Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 21 January 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Requesting Admin action

Hi. There is a problem with user Gibnews attitude. Himself, me and other editors have been tensely discussing Gibraltar-related articles for some time already. This editor has usually resorted to ad hominem arguments, focusing in the contributors he disagrees with instead of in the actual content of editions or articles. Dissenting editors have constantly been described as 'Spanish', and both 'Spain' or the 'Spanish Government' have been pointlessly vilified quite often as well. Here are some diffs to illustrate my statement:1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6-

He has been asked more than once to refrain from this kind of uncivil behaviour. In fact, a moratorium concerning the disputed articles was agreed amongst the editors involved in the ongoing discussions "with the understanding that the entirity of ones comments must be about the proposed editions and not the editors". However, today I've seen this, and I feel that it is enough already. This can't go on forever. You may very well agree with Gibnews' positions, or mine, or neither. But this reiterated conduct is unacceptable. So long, there have been several attempts to engage with this particular editor in civil debate, the latter being the aforementioned 'moratorium' (to my knowledge -I am not the only editor involved here-).

Thus, I request Admin action as a last alternative. --Cremallera (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• There always has been a problem with his attitude - mainly that he has one POV on a highly polarised issue and other people have the opposite POV. You want dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The diffs predate the moratorium and the diff you've just posted isn't a problem from what I can see. Gibnews does have an attitude problem, made worse when he is baited. Which he most certainly has by editors that include Cremallera. I can confidently predict the usual suspects will be along presently to demand his head.

The atmosphere on Gibraltar articles was getting quite poisonous, which is why Narson quite sensibly proposed a moratorium to cool emotions. DR is currently being tried, so I really wonder why Cremallera has suddenly appeared to make this post out of left field. Justin talk 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can provide post-moratorium diffs also. The latter I've provided is, in fact. However, you admit he has an attitude problem as well. And he has done nothing to put an end to it, even with past and current dispute resolution attempts. PS: do you really see no problem in modifying another editor's comment to state that his IP belongs to 'Telefonica Espana'? It is quite serious actually. --Cremallera (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see Gibnews appending to the comment much the same way that a person would put a SPA template at the end of a person's comment in an AfD. I wouldn't call that "modifying another editor's comment"; that's a pretty harsh bit of hyperbole there. On the other hand, it wasn't necessary and certainly escalates the nationalist problems, which is a problem that Gibnews has (and others who edit those articles). That's one reason to have a moratorium, pointing out who is "pro-Spain" and "pro-Gibraltar" and constantly referencing it derails any productive discussion. Justin is absolutely correct in that Gib was baited though. Honestly, I'd totally give him a pass in that pointing out that the editor is editing from a Spanish ISP is the worst comment he made in response to an SPA (sock?) trying to stoke the nationalist fires. -- Atama頭 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He was discussing with an IP (Firethingol, I guess) who hasn't attacked him personally and whose immediately prior comments have been labelled as racist and demeaning by Gibnews himself... He wasn't precisely baited, in my opinion.
Anyway, how many more times should he get a pass for that, Atama? You know that he's been doing this repeatedly and for a long time already. He's been asked to refrain plenty of times as well. It is not an isolated case by any means, and I agree with you that this conduct is certainly intended to derail any productive discussion. Last, but not least, constantly profiling other editors by their putative nationalities is a racist attitude. I pointed it out before to no tangible gain, so I don't see the point in giving him a pass just another time. I am already sick of it. --Cremallera (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You might like to visit Gibnews on YouTube and observe some of the appalling racial abuse heaped in Gibnews' direction by a person calling themselves Firethingol. I have to admit I like Gibnews, I don't agree with a lot of what he says, he is overly nationalistic in many ways but he at least speaks his mind openly so you know where he is coming from. I also observe that if you butt heads with the guy, he'll butt straight back. However, if you approach him reasonably and don't scream and rant about POV, or accuse him of a racist attitude he is direct but reasonable in return - something you should know about after you stopped screaming POV and discussed the Tireless incident in a reasonable manner. His attitude toward Spain is understandable given the history of the way Spain has acted since the '60s and I speak as someone who is half-Spanish who finds the attitude of a now democratic Spain towards Gibraltar uncomfortable. Sometimes the perspective of how others see us makes uncomfortable reading but that doesn't make it racism. I don't see his conduct as intended to derail discussions, his conduct is usually a response to being provoked. I see it as counter productive to run here, saying look at what Gibnews has done now and conveniently omitting the conduct of the editor that provoked the response in the first place. Equally counter productive is combing his contributions to find things to complain about. Is this the 3rd thread on AN/I aimed at sanctioning Gibnews in as many months?

