutral problem-solver in this particular dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the list non-neutral in the sense that Elonka is only adding certain names to it? No, she is clearly adding the name of anyone who is active on the article. Has any evidence been presented which shows or suggests that the list is an "attack" list or a "hit" list? No, none, although this has been asserted/assumed many times. Is the level of outrage about the list of names demonstrated both here and on the list talk page justified? No, not even close.

A most illuminating spectacle. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has spent the last four months as an "involved" person and was using this list to attempt to establish by fiat that she is uninvolved. In other words, she alone is a "neutral" admin and will use the admin tools as she pleases. Heck, she even keeps a list of her involvement at User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Even if her initial involvement was as an "uninvolved admin", that ship has sailed long ago. --B (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to react in the strongest possible way to the actions of Elonka in this diff . She added my name to her "list", after I posted twice on the talk page, criticizing her policing of pseudoscience/fringe science articles. This is a terrible abuse of her administrative position. It shows that she does not listen to criticism and bears grudges. Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational. I wonder whether she might stop this disruptive behaviour? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the appropriateness of Elonka's actions, this kind of personal speculation about her health or mental state is completely inappropriate. I suggest you redact your comment to reflect that. Jayjg 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have scored through my speculation. If I post two short messages to a talk page (now in a removed section), I do not expect my name to appear on a list of frequent editors of that page. Adding my name was a completely misjudged action on the part of Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, let's try to keep the discussion here cool and impersonal. Regarding your statement that the addition of your name was "irrational", a more appropriate term to describe your view would probably have been "erroneous". "Erroneous" is a comment about the action, "irrational" is a comment about the mental state of the person taking the action. Jayjg 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It did not refer to Elonka's mental state, just the nature of her action; "completely misjudged" seems an appropriate alternative. Has anybody thought of having a quiet word with Elonka - even by email or a text message - to sort these things out? There is a newly created article Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, formerly a redirect to a BLP that I successfully nominated for deletion, that should be restored to the main article. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page at ]. I'm not certain that "a quiet word" is possible. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of Sceptre's request, I have considered how I would act if this were a Good Faith effort by Elonka. I would act exactly the same, because the outcome of her actions is still the same, and I would say 'we recognize that you tried, but it is failing, and needs to be removed, and I would remove it, as I did. (Only to have it immediately restored, then re-removed by another, then re-restored by yet another editor, then re-re-removed by a third (fifth?) editor.) And I'd still support the removal of the list. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it an attack list. Such an assertion in itself implies bad faith. I think it could've easily been solved with a {{discussion top}} tag and a note on Elonka's talk that said "the list really isn't helping", in a more civil way than what was done. Then again, there is a trend in the psuedoscience area to have really awkward wording when pen is put to paper (for example, if the ID article went to FAC now, instead of two years ago, I'd reckon most if not all of the objections to promoting it would be the quality of prose). It's a trait often seen in controversial areas, but the most obvious problem (to an outsider) would be the language, not any sort of bias. Excuse me for rambling on here, but I think a major part of the problem in this instance is the way of communication is all wrong. Sceptre 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware you wouldn't call it bad faith. I'm not you. Consider MathSci's case. He posts twice ABOUT the list, and thus makes the list. that's Gotcha Behavior, and screams vendetta. it's unprofessional, unethical, and questionable judgment. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The only good faith reason I can think of is Elonka thinking "oh, I forgot about Mathsci when I put the list together". I would expect him to be on a (impeccable) list of psuedoscience-area editors. Sceptre 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No this is not an explanation, because the list was compiled long before I made any contributions. I was aware of the main page because I knew it linked to Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, a deleted redirect to a deleted BLP. I don't know what you mean by your last comment - perhaps you should remove it. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Elonka (per her revised recall conditions, written post her first set of conditions by which she was actually recalled under) uses these "lists" to then paint the picture that people on these lists are being monitored by her and hence are ineligible to even participate in her recalling. It also needs to be noted that the Community has given admins considerable "powers" (aka the "tools") to do the job that Elonka discusses below. Why on earth does she need more powers - especially those not granted by the Community - is largely beyond me and many other editors. Of course Elonka fails to answer the actual issues but continues to point the finger at all those other people out there. Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the above thread thus far: A few things are visible. First, many of the objections here are coming from editors who are already using the "List of pseudosciences" article as a battleground. A few are tossing around inflammatory terms such as "attack list", or claiming that administrative experience in this topic area equates to "involvement". But let's be clear here: The reason we're even looking at the article to begin with, is because the editors on that article have not managed to solve their own disputes. They (collectively) have been incapable of seeking consensus; they have engaged in incivility and personal attacks, rather than collegial dialog; some have been edit warring and editing tendentiously; some have been gaming the system; and things have gotten so bad at the article that it is currently in a state of indefinite full protection, such that no one can edit it.

We are here to write an encyclopedia. In order to do this, ArbCom has ruled that discretionary sanctions are available to the admin community, provided that a warning is given first. This topic area currently needs those sanctions, and the "list of editors" that is being used on the article's page, is an effective starting point to help the article re-achieve stability.

Administrators who are acting in ArbCom enforcement matters, are understood to be working in highly unsettled areas. (see the SV case). Discretionary sanctions are a major step, yes, but no better means has been suggested to deal with this dispute. If enough other uninvolved administrators were actively managing the page and helping the editors reach a collegial resolution, I (Elonka) would have no objection to standing aside. But as it is, few have volunteered more than momentary assistance. I tried ignoring the dispute at this page for a long time too, but things just kept getting steadily worse. So, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help this article. I am completely neutral in this dispute, and uninvolved as an editor in this topic area. The goals here are a stable editing environment, and stable and high quality articles. Given this article's history, arbitration sanctions appear to be the most effective tool towards stability. --Elonka 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this post focuses on the big picture: the goal of administrative intervention is to improve and stabilize the editing environment. The "list" is demonstrably worsening the editing environment, and so it seems a no-brainer to remove it. All the more so since its upside is theoretical at best - any admin newly entering this dispute will of course need to reach their own conclusions about who is "involved", and to what extent, rather than simply relying on a list compiled by Elonka. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the list in the face of evidence that it's actively worsening the editing environment on the article. MastCell  04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with MastCell. BTW I do not regard this as a very important article on wikipedia - it's just a kind of curiosity. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason she is insisting on it is obvious - she is not an uninvolved admin, but, rather, a heavily involved user. But the list would codify her status as "uninvolved". On my talk page and on Killer Chihuahua's talk page, she has attempted to use this arbcom finding to say that she should be considered unrevertable. It's a ludicrous proposition, but adopting that list would legitimize it. --B (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 16th Elonka started a second private list on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. It seems to imply special powers as an ArbCom enforcer even when asking questions on talk pages. The last entry in the second list is concerned solely with somebody removing their name from her first list. Elonka seems to have stopped adding entries to the second list after her first list was shut down. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is my feelings about this, I do not like having lists like this. As I said on the talk page, the list in design makes it look like the editors are disruptive. I mean putting in the list that certain editors have been warned already sounds to someone just looking in that these editors have had discipline of some sort or under arb restrictions. Then the comments that editors are SPA accounts and/or listing their account sign up date. To me this is at least close to don't bite the newbies. Lists like this have caused heated debates all over the place. Comments to User:Elonka have been extensive and by many. , , Some of the comments lead to questions of whether accusations of WP:Cabal was being charged. During the start up to the RFC for the Guido case, Jimbo himself said that lists like this that marks editors in such a way should not be left up for long, just long enough to get the case together. The set up for the talk page was considered an attack page by some but Jimbo said it wasn't but that it had to be moved to an RFC ASAP. My point is, this list looks like an attack list considering the comments made to some of the users and the comments made directly to Elonka. The difs are conviently located on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. I'm sorry but I feel list like this discourage editors to participate that maybe more neutral than the regular editors at the article. I would also love to know this, when is an administrator considered involved when that administrator has been active in many articles involving a lot of the same editors that she has cautioned, warned, banned etc.? I think Elonka has been involved via her comments to editors and sanctions she has given to be considered no longer uninvolved. Some of these editors that is listed as warned she commented on also at arb page, RFC and of course her recall. I see the list is now deleted with a comment to check the history with a link to it. For consideration of my comments I disclose the following, I did vote at the recall, I have commented on this talk page about this list and voted a couple times on suggestions for a new name for the article. I have not been censored in anyway by Elonka, or anyone else. I just feel very strongly about these kinds of lists anywhere other then lists made by the arbs on their pages, and I still have a little problem with lists being there as I think they mark an editor with a big scarlet red A as a trouble maker, which may not be the case or the reason for these types of lists. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGal 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind having my name listed on such a list. Jayjg's observation that the measures applied led to calming of disputes at an article is consistent with my experience at several articles. Signed, an editor such that one could list at least two such lists on which this editor appears, including the list pertaining to the List page about which the present list of comments is listed. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Elonka

Elonka has given me a fake last warning. This is disruptive. Her behaviour needs to change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, no matter what you think of Elonka, YOU are the one who used VERY WP:POINTY edits to bait and provoke her. They were totally unnecessary and showed an absolute lack of Wikipedian spirit. You should be banned for your actions of late. These last two (as well as deleting or striking out other editor's comments!) are ban worthy. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Starting this section was unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: unnecessary provocation, also unnecessary. Her warnings were not only perfectly proper, I simply don't understand why she didn't block you. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar list of editors was deleted from a talk page. It is appropriate to remove lists of editors from other talk pages too. See Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 16#Other frequent editors on this page and here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would not call it disruptive per se, but it is clear to me that Elonka is not accepted as an honest broker by a lot of the involved parties, so should not be taking administrative actions here and should not be trying to police the articles in the way she is. Incidentally, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not being accepted as an "honest broker" by a lot of the involved parties probably has less to do with any negative trait's on Elonka's behalf, and more to do with the well-documented faction-based POV wars in this particular corner of Misplaced Pages. But, yes, I want to reiterate what Mathsci said: This section was ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Probation