What interesting about the diff you've just supplied is that it relates to yet another thread aimed at sanctioning Gibnews. I say interesting because it seemed to be counter productive to that aim in that several commentators recognised the attitude of the person making the report as being problematic in disrupting articles to make a point. Equally that you were tag teaming with the same editor and there was a WP:Battleground mentality developing. When that comment was made, you instantly attempted to turn the comments into a racial issue. You didn't take on good faith the comments on your own behaviour were problematic.

None of which is intended to justify the problematic aspects of Gibnews' behaviour but what does act as a counter point is that he is a very productive editor, who has contributed much in terms of imagery and is very knowledgable about a limited subject. If you wish him to refrain, then my suggestion is to avoid provocation and to equally condemn the people who provoke him in the first place. Constantly focusing on one aspect of the problem and myopically ignoring the other side of the coin won't help.

As regards Atamas comments, yes I think there is a sock at work trying to stoke the nationalist fires again and to derail the DR that is currently underway. I could make an educated guess at who is doing it and my personal suspicion is that the person responsible is looking to stymy DR to push things to arbcom. Equally as Atama has quite reasonably pointed out in his mediation efforts, the behaviour of all of the editors on Gibraltar related articles has been unhelpful for quite some time. Narson's attempt at a moratorium to cool tempers doesn't appear to have worked as the first edits following its end were baiting Gibnews again. What needs to happen is to allow DR to run its course, if there is any admin action required it would be to stop the IP activities intended to derail it. I don't see demands for Gibnews' head to be helpful. Justin talk 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the first AN/I thread I start. The other ones I know of were posted by Ecemaml and Gibnews himself. In the first place, please stop the discourse concerning my attempts to turn his comments into a racial issue. He has been profiling dissenting editors as 'Spanish' for months. I've provided several diffs. To repeatedly describe or address people by their ethnicity is racist. And, myopically or not, I just can't ignore it. Neither you should, in my opinion.
On the other hand, what are you suggesting exactly? To just endure the reams of offensive comments he keeps writing over and over, despite previous multiple requests, AN/I threads, moratoriums and the like? What exactly are WP policies for, then? --Cremallera (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems my suggestion to stop reducing everything to racial and ethnic lines is going right over your head. You don't recognise the problematic aspects of your own behaviour or the people on the same side of the dividing line as yourself. Brushing this under the carpet is unhelpful. As Atama observed if this goes to arbcom, no one will come out of it with any credit. And several independent observers have pointed this out to you, perhaps listening to them would help. Just a suggestion. To avoid the risk of another AN/I thread degenerating into a tendentious mess, this will be my last comment here. Un abrazo. Justin talk 10:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE

1. I have not raised the matter of FireintheGol on Youtube as firstly I can't be sure its the same entity, and secondly I blocked him/her from posting further abusive comments there, and Misplaced Pages is another thing.

2. I did not consider that the IP user who left an unsigned comment was that particular editor anyway as FireintheGol writes coherent English What you are complaining about is

• I will not remove, I will put it in Gibraltar position, which is the section that must have Gibraltarians opinion, regards 81.39.209.75 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where I added to an unsigned comment which signbot had added the IP that it had originated from telefonica Espana. Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else. There has been no further comment excepting it seems to have upset Cremallera.