Looking at the various editors arguing here on AN/I and the conflict on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, I would like to suggest something better. While the list Elonka created did not work as intended, might an Article Probation along the lines as this: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. The probation did help in reducing some of the conflicts, it gave admin's the tool to stop most problems before they got too aggressive, and it served the community at large as a way to keep track of those who were there mainly to disrupt. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It might, if Elonka were to recuse herself from acting as an "uninvolved admin". KillerChihuahua 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Arbcom ruling on discretionary sanctions for articles related to pseudoscience serve essentially the same purpose? In any case, I have added a notice of this ruling at the top of the article's talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When is an administrator considered involved in a disputed area? If the administrator hasn't edited the actual article that is controversial but has been involved in many notices to many editors about multiple articles in multiple areas? In other words, would an administrator be considered involved if they have been sanctioning and responding to editors for a long period of time, three or four months. This seems to be a question others are also asking. --CrohnieGal 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This question needs to be answered! WP:UNINVOLVED says nothing of the sort and using just that as a reference, Elonka IS uninvolved at "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts". Unless there is some other standard which people are looking at, right now it is incorrect per Misplaced Pages policy to say that Elonka is involved at this article. -- Levine2112 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED states: "An administrator is considered 'uninvolved' if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality." MastCell  21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "uninvolved administrators" from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." I think "on the topic" means actual article content disputes, which Elonka doesn't seem to be engaged in on these articles. On some of those lists, ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling says, "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." She has been in a current, direct, and personal conflict with me for a few months. During that time she sent a threatening and defamatory email to me, which I published on my user talk page. Certain individuals who are protecting her deleted it. I've forwarded that email to Arbcom, which is proof that she is an involved participant in these matters. I think she should be immediately desysopped.OrangeMarlin 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calls for desysopping are really helpful here, following from the principle that any kind of call for someone's head based on participation in a hotbed subject is generally unhelpful in solving the problem. Also, OM, deletion of published emails on your talk page is less related to anyone trying to "protect" Elonka, but more that a) we don't publish private correspondence on Misplaced Pages for several reasons (copyright being not the least of them) and b) It falls pretty squarely under the purview of what Misplaced Pages is not.) This is not to say Elonka is blameless or anything -- I really don't know because the whole series of events is so mindnumbingly complex it makes my brain hurt. That being said, I think we could do to lower the anger level from everyone here. ⇒SWATJester 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time Elonka has done this sort of thing

Apologies if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but a similar list a few months back here . Elonka included me listed as a frequent editor even though I hadn't edited the article in months but had made some comments critical of her on the article talk page. When I tried to get my name removed from the list, she threatened to ban/block me. I also note that she made a few minor edits to the article that were comparable in scope to mine (formatting and tags) yet she had a clear double standard by insisting that I should be on a Warned/Involved Editors List but that she shouldn't.

I hate to say it, but it sure looks like Elonka has a tendency to use her admin powers to try and crack down on people who disagree with her instead of trying to actually get difficult situations settled down. Since Elonka seems to have changed her mind on admin recall, maybe it's necessary for Elonka to back off from topics and users that she can't seem to handle in an impartial way and find other topics on which she truly can be neutral. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

Since my name's being invoked here and there, a word of explanation. While I've been rather busy lately and haven't been involved much, my watchlist which is far too large attracted my attention to this edits by Elonka. While it makes a reasonable point about participating more on the talk page, it comments on using twinkle to revert and then adding a request to the talk page for protection, and says "what you did could be considered disruptive." Since the request for protection explicitly pointed that out,, the suggestion that it was disruptive appeared a stretch. On the article talk page replies to Elonka's suggestion of sanctions proposed that retitling be sorted first and that an "uninvolved administrator took interest, rather than one who has personal disputes with several involved editors and refers to them as a 'tag team'", so I made suggestions for possible retitling to discuss while the page was protected. When Orangemarlin added a comment, Elonka responded that she was not involved and had no personal conflict with any of the editors. When Orangemarlin responded to what looks rather like baiting from Levine2112, Elonka posted a message to Levine2112: "Hi, I appreciate the support at the talkpage, but don't worry, I can handle Orangemarlin on my own. :) What would be more helpful, would be if you would keep comments focused strictly on the article, and what type of discretionary sanctions (if any) might be helpful towards stabilizing things. Any creative suggestions?", and two minutes later cautioned Orangemarlin that his comment "was uncivil and unhelpful". In the past I've noticed a tendency for Elonka to emphasise civility over article content policies, doubtless with the highest motives but inadvertently favouring Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing.

I commented later "At present there seems to be room to find a constructive way forward, and I've not noticed any warnings being handed out. If warnings are posted to any editors, it would be helpful if the admin doing so pointed that out on this page. Both Elonka and, given my comments below, myself are rather too involved in the area to be making any blocks, if conditions do deteriorate to the point of warnings being issued and ignored, a report to ANI for an outside admin to take action would be appropriate." One hour after that, Elonka added the list which has been the subject of so much discussion, and replied to my comment "Ah, your name is currently on the list of uninvolved admins below, but if you would like to remove it, that's fine. For myself, I still have uninvolved status....". My reply was that "as stated above I've no intention of using the tools, and given past disputes it's my opinion that you'd be well advised to ask an admin without your degree of personal involvement to carry out any actions if it reaches that stage. This procedure that you've initiated seems like overkill at this point and if anything is distracting attention from finding agreement on a way forward...". That remains my view. While a mention on the talk page of any formal warnings would help to identify the alleged misconduct and facilitate any necessary discussion of the warning, I share the view that the whole list is more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification

Since I don't agree that Elonka has the right or the "uninvolved status" to be the policeman for these activities, I have started this request for clarification. OrangeMarlin 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ebay

Somebody is advertising a Misplaced Pages administrator account on Ebay. Is this allowed? JohnBeelam23 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)— JohnBeelam23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you post a link please. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is on the Japanese Ebay - http://www.sekaimon.com/ItemDetailView.do?sekaimon=true&item_id=13028843567&category_id=1&page_mode=srch JohnBeelam23 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, because I can't find anything (unless it's on a non-English Ebay). Black Kite 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What wonderful reviews that guy is going to get. 'item turned up damaged, with long history of use and was soon blocked. Would not buy again.' Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lawl (Assuming this is real). I'm happy to let the sale go through then indef the account. :P Protonk (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, ADMIN....guess I'll have to wheel war. :) Protonk (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Searching Ebay for "Misplaced Pages" does bring up "Misplaced Pages cosplay costume", however. The mind boggles. – iridescent 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While I suspect that it's probably just a case of adding keywords to try to improve search results, we do have File:Wikipe-tan (Cosplay).jpg. Incidentally, JohnBeelam23's link now gives a "not found"-style page, so it looks like it's no longer there. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how the japanese ebay is at a website entitled sekaimon.com Wouldn't it be ebay.co.jp? ⇒SWATJester 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was probably a local business that eBay bought and kept it for its localized name recognition. Realize that Half.com is owned by eBay. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama-related articles probation

I'm a little unclear about the probation and have a few questions if someone would oblige me...

1) Other than the general "Obama related-pages (broadly construed)", is there an actual list of which specific articles are covered under this probation?

2) Is there a specific length of time for the probation?

3) What specifically must happen (or not happen) to get the probation lifted?

4) What additional specific remedies are available to an article when it's put on probation, and how are they different from remedies available to an article not on probation?

Thanks. JBarta (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In order:

1. No. In order to prevent gaming of the system, a list of articles is intentionally not created. If a user is edit warring on any topic about Obama, in any article or talk page, it is taken as part of the probation.
2. No.
3. Nothing. Article probation is mostly designed as a heigtened state of alert for administrators to issue swifter warnings and blocks to stop repeated edit wars. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to allow more edit warring at Obama related topics. Ideally, the concepts of article probation (i.e. Don't Edit War And This Time We Really Mean It!) should apply across all articles. The probation exists more for admins to know to keep a special watch and a short leash on problematic edits; it is not a punishment for anyone. Positive editing and constructive discussions are not stifled or harmed by the probation, only edit warring and tendentious editing (see WP:EW and WP:TE for more info).
4. See Number 3.

This is my interpretation of the situation, I assume other admins will weigh in with their opinions on the matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So just to be clear, article probation is nothing more than a notice that the article is being monitored more closely. There are no special remedies and other than heightened awareness and less toleration of undesirable editing practices. There is no difference between the way an article on probation is administered vs. an article not on probation. Is that correct?