3. In relation to my two warnings that FireintheGol has made racist comments, This and This where he claims he is not being racist about Gibraltarians because we are not 'a race' I politely referred him to the wikipedia article which explains why that assumption is wrong. HOWEVER as we seem to be having a reasonable dialogue, and its Cremallera who is complaining here, I question the motives for this complaint. Looks like harassment to me. --Gibnews (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but have you modified the title of the section?
First of all, whether an IP belongs to 'Telefonica' or not is not useful information. I wholeheartedly think that this should be clear already, given your experience in Misplaced Pages and the previous queries. What the IP said may be relevant (or not), just like other contributions are to be considered by focusing on their actual content, regardless of your opinion on whether the editor who wrote them is 'Spanish' or not.
Secondly, I'm not even getting into your issues with FireintheGol neither here nor in Youtube. That's your bussiness, as long as you behave in a normal fashion, which you don't so far.
And finally, my posts here are the first ones since the moratorium was agreed to, the 22 December 2009, so it hardly looks like 'harrassment'. What does look just like it are your reiterated comments on other editors, namely concerning their POV, nationality or alleged nationalism. And, since you've agreed to refrain from this kind of attitude here, yet you engage on it, I have no further option that to request for external help. --Cremallera (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with altering the title of the section here to something appropriate, after all it IS a complaint about Gibnews, whats the problem with that? As its on ANI 'requesting admin action' is a bit vague whats your problem?.

Yes we had a moratorium, if you read what you have cited it expired last year, indeed one of the other editors broke it first. Thats all it was, you are making up the rest.

This complaint is pure harassment, but lets see what others think. You have said enough and as have I. --Gibnews (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting through all of the other complaints, I believe I see what the core problem is here. Gibnews stated, "Its useful information to know that an anonymous editor who wants to express a Gibraltarian opinion is posting from Somewhere else." No, it most certainly is not. Viewing editors through such a prism is a very dangerous thing. To label one person as Gibraltarian and another as Spanish is very unhelpful. Gibnews, I hate to say this but if you continue to approach the articles with such an attitude you're going to eventually find yourself in very hot water. Such attitudes tend to bring topic bans, because they are very divisive and prevent any hope of useful collaboration or participation in consensus-building. Fireinthegol is just as guilty of doing this, with such statements as "that reference is an opinion by a Gibraltarian", but seeing as how that editor is probably a sockpuppet you're bringing yourself down to the level of a banned editor. The proper reaction to such talk should be to ask the person if Gibraltarian opinions are automatically invalid as reliable sources because they are Gibraltarian, not to comment in kind. As to the comments about Signbot, Signbot only signs comments, it doesn't label editors as being a particular nationality. You really need to stop that mentality, and if you can't, perhaps you should stay away from Gibraltar-related articles. -- Atama頭 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous editor was Spanish, indeed they might be Romanian or Martian however the ISP used by the anonymous editor was Telefonica Espana and that was my ONLY comment on the subject, except for here. However there does seem to be an ongoing problem that due to the intransigent attitude of the Spanish government and its irredentist claim, currently being pushed by the PP opposition trying to wrong foot the incumbent PSOE prior to an election in Spain, that a number of editors from that country seem to want to rewrite Gibraltar wikipedia pages in line with the totally negative Spanish view of the territory and its inhabitants. Tactics include Filibustering on the talk pages, engaging in edit wars, and taking disputes to every available area and article. I'm sick to death about arguments over whether an obscure town in Spain should feature on the Gibraltar page, tens of thousands of bytes and countless hours have gone down the drain. Although arguments on the Internet are preferable to cannon balls and sieges, after 306 years and 99% of the Gibraltar population rejecting any Spanish involvement in our country, enough is enough. And a Misplaced Pages which contains a substantive amount of lies irrelevancies and propaganda is worthless. Goodnight. --Gibnews (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See, personally I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles in order to clear out some of this, but knowing those involved it would result in a sock fest. The nationalist accusations are, and I agree with Atama here, one of the most unhelpful things coming from either 'side' (I also dislike the concept of there only being two sides). It results in this concept that 'Oh, he is British/Spanish, he must really be biased and can be ignored' and that isn't good. The attempt at a moratorium worked in a way, in that it seems to have reduced the ad hominem attacks for a short period, but there was baiting from various parties almost straight after it ended and now we are back to the same position. I do not want to take part in that talk page as it is and I am watching some good editors or potentially good editors head into a bad spiral entering it. DR needs to be followed through to the end now. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Atama yes the nationalist tendencies on both sides needs to be tackled, equally the baiting issue does as well. I'd also suggest that people need to recognise bad behaviour on all sides of the coin not just the one they favour. Part of the problem is only labelling one person, when the problematic behaviour is endemic among a number. In the latter I would include my own tendency to rise to the bait. Justin talk 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Justin, I spent some time with most of the editors who regularly work on the Gibraltar articles over the course of the mediation, and I think I saw nationalist behavior come up from everyone now and then. My biggest concern is this... You acknowledge that labeling editors along nationalist lines is a problem. Cremarella certainly does. Imalbornoz seems to as well, from what I see on Talk:Gibraltar. I'm not sure about Ecemaml right now. But Gibnews doesn't seem to be acknowledging it. That's what has me concerned, not that Gibnews is doing what he's doing, but that he doesn't see what's wrong with what he's doing. -- Atama頭 02:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all the editors you mention adopt a national view about the subject, and the Government of Spain spends a large amount of money generating adverse propaganda which influences their views. --Gibnews (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem began when Gibnews wanted to put this in the introduction: "Spain continues with political harassement despite improved relations". The only reference to state this severe accusation was an opinion column. I said that his reference was only an opinion column by a Gibraltarian, to say that his statement was based on an opinion and possibly not neutral opinion because Gibraltarian journalists talking about Spain never have a favourable thing to say. Gibnews answered that I was racist. Racist?