I mention this because I'm concerned that minority or unpopular viewpoints may be eagerly shut out in the name of keeping things running smoothly. I'm also a little disappointed that this probation is of unlimited time length with no "exit strategy" if you will. I'm getting the idea that such a probation is a foggy thing determined more by the whims of a majority of editors rather than some actual definable policy. Is that correct? JBarta (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayron is correct. Article probation means "We are watching this article more closely than usual, if you're disruptive you may be yelled at or banhammered a little quicker than usual and possibly without warning." The application of administrative actions is left up to the judgement of administrators; there is relatively little difference except in the fact we may take less time to explain why edit warring is bad. Editors who are not being disruptive have nothing to worry about. Hersfold 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's becoming more clear to me, thank-you. I'm still unclear as to the length of time such probation is in effect. Maybe I'm confused because of the term "probation". A usual characteristic of probation is that it's imposed for a certain period of time or until certain conditions are met. Let me approach it this way... I would imagine that topics in the past have been put on, and subsequently taken off probation. If that's true, what were the circumstances that led to the probation being lifted? Or, should I assume that in Misplaced Pages "probation" is a permanent state? (I'm really not trying to be troublesome... just trying to understand and pin some of this stuff down a little.) JBarta (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the Obama probation, in my memory at Misplaced Pages, ALL of the other topics put on Article Probation have either been ethnic conflicts OR pseudoscience topics. Since none of these topics seems to have become less, um, conflicted in the real world there is probably little hope of them becoming less in need of probation at Misplaced Pages. When the Palestinian/Israeli conflict gets solved, it will probably become less necessary to watch the topic as closely. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

Now, I am conflicted by the purpose of your question... Is there some action being prevented by article probation that you think needs to occur, but cannot because of article probation? I am at a loss as to what reason an article probation should be lifted... Again, as I stated before, ideally ALL articles should be treated by the standards of article probation; but for practical reasons we can't watch them ALL that well. What would be the compelling reason to allow people to edit war or misrepresent sources or push outrageous points of view ever?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article has quieted down significantly since the edit wars and POV campaigns of the election. It turns out that a large part of the disruption was caused by a single group of related sockpuppet accounts, and article probation arguably helped uncover and deal with them faster than had administrators not been minding the article. It is possible that article probation has reached the end of its usefulness. On the other hand, it may be too soon. It is a (twice) featured article about a person who arguably holds one of the few most important and public jobs in the world, so a heightened state of attention may be in order. Certain bad edits like vandalism, race and racism, soapboxing, etc., are bound to continue, and will have to be dealt with summarily if the article is to remain stable. At a minimum I would wait until after the inauguration to consider lifting probation. Yet I share the concern that keeping an article on probation sends a message that moves us away from normal editing process. I would take a wait and see approach. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "probation" may augment the already evident "group bias" in the Obama articles by eagerly dismissing persistant unpopular views or positions as disruptive. The "probation" may transmit the message "this is Obama country... go along to get along". I'm sure that's not the intent, but in a way, I fear that's one of the effects. I understand that extreme circumstances require more stringent policy, but when the trouble subsides, I hope we are as eager to roll back the stringent policy as we were to implement it. JBarta (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Sarah Palin-related articles are on essentially the same conditions of article probation as Obama-related articles. Kelly 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez is also on article probation. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32's take on this, and I would also like to say that I'm not sure what precisely this thread is about. Jbarta's posts imply that article probation is a Bad Thing, something to be removed as soon as possible - like, say, page protection. But page protection, while offering protection against vandalism and edit-warring, also prevents good contributions. Article probation does not have such negative effects. It simply tells editors that they are not going to get away with disruptive conduct so easily, or for so long, as they might at other articles. From my experience at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I do not think it is time to remove this probation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It IS a bad thing in that it is a label that says "this article is special, beware". (See my post above regarding the negative consequences of this.) Given that there has not been a sanction in over two months and except for one, hasn't even been a post to the probation talk page in nearly a month, I would say the probation is not needed anymore. (If it was, there would still be a trickle of sanctions at the very least.) There may have been a good reason in the past leading up up to the election to take more extreme measures, but things have quieted down and there is no reason to single the Obama articles out for special treatment any longer. There are plenty of editors involved in the articles and normal remedies and procedures should be the rule as in any other article. JBarta (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the probation affecting the way you would normally edit? As you said, no one has been sanctioned in awhile and the probation page is basically dead, so why not edit in a manner that you normally would, and act like the probation is no longer there. I'm not sure what more you would want. Especially with the inauguration tomorrow, there are still going to be admins watching this article. In fact, I bet a number of admins have watchlisted this article. We can't tell all admins to unwatch the article, and we shouldn't encourage admins to turn a blind eye to a high profile topic or disruptive editing, period. I'm not sure what you think ending the probation would entail. Perhaps you could explain what you would expect? And perhaps explain how the probation is affecting the way you would like to edit those articles? If you are on good behavior, the probation shouldn't affect you, so I hope you understand my confusion on why you have brought up this issue as problematic.-Andrew c  04:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many ways I can say the same thing. I was as clear as I could be. After a while I'm just repeating myself. Bottom line, if administrators see merit or value in my thoughts above, that's great... I hope they'll take the appropriate action. If not... I'm not sure what else I can say to be clearer.

I guess the closest parallel I can think of are reduced speed limit signs that come down after road construction is over. Does anyone make the argument that the reduced speed limit should be in place indefinitely until a nameless group of people get together at some unknown time in the future and if they feel like it, they might maybe consider raising the speed limit back up to normal as long as it doesn't cause them too much inconvienence?

You also ask how does it limit one from editing. I've addressed this above in that it reinforces the bias of editors already involved in the pages... even if it's just a notice of probation or the threat of blocking. Possibly in the past there wasn't much choice due to massive disruptions, but now there IS a choice. In the absence of serious problems, I believe nothing good comes from this probation... only bad. And there are (and will be) plenty of eyes on the articles in case vandals should happen by and the article can be administered like any other article without the additional implied threat of being more quickly "banhammered" for "misbehavior".

Well, I've done it... I've repeated myself again. And if I recall, at least two people suggested it might be good to lift the probation after inauguration... well today is inauguration day. I hope those folks will speak up and suggest the probation should be lifted.

One last thing... my argument is not about my editing and how it may be limited, but a broader argument on how Misplaced Pages is administered and how these decisions (and the foggy nature of this probation specifically) can limit vigorous discussion and reinforce systemic bias in the name of peace or making things easier. I think it better if restrictions (or implied threats) were more eagerly lifted than imposed and minority or unpopular viewpoints were welcomed into the mix without undue fear of repercussions. Is this an encyclopedia of knowledge or a country club? JBarta (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well scanning this weird debate, I can say that the probation has helped and that there is no reason to remove it. Like others have said, if you are editing without disruption, then you have nothing to worry about the probation. I think the core issue is that the editor who started this thread is equating the probation to suppression of his/her POV that they would like to add to the Obama articles against consensus without anyone challenging them. Sadly, that is not the function of the probation and even if it was lifted would not change. As long as an editor follows the editing policies of Misplaced Pages, then they would have never noticed the probation. Simple as that. Brothejr (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've made my case the best way I know how. Either I'm not agreed with or not understood or my intentions are considered suspect. At any rate, thank you all for your consideration. JBarta (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One last comment for anyone who is interested. My experiences here have inspired me to spend a little time looking around at various criticisms of Misplaced Pages. It would seem that issues becomming apparent to me have been swirling around and talked about long before I came around. I hate always being the last to know ;-) Anyhow, while a little disenchanted and disappointed by realizing that I may have put Misplaced Pages on a little too high of a pedestal, I still think it's a worthwile endeavor, the good far outweighs the bad and I'd still like to contribute. I also realize that I'm probably about the five thousanth person to post a statement such as this. Why do I bother? Probably for the same reasons I bother with anything else on Misplaced Pages... because Misplaced Pages is a wonderful resource and not bothering would be worse. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed...

I guess it's because I edit kids' educational TV articles that I keep finding this type of editor...the probably-too-young-to-be-here, well-meaning-but-in-over-their-head user. First it was my goodbuddy Sim12, and now we have Mayme08. I have just de-watchlisted Betsy's Kindergarten Adventures rather than have my head asplode as I try to explain what's wrong with edits such as this (hint--take a peek at the airdate) and then, when I attempt to explain what the problems are, receive this as a response. I have enough to do in real life--among several other Sisyphean tasks, I'm currently teaching my 79-year-old mother how to use a computer for the first time--so I'm going to have to ask that others deal with this user. Please and thank you...GJC 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done some format-changing and posted some info on her talk page, but this article should be heavily watchlisted for the next few weeks. I left the episode summaries and the season 2 info she added in. I started a discussion about the episode summaries on the article talk page and tagged the "season 2" with a {{crystal}} tag. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to still watch it, GJC> I just stopped in and removed more cruft. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the idea that Mayme08 might be a sockpuppet of Simulation12? The edits are about the same. I filed for a sockpuppet investigation but it hasn't even been noticed yet. Elbutler (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked for a CheckUser yet? that would help with that. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal

What is the appropriate course of action to track/stop IP hopping vandals? For instance, 72.251.44.191 made a vandalism edit and got a level 1 warning. Then a few hours later 72.251.44.154 made an almost identical edit. I left a level 2 warning, but I'm afraid that this user could hop to other IPs and start over at level 1 again and not get blocked. Should I file a sock puppet report to link the accounts? AIV right away? Or just let it go? swaq 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Short-term rangeblock maybe? Dunno how "collateral" that would be... D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I softblocked 72.251.44.0-256 for 24 hours. Tan | 39 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tanthalas. I come across IP hopping vandals every now and then. Should I bring it up on ANI every time like this or is there a better way to go about it? swaq 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is probably fine. Just make sure there are several edits; this one went back even further than you listed. Two edits probably isn't enough to warrant a rangeblock; just keep an eye on them until you're pretty sure we can take action. Tan | 39 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If all else fails, semi-protecting the page will bring 'em to a screeching halt. HalfShadow 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is true. And an argument could be made that semi-protecting the page is a much better solution than a rangeblock; thanks HalfShadow. I think I might have used the opportunity to learn about and implement rangeblocks :-) Tan | 39 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting sometimes you don't have to do rangeblocks, too (sometimes they just don't take 'no' for an answer), but SP tends to be less 'messy'. HalfShadow 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, given how small the range is (256 IPs) the rangeblock is likely to be pretty specific. I'd probably have picked the range-block in this case, but obviously there'd be a big difference if we were talking about a larger range. ~ mazca 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the rangeblock the better solution because the likelihood of collateral damage is much smaller than to the remainder of anon-space being unable to edit the article in question. Just my $0.02. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I prefer them to a semi on my talk page - honestly, do you know how often an anon makes a good-faith edit on there in the midst of a wether stampede, and do you know how much of the wether vandalism JA/G orders would be prevented if there were rangeblocks implemented even for at least 12 hours? -Jéské Couriano 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock expired and the vandal went right back to work: 1, 2. swaq 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Schools of Philosophy (an Ayn Rand issue)

Advice/action would be appreciated to avoid an edit war. There has been prior discussion on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) about renaming the article Objectivism. Objections were raised that while Ayn Rand's philosophy is called objectivism, it does not define that word; there are for example objectivist approaches to ethics which are the antithesis of Rand's approach. There was no consensus for the move. Shortly afterwards the same group of editors attempted to change Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticisms of Objectivism. The same argument took place and the consensus was to leave it unchanged.