I personally read an article in which an Spanish politician said: "Gibraltarian authorities must stop insulting Spain". So if, based on that, I write in the introduction: "Gibraltarian authorities continue insulting Spain despite improved relations" it cannot be considered a good edit despite having a reference. Someone will tell me: "That is an opinion by a Spaniard, not a fact". It is not racism, it is trying to stop POV pushing.

What I personally think is that Gibnews wants to continue with his POV pushing in the article, so he calls other people racist and spaniards to spoil their activities.

I cannot find Gibnews channel on youtube, I would like to look at it to see if the harassement is true.

I think that Gibnews has to assume that Spanish arguments are not always based on fairy tales and have the right to be included on Misplaced Pages the same way Gibraltarian claims or arguments do.

Also, he always uses the discussion as a forum to express his ideas. Fireinthegol (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all: yes this was as partisan as the minutemen. To edit war in order to publish this statement "Gibraltarians remain suspicious of the Spanish Government which continues with political harassment", moreover when it is based upon a sports article which is supportive of a particular position is a blatant POV abuse. To call you racist for pointing that out wasn't helpful either. And it is a weird word to be used by Gibnews, who is openly prejudiced against all things spanish (here's a diff showing another disturbing anti-spanish rant, written a few hours ago here in the AN/I thread).

However, prior invectives can't justify statements such as these (the "unfair tax schemes" bit is not neutral either). Two wrongs do not make a right.