We then get a third attempt. At Schools of Philosophy Objectivism was created as a school with a pipelink to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Attempts to get this to conform with the page name, ie Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or to simply use Objectivism which takes you to the disambiguation page have resulted in more or less instant reversal by two editors User:SteveWolfer and User:Kjaer. The latter has already received a ban for edit warring on Ayn Rand which is currently frozen and both the named editors are refusing mediation (this may well come here as an issue too). The have a history of working together as seen .

In December I left a reasoned note and today made the change back to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), it was reverted with some fairly intemperate language by ] a short while ago.

Now this is a minor article, with some really esoteric "schools" and in the overall scheme of things I am tempted to just let it go. However the pattern of persistent pursuit over different pages (I suspect attempting to create a precedent) is disturbing. Both editors seem to be taking a line that anyone who disagrees with Rand who edits is taking a POV position. In the case of User:Kjaer he at one point reverted an actual quotation from a cited source to his more accurate summary. Trying to introduce any type of balance results in abuse, edit wars and the whole thing is exhausting.

Any advice or action would be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please link to a page about an alternate form of Objectivism. I tried to find one, and the disambig links to only pages about her ideas, except for hte case of one synonym. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) outside of the US and I guess that most people would be looking for that than the wackjob version that Rand pushes - a series of em.. ideas that have never got much traction outside of the US. I had a quick scan of the various academic databases I have access to and it pops up all over the place but none are references to the wackjob version. We don't have an article on Objectivism? really? (runs away to look). --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

These squabbles are so distasteful... I really hate seeing my name pushed into this or that strange little disagreement. My suggestion would be to ignore Mr. Scott's comment (I suspect that "wackjob" is an indication of bias and that kind of approach has never gone far in bringing reason or agreement to the forefront :-) - and in any case it doesn't address the issue. Snowded has misrepresented my part in this as well as the issue. He appears to be painting some kind of ominous picture of a conspiracy that just isn't there. Look at the history. Read to see if what he says is really what is happening. So far as Misplaced Pages goes, I'm an open book. Look at my edits, look at my comments. What you see is what you get. I'm just going to suggest that anyone interested in this issue should read the arguments made on the talk page of that article - My comments there are quite adequate in representing my view of what makes the best choice for this encyclopedia. If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. As to why I did not participate in the mediation, I answered that on the talk page of that request. --Steve (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Steve that we need someone to look at the history. ThuranX, if you want the merge discussion it is here and the key thing is do look at the google scholar search. Very simply the citation evidence shows that Objectivism is not encompassed by Rand's position. Objectivism is a common concept in the philosophy of science as well as ethics and elsewhere. The google scholar search supports the comment made by Cameron Scott. To be honest the real issue is a policy one. Consensus to rename was not achieved on the main articles, so the schools insertion is a back door attempt to avoid accepting a prior consensus. On a related issue mediation on the Ayn Rand page will now be rejected as Steve has just refused to accept it, so a referral here is more or less inevitable. This is an issue which affects several articles. --Snowded TALK 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pay careful attention to the fact that Snowded is directing everyone to a history that is about a totally different page. He is talking about the article for Objectivism and NOT the article that is a List of schools of philosophy. They are similar squabbles, but with an important differences. When one is at the List of schools of philosophy article less disambiguation is needed, for one thing. If there were a school of philosophy named "Moral Objectivism," which there isn't, and if it had an article (it doesn't), one could just add that school name and link to that article. Take a look at the arguments that are actually about the article in question: List of schools philosophy talk page. There is no attempt to backdoor anything, and it is a deflection to make that or process or mediation on another article or me the issue. --Steve (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, There was talk that we had articles on other forms of Objectivism. I asked for links. None have been provided yet. Moral Objectivity is different, and I, an American with that above-impled inferior education, wouldn't confuse the two as 'moral' is an intergral part of the terminology. If there is no other philosophy of government and self-determination and so on, then I don't see why we need to distinguish Objectivism as you seek to do.ThuranX (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, the question you raised was previously discussed on the talk page of Objectivism (Ayn Rand and I have given you those links. The most telling is a search of `google scholar on "Objectivism" in which Rand hardly features. However what I brought here was a question of process. Edit warring has broken out with two editors determined on one solution. It's that issue of process I brought here, content discussions on this issue have (as I said) already taken place. I have not idea why you should think that any inferiority of education is implied by the way. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded talks about edit warring and darkly alludes to "two editors determined on one solution." This is the process issue that he holds to be the prime issue. Take a look at the recent history links. This issue came to life in December 29th when the link was set to Objectivism by Kjaer rather than the disambiguation page. Since then, NO one has done more reversions than Snowded - he leads the pack, he is his own process issue. --Steve (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you misunderstand my point when I say Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US - I'm not commenting in the slightest about the american education system - I'm saying it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof. So I wouldn't automatically expect someone from London who didn't go to university to have come across any of the concepts. It's not really an either/or for us because Rand's stuff isn't widely taught at universities, well it's not taught at all really except as a footnote to say "not to be confused with..." --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand 'insult' quite well. I'm an American. We're stupid, but good at hearing insults. That said, Objectivism, in this country of stupid people, refers to Rand's extremist libertarian/anarchy theory. Moral objectivism is different, and not referred to as objectivism, but 'moral objectivism', both terms being needed. But hey, I'm just another stupid American, right? Cause we never have any people here in Dumbfuckistan who've studied, and hold any sort of higher degrees, and certainly not in the right subjects. And our universities which do talk about Objectivism certainly aren't worth bringing up, cause hey, this is just Retardania. ThuranX (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious understanding, it's much appreciated. Looking further into this, I can't find any evidence that it's taught in American universities either or at least not any where the staff publish in international journals. (but that's just a quick skim so I could be wrong). --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism is taught in some US Universities and academics have attended seminars. From the evidence today the bulk of this is funded by Rand Institutions of various types. The issue is not anti-americanism (although the comments of ThuranX are indicative of the problems with this subject) but that Rand has little notability outside of America. In a European context (and in the majority of Academic philosophers not matter where they come from including America) "Objectivism" does not mean the doctrines of Ayn Rand. This is a simple fact, and the process issue I raised in respect of the article. Some editors believe that Objectivism should be uniquely associated with the ideas of Ayn Rand, in the main that seems to be from declared supporters. Other editors (including all the non US participants) are arguing for a wider more objective (sic) interpretation. The Misplaced Pages is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA. This is especially true in a page which purports to show schools of philosophy. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed in one of my classes, as an examination of how my field would change under different governmental philosophies. But I'm just an ignorant dumbfuck american, so what the fuck do we know, right? ThuranX (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has said anything that would remotely support the self-abusive language you are using. Please calm down. --Snowded TALK 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US. So in the US, we don't teach Moral Objectivism, and if we did, it would depend our your education. Speaking of Education: it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof.. So people in OTHER nations get it, Americans don't, and people with Higher Degrees, who xist only in nations NOT America, get it, but Americans don't. Such ridiculous arrogance. Excuse me, us imbecilic Americans are busy installing one of those... Presidents, today. I'm going to go watch other stupid americans, instead of wasting the time of such laudatory fellows as yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're reading more into the statement than actually existed. There was no "Americanz iz stoopid" comment anywhere (although, George W has which degrees again??) Nobody was using "holier than thou" here ... it was a "X appears more recognized elsewhere". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was a 'the whole educated world thinks it's something other than what uneducated Americans think' statement. ThuranX (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please examine Cameron Scott's statement again. Xe only said that in non-American (particularly academic) settings, "Objectivism" means something different than it does in the US. It's just a dialectical difference, like "stone" or "football". That Ayn Rand's Objectivism hasn't spread to non-American academic settings doesn't mean Americans are stupid (though some of us are, of course). -kotra (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute so I don't see how any Admin action is needed. Does anyone else want to weigh in with their personal opinions on Rand before it's closed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

She was silly. -kotra (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

15 year olds really like her. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I will not couch my argument in the same tone as ThuranX, there is most definitely a strong whiff of anti-Americanism in some of the statements that some of the non-American editors have advanced, and such sentiments are offensive to those of us who are American (like it or not, there are a lot of us out here). The statement The Misplaced Pages is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA is so incredibly condescending and sanctimonious that that I find it difficult to formulate a calm and measured response. The main argument I am seeing here is an attempt to make "moral objectivism" the same as "objectivism", forcing the Randian philosophy to a disambiguation page, despite the fact that "moral objectivism" needs the adjective for identification. And while it may be true that Objectivism is most common in North America (Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff are both Canadians, and they are certainly conversant in the philosophy), the 330 million+ people in Canada and the US make it easy to construct an argument that the Randian term is the one that belongs on the main page, with a hatnote linking Moral objectivism and a link to the disambiguation page for all of the other terms, most of which relate to the Randian concept. Horologium (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet, oddly enough, Football continues to be about the thing those pesky non-northern-NAFTAs do in their spare time. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you find condescension or sanctimony in the statement you quote. It's just a more specific paraphrasing of our guideline. If Ayn Rand's Objectivism is the more common meaning of "Objectivism" worldwide, and evidence supports that, then their mistake can be chalked up to their own, different experience with the word "Objectivism". No need to assume it's "anti-Americanism". -kotra (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: I, an American, wasn't offended. -kotra (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"When you're losing the argument, create a smoke-screen" - in this case, by doing one's best to insure that anybody taking a contrary opinion is so busy doing their best to make sure utterly no offense can be taken at their statement that their points become hazy, and their souls, weary. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "The Misplaced Pages is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA" is exactly right, with the obvious qualification that if the term is used only in specifically American culture that's how we define it. But that's not the case here. Regardless of his view about Ayn Rand, Cameron was correct about the particular point at issue. DGG (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise on the talk page in question to allow the use of "Objectivism" but with a qualifying note (help on syntax appreciated by the way). I can't say I am happy with it, but if it reduces conflict on a minor page so be it. Kotra, a simple search of Google Scholar on "Objectivism" will show you the degree to which the term is not associated with Rand in the academic world (and this is after all a list of schools of philosophy). As I said when I started this any advice would be appreciated and some engagement on page itself might help. Overall on Rand an RFA has now been raised which looks likely to be accepted so the conduct of individual editors and the general issue of bias may now be addressed. Given that if this can be closed on an acceptable compromise it would be good news. --Snowded TALK 11:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't making any judgment on which usage is more common, I was just saying that if Ayn Rand's is more common, one can still assume good faith. I don't know which is more common, though I don't think the academic usage alone should be considered; the general public needs to be able to find what they want easily too (as per the same guideline I quoted earlier). -kotra (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

External objectivist web sites are canvassing people to edit this article and also that on Ayn Rand. Post 17 is interesting. Details here. Can we please have some admin involvement. --Snowded TALK 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer states here that he edits on external sites as Ted Keer. Here we see Ted Keer actively canvassing for people to edit WIkipedia in support of his views. Kjaer is one of the active protagonists on the various Ayn Rand disputes and has at least two blocks for edit wars. --Snowded TALK 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This certainly is inappropriate conduct, but it looks like there wasn't a whole lot of impact resulting from it. Thanks for finding this, though, it puts the edit warring into better perspective. -kotra (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Violation of wikietiquette, stated "Zenarh, go fuck yourself" "Nazi pig!" PRODUCER 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Given notice, and final warning. This account has a documented history of gross verbal abuse that will land this editor with a block for future occurrences. Let me know if it occurs again. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A lucky escape for him - I was filling in the block reason form (having taken a few minutes to find and read the previous ANI episode) when I checked back here to see that Seicer, to whom I am more than happy to defer, had already dealt with it. Bencherlite 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do when the guy insults me in such awful ways? (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Rise above it? Walk away? Raise a Wikiquette query? Certainly not the above. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly should not respond with the same types of insults that are directed towards you. That action will result in you being blocked, which does nothing to help your situation. The best thing to do if you are insulted is to first remian calm, next try discussing it with the editor in question on their talk page, asking for clarification/refactoring the offensive statement without attacking or insulting them. If that does not produce any results (it IS worth a try though, even if you think it won't work it shows good faith on your part) then you can bring it to a noticeboard such as WP:WQA, WP:RFC, WP:ANI etc. The point is even if the other editor was offensive and baited you, if you rise to the bait you are more likely to be the one blocked, which I assume you don't want considering you are still on Misplaced Pages and editing the encyclopedia. Whenever you have a conflict the best thing is to walk away and cool down, as editing when you are angry will just land you in trouble, and will make others focus on your behavior, rather than seeing the editor you have a conflict with as the problem. Good luck. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any rules against baiting, so that the baiter can be punished? (LAz17 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Not specifically, but if you really can't ignore such behaviour then you raise a Wikiquette alert or start a User request for comment, where the community will decide whether the actions were indeed baiting and hopefully work out a solution to the situation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I will just add that even without having been directly involved in any disputes, I think it is a problem that baiting is so often allowed to slip by. In my opinion, in the case of a heated dispute the person who makes a baiting comment should face the same blocks, restrictions, etc. as the user who rises to the bait with "f-off" or some such. However, this is simply my opinion, as I am not even an admin let alone in charge of Misplaced Pages, and my above comment certainly does not mean I condone incivil comments in response to provocation, just that the provocation should be dealt with as harshly as the incivility. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Baiting another user to provoke a policy violation may be seen as gaming the system (WP:GAME) which I believe is solid evidence of bad faith, which in turn can lead to an indef block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shannon_Rose

Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is using offensive edit summaries. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Shannon_Rose -- Eastmain (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Left warning on talk page, admin may see fit to take further action. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the response to Theseeker4's warning, I think this editor needs some "thinking time", so I have blocked Shannon Rose for 48 hours. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Again, i bring to your attention highly disruptive editor PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Pasd08)

He has been warned, in every language and way, but still continues do remove links, references and other info (loan signs in infobox, pcupdates, etc).

I bring to you two examples of such behaviour: Elias Alves da Silva (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elias_Alves_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=265310035), and Pawel Kieszek (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pawe%C5%82_Kieszek&diff=prev&oldid=265304604)

He is active as of NOW, so you can witness more of this examples in "contributing".

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL, - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You should ask him to propose changes at the discussion page — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor has already received dozens of messages (and countless warnings) and never replied to any. His original account has been blocked, so this is a case of sock-puppeting. He's causing a lot of damage and has shown unwilling to engage in any dialog. I urge you to take action. --Waldir 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pasd08, in his entire career, has never left an edit summary or posted to a Talk page. I've left him a notice of this discussion. If he doesn't respond, I suggest that he be blocked indef for abuse of multiple accounts. If he responds here, or if he posts an understandable unblock request, then we might consider his case in more detail. Though there is no formal WP:Sockpuppet investigations report, the evidence is pretty good. (See the four ANI threads that link to User:Pararubbas for more). EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Defaming statements on living person article

User:Hubert Lup keeps adding defaming comments to the article Gesine Schwan. This woman is running for the federal presidency of Germany as the candidate of the labor part (SPD) this year. I warned the user not do so and informed them about the sensitivity of articles related to living persons. Without comment the contentious claims were re-added with a source (that does not back the statements).

The original post claimed that Schwan (the German presidential candidate) was a Polish nationalist. (Admittedly, Schwan enjoys good relations with the Republic of Poland.) Furthermore, the claim is made that Schwan justifies ethnic cleansing. These two statements are, in my opinion, extreme negative POV, and should not be tolerated at a biography. At last, the user claims the Schwan's family was Polish. This is simply wrong and, I can just guess, this claim is made to give more support to the defamation made before.

Here are the two relevant diffs: 1st set of edits and 2nd set of edits.

I would appreciate if an administrator ensured that the article remains free of insults. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well at one point, the editor in question added this German-language reference. Of course, as I cannot understand German, I cannot check exactly what this reference says. Of course, it looks like a blog post, and I doubt it's good enough to support the claims in question as this is a WP:BLP. In any case, considering the user's low edit count both here and at German WP, I don't think it's unreasonable to continue making an assumption of good faith. Particularly as the user hasn't continued to revert. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attack and racism

I have just been the subject of a rather obvious and unsubtle personal attack in an edit summary.

The edit summary was as follows

Sennen goroshi FUCK OFF you stinking JAPANESE, u have broken the 3-revert rule TWICE already and VANDALIZING Korean related articles for NO REASON. You are the BIGGEST VANDALIST I HAVE EVER SEEN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=265317312

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Wondergirls

The above account is a likely sock puppet

The puppet master account is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ziggymaster

another sock is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Lakshmix

and an IP they have been using to edit is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/92.233.108.66

I don't know what course of action to request, as the above account has been pretty dormant since I have voiced my suspicions about sock puppets, perhaps someone who is more experienced than I could take a look at all accounts, the articles edited and the time/dates of edits, and see if they could all be dealt with.