Last, but not least: Gibnews, you've been asked several times in this very page to stop vilifying Spain, the Spanish government and other editors regardless of them being brainwashed by 'Spanish propaganda'. Your behaviour is noxious to civilized debate. You should be blocked. --Cremallera (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that both should be blocked if there are any blocks to be handed out, thats the bit you just don't seem to get. Justin talk 12:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I don't get it. That's it. Look, I'll be the first advocating for a block on both editors, provided that their behaviour is similar. Tell me, has User talk:Fireinthegol indulged dozens of times in personal attacks directed to other contributors? Has he calumniated for several months already any country or made slanderous remarks about its government? Not really, don't you think? --Cremallera (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Written defamation is called Libel, and neither I nor wikipedia engage in it. If Spain does bad things in relation to Gibraltarians, its reasonable to describe it. Editing it out, or banning people for including sourced material supporting that is censorship. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant. The UEFA situation is widely reported - The Spanish football association has been ordered by its government to threaten to withdraw if Gibraltar was admitted (which is legally required) That is a political act of harassment. Where a reference does not use the word 'Unfair' introducing it is the POV of the editor and wrong, his current edit removing that is factually correct. So complaining has been productive and produced a more factual page. Someone else pointed it out before me and was ignored.

Its naive to claim I am against all things Spanish I visit Spain regularly, indeed was there yesterday seeing friends.

PS: Gibraltar journalists report the news about Spain in a neutral manner. --Gibnews (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it is logical that Spain oposses the Gibraltar entrance to UEFA, because Spain does not recognize Gibraltar as a country. Imagine a match Spain vs Gibraltar, it would be similar to giving up the claim to sovereignty. It is not political harassement, it is being consistent with your claims. But I think that now, the article expresses this well, it says that Gibrltarians see this as political harassement, not that political harassement is being produced as a fact. On regard to the word "unfair" to describe the taxes that are being phased out, it is not meant to be offensive or anything. It is used to describe taxes that can distort "fair" competition, so unfair refers to "not fair" competition taxes. This is he reason why they are being phased out, because there are not fair. It is even used in economy of Gibraltar. But well, now the article has other wording to avoid using "unfair". I don't think that Gibnews should be blocked, but he should try to avoid seeing spanish editors as a kind of evil imperialistic editors. Fireinthegol (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly don't, indeed Justin is Spanish. Our mutual exchanges have been productive and the compromises we have reached make for a better article. Indeed you have been more reasonable than others who argue tendatiously and simply will not compromise. This is not the place to go into the UEFA business anyone interested can read about it here. A similar case of political situation existed with the telephones, which was resolved under the Cordoba agreement. That Gibraltarians distrust the Government of Spain is well established, even by Sr Moratinos. Given the history and policies its quite understandable. You yourself added that Spain wants to block importing rubble incase we use it to reclaim land its hardly surprising we consider its every action politically motivated. --Gibnews (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If Gibraltarians distrust Spanish government is not necesarily because the Spanish government is evil, like you want to state in the articles' introduction. You are always stating that Spanish government is evil, it is your opinion. And please if you don't want the UEFA issue to be discussed here, don't begin to talk about your opinion on the subject. It's okay to say that Gibraltarians distrust spain, but its not okay to try to justify it at all costs. Justin I would like to know why I should be blocked. I also want to know where I harassed Gibnews in youtube. I also would want to know why am I racist. Fireinthegol (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you ask a sample of Gibraltarians what they think. I have not expressed an opinion on UEFA the link given explains the situation. Nobody is suggesting blocking you here, its me that is the target, although putting that in the title upset the OP for some reason. I suspect this is going nowhere. Someone close it please. --Gibnews (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Probios and hoax article strumus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nolte is a reliable source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he can't be that reliable if he's in the business of inserting deliberately misleading into the glossaries of his books. That said, it wasn't unreasonable for Probius to assume that something he read in a textbook by a seemingly respected expert was reliable and verifiable. Lankiveil 09:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

The source is generally reliable, it's similar to a copyright trap or other fictitious entry. So WP:V would explicitly allow use of this information: "verifiability, not truth", remember? This is an excellent example of the difficulties we face when working with sources, and why multiple reliable sources are needed before one starts writing an article. Another example I've come across was Calverpeton: it looked like a hoax as I couldn't find sources, but it was started by an editor using a web directory of extinct species and that page had misspelled the name, it should have been Galverpeton. Fences&Windows 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Er... any reason why that redirect is still there? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt

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

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

SA continues to violate the WP:NPA policy:

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

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

SA improperly removed my comments to an AfD discussion:

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

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

SA edits improperly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually I never came close to being blocked since all of Seregain's assertions were untrue (which I explained point by point in the previous AFD). He has actually used the "Wikistalker" label against me first, but now he just attempted to "out" me by linking to an offsite profile which he believes is mine and complaining here about a comment I made (which borders on disruption). At this point it's somewhat obvious that he's here simply to disrupt and push his extremist agenda (and very likely is a sockpuppet of a banned user, given he has only 200 edits and his 1st edit was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance, like Guy mentioned). I left you a comment on your talk page.--SuaveArt (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I didn't actually leave you speechless, since you know that it's an accurate summary of your disruptive agenda. Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.--SuaveArt (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That last one is confusing. Did he get lost and think he was on his own talk page? Seriously, I don't even know if that was vandalism, that's almost like a stranger walking into your house, opening up the fridge, pulling out a drink, and then asking you if you want one. -- Atama頭 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that part of the edit was very strange, but I actually was referring more to his comment further down. Seregain (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That was probably an accident. Jclemens, whose page I had been watching, changed the header just in the previous edit. Either an edit conflict ignored by SuaveArt, or he edited the page from a old version or diff view. Anyway, Jclemens fixed it back later, and he did not assume it to be vandalism. Pcap ping 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some version of Hanlon's razor applies. The edit looks really strange without context, until you realize it just readded long-established text that I'd just changed in the previous two revisions. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE

I am rescinding this AN/I on the advice of others to disengage from the user. Seregain (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavian issues on railway articles

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

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

I have to mention that above statement I see numerous 3rr, AGF, COI etc issues here, with neither editor acting productively in association with the other. is neither true or correct. How to work productively with user (LAz17) who is calling everybody who does not agree with him nationalist? It has to be noted that the same user (LAz17) is blocked repeatedly because of his abusive behaviour. I hope that puts some things in the right place/perspective. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a rail transport point of view here is what should be standard practice:

• {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia}} should cover only things that were in operation when the political entity yugoslavia existed. (just as "XXX in the former soviet union" does) - thus sections such as "planned trams in croatia" are not 100% correctly placed in that template; though basically acceptable. templates for each separate state would be preferable)
• {{Trams in Croatia}} should cover only things in the modern political entity called croatia, if there is a historical political entity called croatia that had trams then this could be a separate list in that template.
• There is no reason why {{Trams in Serbia}} ,{{Trams in Slovenia}} etc should not be created, this is what Ex13 should make instead of trying to re-purpose the yugoslavian template. (I mentioned this to Ex13)
• Alternatively you could have templates by geography, and have subsections in those templates by chronology.

However none of this will work until both contributors agree to work along the same lines - so you'll need to reach an agreement. It doesn't look like user:DIREKTOR is actually interested in the tram system articles - I would strongly advise not to invite friends to contribute to the debate as this makes it seem like a continuation of previous editor conflicts.

Is that ok?Shortfatlad (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these tram systems in Croatia were built during the Austro-Hungaria. Do we need the template {{Urban Rail transportation in the former Austro-Hungaria}} also? Can I make the template {{Urban Rail transportation in SouthEast Europe}}? Where is the limit?

We have a problem if LAz17 continues calling me nationalist. What kind of nationalism is when someone talk about trams and railways? (Am i nationalist because croatian trams??) Also he accused me that i'm sockpuppet. I'm CU on hr:wiki. I do not want to play with sockspuppets. LAz17 had major problems with his rude behavior, and as I see he is blocked right now.--Ex13 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SFL - here are some issues...

1) The croatian tram template, if it should go under what you said, would lose quite a few of its links. Two systems were never part of a croatian entity - but part of Italy. Another one was part of Croatia only a short time- after the transfer of land from italy. Similarly, the ex-ussr metro template includes systems built after the USSR ceased to exist. I think that the best way to go about this would be to include systems in the geographic region.