Either way the account that was responsible for that little outburst surely deserves some form of sanction.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the banhammer on the wonder girls. Horologium (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I just noticed that CIreland had given out a 72 hour block for the same incident. I really think that it's indef-worthy, but I won't squawk too loudly if someone reduces it back to the original block length. Horologium (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Users violating WP:MYSPACE

Contributions from Geezer1022 (talk · contribs) and Sexy red 20 (talk · contribs) consist only of posting chat messages in each others userspace. Both editors were informed (, ) that their behavior is unacceptable, but this has not deterred them to the least. Sleaves 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As Geezer1022 (talk · contribs) blanked the warnings and it was clear was going to ignore them, I've blanked him/her indefinitely (anyone who wants to modify that may). Sexy red 20 then blanked the blocking notice, so I've blocked Sexy red 20 as well. dougweller (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate userbox

I came across this a few days ago but have waited for the user to respond. Unfortunately they seem to have been away for a while (no edits since 31st December) or alternatively have chosen to ignore me. Either way, I feel this is important enough to bring up somewhere and here seemed best. While I know we don't really have a policy on userboxes and we generally allow people wide latitude to express their opinions in them even if we discourage it, I feel that one of the boxes of User:EmpMac crosses the line. In particular (although I would hope most people noticed it themselves) "This user doesn't enjoy dealing with black people". Whether serious or not, it isn't in any way conducive to building an encylopaedia or user to user interaction and is likely to offend many. (Some of the other boxes aren't perhaps much better but perhaps still borderline acceptable.) I could remove it myself, but making sure I'm doing the right thing first. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The impression I get from the set of userboxes on display isn't good. WP:NPA implies I shouldn't say more. As to that specific box, I suggest you nominate it for WP:MfD. You may get a good deal of support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the homophobic ones. Yuck. //roux   18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Black people" box and the Albanian unfair box are both user created, hardcoded to that specific page, and not templated so there is nothing to take to MfD. I'm going to be bold and delete both of them. The "black people" one for obvious personal attack, and the Albania unfair one for the sole purpose of advancing a geopolitical ethnic and/or religious conflict. The homophobia ones are actual userboxes that have been MfD before and kept. I do not intend to do anything with those and ask other users to read the past discussion and consider whether another MfD is appropriate or not. -Andrew c  18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the old mfd Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezkag72/Userboxes/Homophobe. I was going to do exactly what Andrew C is going to do. Be bold and delete them. Chrislk02 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept with two votes? Should have been relisted for greater consensus. Discrimination has no place on Misplaced Pages, and I am accordingly putting up the three homophobic boxes for MfD again, here. //roux   18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. How dare he have an opinion that you don't like. HalfShadow 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of userboxes with opinions I don't agree with. However, most of those don't tell people that their marriages are invalid or that they themselves are immoral. This is supposed to be a collegial environment. Get rid of them. Black Kite 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then get rid of the pro-gay ones too, otherwise you're being unfair. HalfShadow 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the pro-gay ones aren't actually discriminating against anything. Unless, of course, I've missed some out there that say "heterosexual relationships are immoral" or something? --.:Alex:. 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're essentially only allowing one opinion: The opinion you like/won't get us in trouble. That's unfair. HalfShadow 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So we should ban anti-racism userboxes, too? — Jake Wartenberg 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• If I remember the great userbox wars, the litmus test was being divisive and inflammatory, or some such wording. Thus: this user is an atheist would be perfectly acceptable, but "keep your imaginary friends to yourself" is gratuitously offensive to those of faith. I also fail to see why he needs quite so many boxes telling us that he is a bigot. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  Arguably, one would do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  (Ahem) {{User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend}} Black Kite 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would argue that this user is going after shock tactics to get their views across. --.:Alex:. 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EmpMac doesn't seem to be here to cooperate with other users. AnyPerson (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

EmpMac was blocked for a short time for edit warring and was also guilty of personal attacks (well directed towards a specific user I mean). However the good news is he/she hasn't been back since late last year. Let's hope it stays that way. Of course, if they do come back, I would suggest a short leash. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor improperly changing my comments

I made an edit to my own comment under the Ayn Rand talk page under the section Ayn Rand and the Native Americans.] deleting a sentence in the final paragraph that begins "So, you come across territory that's being disputed by warring tribes..." User Snowded TALK has taken it upon himself to change the nature of my edit changing to a strikethrough, using the pretext - if I understand his regional jargon - that he feels one shouldn't delete sentences from a comment that's been responded to. As of the time of my original edit 17:32, 20 January 2009 there had been no direct response to that particular comment directly below it or in the vicinity (the comment directly below it is from the previous day) nor even by the time of Snowded's change to my edit at 17:43 or at the time of his subsequent revert he made after I changed it back. Or even as of approx 16:00 EST.

And who is he to say? Snowded is clearly in disagreement with me, his motive appears to be clearly harassing. I left a comment on his talk page to knock it off, his response to which has been to continue it.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, when I say Snowded is in disagreement with me, I mean regarding the Ayn Rand issue, not just this editing issue. TheJazzFan (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide some diffs, please? Protonk (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is where JazzFan edited his/her own comment, and here is wehere Snowded restored the removed portion as a stricken portion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any special reason why you would prefer not to have it left in strikethrough? It is confusing when someone is arguing a point which no longer exists in the text; strikethrough is a simple and common way of dealing with that. Incidentally, you don't WP:OWN anything, not even your own comments. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, there was *no one* arguing the point from that particular comment at the time of my edit or even now last I looked. Snowded's "rationale" that he left in the edit comment was patent b.s. There was no quotation of it, it *hadn't* been responded to. I decided it would need more development and wasn't necessary for the paragraph and got rid of it. Is there a special reason Snowded would continue to revert a comment when his alleged rationale is shown to be false other than as some kind of antagonistic nose-thumbing? TheJazzFan (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to give a fair bit of latitude to users editing their own comments, unless they do so in a fashion meant to deceive or confound. This appears to be a case where the user refactoring another's comments (User:Snowded) should not do so. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Snowded refactored a section on the Ayn Rand talk page a while back. It was upsetting at the time because it was a heated debate that was rearranged in mid-stream. There was NO intent to decieve or confound - he was tiding up. But it wasn't a good move at that time and given the nature of the debate, it warranted a short prior notification ("If you guys don't mind, I'll..."). As an editor Snowded tends to be civil, yet infuriating. His comments make him look like a model editor, but his actions tend to result in a lot of conflict. There are a number of Admin requests that have him featured prominently, and from my experience, I'd say he tends to be the instigator. (It has just begun, and will take a while to flesh out, but look at the Admin request on the Ayn Rand article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My Life Would Suck Without You

I'm backing away before I get whacked for edit-warring. My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted due to WP:Articles for deletion/My Life Would Suck Without You. The reason given was that it hadn't charted, received an award, or been covered by multiple artists. It has been reposted today, and editors keep removing the {{db-repost}} tag, despite the fact that it still hasn't charted, received an award, or been covered by multiple artists. I've requested that they go to WP:DRV if they wish to overturn a previous AFD result, but they don't seem to be inclined to actually follow processes or guidelines.

I don't mind people arguing that the original AFD was flawed, and perhaps should be overturned. I do object to people not following the AFD/DRV process that you cannot repost essentially the same article without addressing the original AFD concerns without going through DRV.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. They can go to DRV if they like. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since even the quickest google reveals that multiple reliable sources cover the single, can someone recreate it so I can add the sources? DRV covers the judgement of the administrator not the merits of the article doesn't it? We could do DVR or I could write an article from scratch - but really what's the point? (NOTE: Never involved with the original article or the afd). --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can userify it for you and you can add sources there if you like, moving the resulting article into mainspace when you are done (assuming you eliminate the reason for deletion). Protonk (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

if you don't mind, that would be great. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cameron Scott/My Life Would Suck Without You. Done. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've let the people know (as if it wasn't blindingly obvious) that if they don't like the closure of the AFD, then DRV is their friend - but simply ignoring the result and carrying on anyway is unlikely to win them friends. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← This needs protection, it was already recreated after the userfication, while it's being discussed at DRV. --Amalthea 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It went through AFD, was deleted, then recreated five times before and while DRV was occurring. I've salted it. Let the DRV go through its process. Further recreations is only discounting its validity. seicer | talk | contribs 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith user at White Brazilian

I'm again having problems with user Donadio at article White Brazilian. The user was already blocked because of his behavior in that article, but it seems he won't stop until he gets blocked again. He keeps creating an edit-war, removes sourced information and is now including his personal opinions about the subject.

For example: The Italian Embassy in Brazil claims there are 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil. Other reliable sources also claim 25 million . The user Donadio is now claiming the Embassy and the other sources are lying and "exaggerating", and he is citing the imaginary number of "15 million", a number that he created in his mind. Moreover, he seems obsessed with Portugal and tries to diminish importance of the German and Italian communitis of the country. He's not assuming good-faith. Opinoso (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If he has violated 3RR again, you could go to the 3RR noticeboard, or (slight stretch) AIV noticeboard. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Am I getting too big for my britches, unilaterally banning people from talk pages for a day, at User talk:Andrew Parodi#Please knock it off and User talk:Pigsonthewing#Please knock it off? Seemed like a rational thing to do, but also felt I was pushing the envelope a little, so bringing it here for review and modification if necessary. --barneca (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← (e/c)

Barneca writes on my talk page:

posted to User talk:Pigsonthewing and User talk:Andrew Parodi

I don’t suppose there’s any way to get you two to stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like? Having watched this mutual sniping for several days now, all I can think of is this, so consider this "official", whatever that means:

Andy Mabbett and Andrew Parodi are both banned from editing Talk:Eva Perón, Eva Perón, and each other’s talk pages, for a period of 24 hours. That should be enough to regain perspective. If this ban is violated, I’ll block for 24 hours. If disruption resumes after 24 hours, I’ll also block with no further warnings. When the ban expires, both of you need to make a very careful effort to avoid attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names, or indeed any immature behavior. Believe it or not, the best course forward will be to assume that you’re both trying to improve the article, and that some kind of compromise is going to be necessary.

Further, when the ban expires, Andy Mabbett will stop indenting Andrew's comments (it's hurting more than it's helping, and appears designed to cause offense), and will respect Andrew's request to keep all further comments on the article talk page, rather than Andrew's user talk. If Andy truly believes "warnings" to Andrew are necessary, he will do so thru an admin or WP:ANI.

Both of you are being disruptive, both are unacceptably abusing the other, both are acting like .