2) The yugoslav rail article includes rail things that are more than just trams. There is no planned trams section in croatia there. But, as we can see, the USSR template includes planned metros, so I figure why not include it?

3) Trams in Slovenia, Trams in Bosnia, and such would be "too small". It's ridiculous to have only one or two tram systems in the template. This is why it is necessary to have it as the former yugoslavia.

4) I see only two possible solutions. One, to redirect the croatian tram article. Or, to use both croat tram and yugoslav rail on the same pages. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)).

User:BjörnBergman

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

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

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

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

User:JCRB

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

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

I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

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

The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... _Will (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.

I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).

I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately. I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism. Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.

Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.

Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities. Raising that was a legitimate concern.

As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise. Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda. I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me. Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Misplaced Pages as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Misplaced Pages edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Misplaced Pages. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article , it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:

• Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.

• One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) . There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted? Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."

• A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum . It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:

"Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."

I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One hundred words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand. Then its straight back to the same point again. And again. And again. Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy. Can we please get some help here. Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Misplaced Pages and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".

On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).

I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar? Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again? You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions. You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).

I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."

Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles

An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.

To stop the disruption I propose:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.

What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.

I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.

The people who I'd propose would be:

User:Ecemaml
User:Imalbornoz
User:Cremallera
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I'm moving it for you. -- Atama頭 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Misplaced Pages. Its wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).

In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to observe user behavior

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

I've given Valkyrie Red two weeks off; there seems to be a firm consensus against the edits they are repeatedly making. Just one minor point, if you don't mind - you shouldn't really be describing their edits as vandalism (per your latest edit summary). Edit-warring, yes; disruptive, yes; but not vandalism as defined at WP:VANDAL :) Hope this helps, EyeSerene 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I lost my temper a bit when the user blanked sourced copy as described above. Appreciate the feedback. IMHO this user is such a dedicated disruptor, a content ban seems the most likely outcome. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable :) If their disruption resumes when the block expires, a topic ban might definitely be worth considering. EyeSerene 08:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible socks

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

• Make these type of reports here please. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 08:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Gee, I would have if I could, but the systemic bias against IPs includes preventing us from initiating SPI cases (can't create pages). 98.248.32.44 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have submitted a report per procedure. Astro$01 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant vandalism from an individual on AT&T IPs

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

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

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

Is it always the same few articles being targeted? Semiprotection might would solve that. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tbsdy lives appears to have semiprotected all of them. That's not really what I was looking for. I still think an abuse report should be filed. WP:ABUSE just isn't how I've gotten results.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been happening over a month long period. I figure that they'll get tired of it after seeing that they can't edit the articles for a month. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would still like something to be done in regards to contacting AT&T's abuse department.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

This very long discussion, has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark //

Request for Page Protection assistance urgently needed!

If any other admins are around, could you give me a hand clearing the HUGE (40+) WP:RPP requests please! Thanks. GedUK  08:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done a few. Man, there needs to be some sort of automated tool for this sort of thing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for your and the other help that appeared! The follow up question is, how to we get a backlog at RPP to show on the admin backlog page, if it doesn't already. GedUK  10:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this take care of that? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 11:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's manual (though I admit I forgot it today!), but i'm wondering if a bot can add it automatically. That's something I can take somewhere else for now though. GedUK  12:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We need some sort of bot that marks the pages that have already been protected (perhaps by admins who've seen the vandalism and protected, not looking at RFPP) as being "done". Something similar to the AIV bot who removes blocked users, but in this case it would just add a template to the correct sections. I went through last night and marked at least 4 sections as being already done.

@Tbsdy, Twinkle makes page protection a little bit quicker, if that's what you're after. :-) Killiondude (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask Anomie (talk · contribs), his bot already does something similar at WP:FFD with already deleted files. Regards SoWhy 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

James dalton bell, aftermath

I do not have unlimited patience, and I am afraid that I may lose my cool with this user. I am doing my best to remain calm, short, and concise, my newest section on their talk page aside(which isn't short, but I did try to be concise).

I may have breached WP:CIVIL by asking them to stop throwing tantrums and act their age. If that comment is deemed uncivil(it is in the new section, btw), then I shall refactor it into something more acceptable, or, if I cannot find a suitable answer, I will outright delete it. Either way, I hearby request that an admin stop by and try to explain to this user what I, and two others had failed to do. They seem to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with them, and agrees with Gogo, is a meatpuppet of Gogo... But yes, please come, offer your 2 cents.. weigh in.. etc... Please.— Dædαlus 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the above, I am not going to await approval or disapproval. As such, I have refactored my long reply to the user's talk page. I hope it is better than it once was.— Dædαlus 12:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to cease attempts at communicating with him. I know I have - I just don't have the time or inclination to read badly formatted, illogical and irrational screeds that tend to go on for pages all in one paragraph. Trust me on this one, he won't be unblocked therefore if we stop posting to his talk page then we don't have to concern ourselves with him any more. He is free to read Misplaced Pages, but not edit it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to continue to communicate with someone who refuses to get the point. Bell has been told the same thing over and over again by multiple editors at multiple venues. He's not a dumb guy - he just wants us to change our guidelines to suit his viewpoint. --NeilN 12:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out in the previous thread regarding Bell, further attempts at communication are only likely to rile him up even more. He's got a terminal case of hard headedness, and I doubt that another 1, 2, or 100 additional opinions will dissuade him of his misconceptions. —DoRD (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, likewise, please see my answer here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's not asking for unblocks, stop talking to him and just talkblock him. There's no point in trying to open up a dialog with him; that's like selling garlic to Dracula. —Jeremy 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of note, in this diff, Bell states: "You just admitted (for legal purposes) that your primary purpose is to make me (and other users) 'bow down' before the Almighty Administrators...". I'm not sure if that's an accusation of Wikilawyering, or if Bell is making a legal threat. Regardless, I don't think we need to support his soapboxing, and would suggest removing his talkpage privileges. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Solution: Unwatchlist the talk page, ignore further rants. Guy has left a useful template about his options, no further discussion is needed. If an unblock request is made, an admin will deal with it then. If not, if a tree argues in the forest, and there's no one around to argue with it, is it a real argument? Talk page protection would not be a horrible travesty, but it's just unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, just drop it and find another user to help - one who might actually reward your efforts. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat over a CSD G11 on Eyetease Media

193.133.92.229 has made the legal threat "If you delete this, I will engage lawyers to discuss this matter further on grounds of discrimination against small businesses." on Talk:Eyetease Media over CSD G11 on Eyetease Media. Looking at the article CSD A7 may be more suitable, but I have left article as is and not going to under take any other actions until an Administrator can sort it out. In order not to inflame any thing further.--blue520 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as G11. I'm hesitant to block, though, because it's apparently a shared IP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was about to but you were there first. I did check up and found zilch except a cv for the guy running it, and that says it is launching in April. As non-notable as it gets. I'll watch the IP. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My money is on User:Eyetease personally... or one of his close associates. I believe a 24h anonblock for NLT is perfectly in order though. MLauba (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked, but for a week. I believed it really needed to be longer than 24 hours but I am concerned since it is a shared IP. I won't disagree if someone chooses to modify the settings. Blood Red Sandman 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked multiple times and has quite a lengthy warning list. Maybe it's time to file an abuse report with the ISP? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob: disruptive behaviour

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have had several unexpectedly unpleasant interactions with Off2riorob in recent days. Off2riorob responded to a BLP/N question concerning possible synthesis in a biography I had created. The editor who raised the complaint agreed, after discussion and presentation of additional sources, that the sources supported the original statement, yet Off2riorob not only continued to insist they did not, but also removed from the article a statement summarising an episode reported in about 