If you disagree with this ban, I suggest you take it up at WP:ANI before making another edit to the above pages; it will be easier to lobby for overruling me at WP:ANI, than from inside an unblock template.

I can't "stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like" because I've not started so doing. You will find only one editor attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names; also repeatedly making false accusations of nationalist bias, exhibiting clear-cut ownership, making personal attacks and falsely claiming to have been the target of personal attacks; and already reprimanded at ANI for improper behaviour in this matter; "reverting without discussion", or "edit warring with a variable IP address to avoid scrutiny" (Barneca's description). That editor is not me. (I can supply diffs as evidence for each the aforesaid, but it will be tiresome to have to do so). Andrew Parodi's improper indentation makes others replies to earlier comments appear to be replies to him. The last time I corrected this, I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi. How else does Barneca propose that be remedied? I note that despite having "watched this … for several days now" Barneca has not posted there, nor to either talk page, before the above.

Talk:Evita is also pertinent. Somebody should put a link to this discussion on Talk:Eva Perón, since I'll apparenlty be blocked if I do so, or refute the latest false allegations made against me there (example: "the fact that your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a WP:BOLD and fundamentally correct action by Barneca, there was no progress being made by the adversarial editing of the article talkpage and quite possibly the tone that had developed was impinging on the likelihood of other parties attempting to resolve the matter by reasoned discussion - the few that joined in had appeared to simply aligned themselves with one or the other faction. To respond to Andy Mabbett, this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong but a case of allowing the article to be improved by editors without such an investment of emotional baggage. I think the two parties should honourably withdraw and allow others to discuss what is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) "this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong" In the oft-surreal world of Misplaced Pages administration, you may be right. After all, I've been scrupulous in using edit sumamries and talk pages, involving WP:THIRD and even, when appropriate WP:ANI, in the face of increasingly hysterical accusations such as those listed above; so why shouldn't I be tarred with the same brush as the person making them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the first time that Andy Mabbet has been brought here for modifying the style of other people's comments. The simple solution is to stop doing it, which would then make threads like this unnecessary. We are, however, completely wasting our time if we try to get Andy to admit fault. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (EC) Barneca's actions, and Guy's assessment of the reactions (as evidenced above). ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with 3 or 4 people) Andrew Parodi's latest rant is, indeed, worse than Andy Mabbett's behavior, and I'll go take a closer look at it now. possibly deleting any attacks. Over the top behavior is not excused by less eggregious behavior from one's "opponent", but neither should it be viewed in a vacuum.

The reason I included Pigsonthewing in the ban is twofold:

1. My take is that Andy, while often right about something, often makes a concerted effort to condescend and belittle those who disagree. This is not good in a collaborative editing environment. I really want other editors to look thru the talk page, and see if you agree. If I’m imagining things, I’d be happy to retract this, but it’s definitely my feeling.
2. I recall (will have to sort thru history if this is disputed) Andy’s fascination with adding a user page link to User:Docu’s signatures, claiming it was for other editors’ benefit. Same thing here with the indents; while there might possibly be a benefit to readability, it is outweighed by its annoyance to the person being “corrected”. I have a feeling this is intentional, although I could probably be chided for a lack of good faith in this regard.

Thanks in advance for any outside views. --barneca (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is thank you very much for intervening. I will not edit the article or the talk page for the next 24 hours. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked my comment above: "The last time I corrected , I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi" and "How else does Barneca propose that be remedied?" . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: that was not a serious invitation. I was dramatizing the fact that I found your indentations of my comments to be offensive and patronizing. At any rate, this isssue is immaterial because you had already indented my comments without any invitation to do so. You need to learn to keep your hands off of the comments of other people. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

it's almost always best in situations like this when dealing with a particular article or group of articles to give a short block or topic ban both parties--its exactly like protection to stop a revert war, or 3RR. It shouldn't be seen as judgment on the merits. DGG (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_19#Phone_Call_to_Putin

The article has been relisted by the closer, but we need a warm-blooded uninvolved admin to close the DRV debate. I'm both cold blooded and involved. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I create energy through photosynthesis, so I cannot. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the deletion review. Davewild (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Browncom

This user page is clearly problematic, but I'm not sure of the right way to handle it. Note that Browncom (talk · contribs) is currently operating as Jraugustine (talk · contribs), but this isn't sock-puppetry because he hasn't edited with the Browncom account since starting to work with the new one. Even so, the sole purpose of the account, in whatever guise, seems to be promotional; see Ageless Fantasy (which I have just AfD'ed) and NetSpend Corporation. I will notify Jraugustine of this discussion. (For the record, I am not an admin.) Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to be a marketing/SEO professional, which suggests some conflict of interest problems here. I'd suggest popping over to that noticeboard and getting some editors involved from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD under 'Misplaced Pages is not a webhost' 'Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox' and 'Userspace is not a place for extensive personal essays' would be my advice. Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Socking vandal

This is not much yet (the individual has only made 3 edits), but just in case someone thinks it's time to block anyway:

User:Bansark4 and User:UpmenUKK, both new accounts, are pretty clearly socks of the same guy. Bansark4 started off with vandalism to a certain article (diff), then disappeared after I warned him; a day later, UpmenUKK registered an account, and his edits consisted of removing the warning from Bansark4, and making the same vandalism to the same article (contribs). Again, it's not the end of the world or anything, but might be worth blocking if anyone wants to. Politizer /_contribs 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just started a checkuser (well, at least tried to - the new system's on a similar level to navigating the phone company's automated phone system) on this, as I noted the same thing - there's a half-dozen other editors who have made the same edits to Lorenzo Lamas previously. The article's semi'd for a while, too, just to keep it from being sullied again. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing pattern.

Over at Barack Obama, which I watchlisted after a reuqest either at AN or AN/I, I noticed user:Linda_Mancia was involved in the old and annoying editing conflict about if Obama's a sekrit muzlin terarismist. Inspecting her contribs, I found that her only contribs are to user talks and to this issue. If not for the familiar way she introduces herself to some editors, I'd call her out as a SPA, and a tendentious one at that, but I'm not sure what to make of it. contribs in question. Admins, is this a problem or not? ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closely at her Talk page, her biggest issue has been the attempt to create articles about characters in an unknown series of books, by an unknown artist, all of which have been deleted. AnyPerson (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad I asked. I'll let her dig her own hole over at the BO page, then. thansk, and mark it resolved, i guess. ThuranX (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To my slightly jaundiced eye, this is a problem editor in the early stages. On her user page there is a long discussion in which she twists and turns and twists again to avoid providing ISBNs for some allegedly notable books about which she has a conflict of interest (claims to be the author's editor), in spite of the truly spectacular efforts of a number of editors to help her, assuming good faith all the while. Then, giving up on that, she came to the Barack Obama page to push the Barack-is-hiding-something-about-his-origins conspiracy stuff that spreads like kudzu every time we have a presidential election. These kinds of editors waste a lot of our time. Just my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now notified Mancia of this discussion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

She has also repeatedly added unsourced, inflammatory information about Obama on Talk:Barack Obama in violation of WP:BLP. When asked to stop, she dredges up even more inflammatory information and adds it. Some of it is still on the page (apparently permanently because it was archived). As Mendaliv says, this clearly is a problematic, POV-pushing editor in the early stages. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty concerned about the tone of all of her posts. She has so far proved that she is unwilling to read or understand many of our policies, even when they have been explained ad nauseum by some pretty patient people. I think she needs to be kept on a very short leash. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Help. An editor Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in clear violation of editwarring, Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing, Refusal to get the point and Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. This boils down to arguing against obvious facts, citing a book that says he is wrong, and asserting that it actually supports his view. He refuses to recognize the obviously or is just being stubborn, or isn’t even reading what he is citing.

As of this writing, the article g-force, properly says that accelerometers can not distinguish between gravitational acceleration and inertial acceleration. Specifically the article properly says

It responds to both gravitational and inertial acceleration.

The book he is trying to cite here says the very same thing:

cannot distinguish between inertial acceleration and gravitational acceleration

Yet Wolfkeeper twists the logic of a formula on the page and asserts that the book supports his contention that accelerometers can not measure gravitational acceleration—which is just beyond absurd because that’s the first thing accelerometers do when you turn them on. The hard part for designers of inertial measurement units is trying to subtract the gravity signal from the readings. Wolfkeeper has held onto this incorrect view since the beginning of the article three years ago and just will not go of it.

Further, he doesn’t even care that his citation is completely broken and leaves a big red Cite error: Invalid alert (here). Even after I warned him that his citation doesn’t even work, he puts it back twice again (#2 and #3). This is just disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point and refusal to get the point.

This is what the article looked like before I started fixing it. And this is where I’m trying to take it. I’ve got 15 patents to my name and am an R&D engineer. Accelerometers are simple devices and are not at all hard to understand. It shouldn’t be this hard. Wolkeeper is simply exhibiting WP:OWN issues since he is the one who first wrote several utterly false things in the article and (of course) didn’t cite any of it simply because there is no way to cite falsehoods. Now he wading back in and is citing stuff that says he is wrong and he cites it anyway and claims that black is white.

I can not prove that he is lying. It may simply be that he is colossally mistaken on things. But a few days ago, he cited a “Canadian Government manual of style (Dundham press)” (here) as a citation purporting to support his long-held notion (long un-cited) of how the unit symbol is supposed to be italicized. Then another editor found the Google Book evidence that it said no such thing. This sort of stuff, whether intentional or not, just can’t go on here on Misplaced Pages. When Wolfkeeper asserts things that are wildly contrary to world-wide practices, and he then cites a book that doesn’t even address the issue he says it does, it makes it *look* like he fabricates things on purpose. At the very least, it is awfully sloppy work and does Misplaced Pages a great disservice.

Can I please get some help. The facts are absolutely indisputable on this point of fact. Wolfkeeper refuses to accept the obvious and doesn’t seem to care if he messes Wikipiedia up. It is simply wrong to leave the article so broken like that. Greg L (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg_L is simply edit warring and repeatedly removing reliably sourced material that disagrees with his completely unsourced OR position. My material is well sourced, and is added in good faith. I have even verified it with domain-specific experts off wiki, and I have found several other sources that say the same thing. I hope it doesn't take many seconds of reading Greg_L's screed above to see that he is not editing in good faith, and brings up many irrelevancies, and I believe that overall he is simply wasting admins and editors time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a few people likely to be capable of understanding the source to look it over, but they haven't commented yet.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, that is not at all true. You have a chronic problem citing material that says no such thing. Your material is NOT well sourced. The last source didn’t even discuss what you said it discussed (let alone say what you wanted it to say). Even worse, this new citation says the truth and then you say it says something else. This is unacceptable. Greg L (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked several editors to comment, including User:Georgewilliamherbert who is an admin here and a professional aerospace engineer. I'm very confident indeed that they will agree with my position, and I see no point in further discussion in this venue about what is simply a content dispute.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• That’s nice. And the first editor, Georgewilliamherbert, came back to say this : In clear terms: There is no difference between a gravitational and an inertial acceleration, per Einstein. We're sitting in a 1-G static gravitational field. This is just what I wrote in the g-force article. This is just what I wrote over and over on the Talk:g-force page.

  And I finally found this little, very simple citation that no one but no one could misconstrue. The hard part is finding a Web site that explains the drop-dead obvious, since most accelerometer manufacturers assume people understand that all accelerometers respond to gravity, just like inertial accelerations. This is from MEMSIC.com. They make sensors for “consumer, automotive, medical or industrial product applications”. It is titled, not surprisingly, ACCELEROMETER PRIMER. And it begins with this:

Accelerometers are used to convert an acceleration from gravity or motion into an electrical signal.

(My emphasis). I really do hope this is clear enough. You owe me for dragging this out for so long. And please stop messing up Accelerometer with your wild notions. That article had been correct all along for years (without any of my help whatsoever), it got all screwed up this evening with your notions (entirely your doing), and has now been restored (my doing). And since it didn’t previously cite the drop-dead obvious, I cited it to the aforementioned “primer”. We shouldn’t have to cite the obvious. Greg L (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, as it says in verifiability: As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.. That cartoonlike advertising material would not be especially reliable. On the other hand the source that you have repeatedly removing for dubious reasons is a published textbook on the use of accelerometers. Additionally, JRSpriggs has just confirmed that what I wrote was confirmed by the source I used..- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So you've been repeatedly been removing verifiable, and now verified material, and replacing it with unsourced OR and then claiming that I've been 'disruptive'!!!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On the content issue I agree with George that we are in danger of "tak articles off into long pedantic fights" with this dispute. As I have said in talk the two of you have over-personalized this dispute. With George, I think "Misplaced Pages articles are part of a general encyclopedia. They have to explain things so that normal people have some chance of understanding." --John (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a content dispute and belongs either at WP:DR, talk page, WP:RfC, or WP:EA. Also, you can always file a 3RR report. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, etc., at John G. Roberts‎

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

Is at least 10RR violation and against consensus on the notion that Roberts' flub of the Obama oath of office will somehow stain his career and thus belongs in the lead. I already reported him at the 3RR page, but maybe someone will see it here first. He's also now accusing us all of being meatpuppets, and worse yet, of being REPUBLICANS!!! Baseball Bugs 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for 12 hours, if only to reinforce the vast right wing conspiracy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's roughly 1 hour for each of his reverts. I'll leave the edit-warring item open unless you or another admin decides to close it. But the guy is either a troll or is clueless, so I suspect he'll be right back after the block is up. Baseball Bugs 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you want a good laugh, check out his unblock request. Baseball Bugs 07:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he should teach a seminar on unblock requests. That's nice, sanity-reaffirming work. Dayewalker (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And since he himself brought up the subject of puppets, check this guy out:

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

-- Baseball Bugs 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fangz doesn't quite quack for me. He's was rather persistant in trying to get the flub into the lede earlier today, but he's been much more reasonable since. — The Hand That Feeds You: 09:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, and there doesn't seem to be any other crossover. Farang also appears to be a high schooler, while Fangz has been on here 4 or 5 years. Baseball Bugs 09:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that these two are obviously related, either.  Sandstein  12:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, user is a few hours away from unblock and demonstrates no likelihood of any improvement in behavior: Baseball Bugs 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He'll have the opportunity to try again, as I've issued another 24h block for this.  Sandstein  12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His talk page has been protected. seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rowan Giddens!!!

Can someone please take care of User:The Rowan Giddens!!! per WP:CHILD? Thank you. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. It appeared actually to be an attack on someone called Rowan Giddens rather than a posting by the person in question. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, either way it needed to be gone. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre warning from IP

Some things are unexplainable: I'm not sure if the "all five of us" he refers to are five user ID's, or simply a multiple-personality disorder. Baseball Bugs 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No big deal - he's got the wrong end of the stick and hasn't been reading the time stamps. Remove the warning from your talk page and I'll have a chat with the IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit suggests to me that the IP believes s/he is Doctor Who. Or maybe Doctor WTF? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Dr. Who all that well, so I'll take your word for it. The odd thing is that the tone of that IP's so-called warning does have a familiar ring to it, from some weeks or months ago. Baseball Bugs 10:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bugs, can't talk to you now that you've been reported. Good luck evading the "moderators". Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 11:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG run for it, the "moderators" are coming after you! :D Brothejr (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it's the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland! Hide! Bencherlite 12:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I hear "moderator", I think of something close to "game show host". Baseball Bugs 12:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me were dealing with either a troll, or a mentally unstable person. I think it's the latter, a 24 hour block seems in order. Elbutler (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, he/she's already been blocked for 31 hours. Elbutler (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user granting himself unblocks

Pretty self-explanatory.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does that really work? I think I'll grant myself adminship, and shrink any wikipedia evildoers down to little tiny gnomes. Baseball Bugs 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Barneca has it handled. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) If he screws around again, I'll protect the page. If he resumes edit warring when the block expires, he should be blocked 2 weeks. Or a month. Or indef. --barneca (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor might have been hoping the template would trigger the software to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's called faith-based editing. You could mess with him a little bit. If he tries it again, extend it again. If he tries to BLOCK himself, shorten it a bit. He'll think HE's doing it through reverse wiki-psycholoy. Baseball Bugs 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of filing a WP:SSP case against the editor in question since I strongly believe him to be a sockpuppet of banned editor Brexx. Brexx has previously placed unblock notices on his own talk page, see this. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that you are right. I knew this all seemed familiar.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) New unblock request reverted, talk page protected. Jesus, he just needs to keep his pants on for 2 stupid hours. Part of me wants to extend the block for disruption and general lack of clue, but... meh. I have grave doubts about his editing behavior when the block expires, tho. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barneca seems to be away from his desk. He protected Away From Home's talk page until December 21, when I'm sure that he meant for the talk page protection to expire on January 21 as the same time as Anywhere But Home's block. I tried to leave ABH a message, and could not.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it now, sorry, I'm an idiot. --barneca (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that you could do that. Thats funny.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And it starts again. Series of edits by ABH with bad punctuation and spacing, I caution ABH about punctuation, HalfShadow removes the bad edits, and ABH reverts the edits without making fixes.—Kww(talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is a separate topic from a blocked user using his talk page inapropriately. Also, HalfShadow's rollback was an improper use of the tool — ABH's preceding edits might not have been very useful to the article but they're not blatant vandalism. The original issue in this report is resolved, I suggest this discussion be marked as such. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

True. I also fail to see how this merits inclusion in ANI. So the user has a problem with periods at the ends of sentences. Fix them and move on, It might have saved time, but I don't know why the entire edit was reverted.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue with behaviour is edit-warring: restoring changes you have made that other editors have objected to without discussion or correction. Perhaps tangential to the report title, but not tangential to the behaviour that lead to the original blocks.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit warring and proving to others that you are a difficult editor to work with -- by continuously making typographical errors, misspellings and so forth -- results in a diminished working environment for others. We are not cleanup crews; if the user cannot spell or even adhere to basic English grammar and punctuation, then by all means, play in a sandbox until that user can comprehend what we are driving home here. seicer | talk | contribs 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec to Kww)Well, let's make sure we carefully pick our battles here so that we're not marginalizing real concerns in the process of accusing him of anything and everything. HalfShadow's rollback was inapropriate and ABH (regardless of whether or not he proves to be who I believe him to be and regardless of any other editing concerns) has full rights to revert that rollback since his edits were not vandalism. Furthermore, the onus is not on ABH to start discussion about the reverted rollback, it is on HalfShadow to explain his use of the automated tool to undo multiple edits without discussion. ABH may be doing 1000 things wrong but this is not one of those things, he had every right to revert that rollback. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic

This article needs work, yes. However, there has been no AfD approved and yet editor QuackGuru (talk · contribs) keeps deleting/redirecting the article despite ongoing conversations on how to improve the article. I have already reverted twice, and in the interest of not fostering an edit war, I am here requesting that the article be restored by an admin so that discussions on article improvement can continue. Thanks. -- Levine2112 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards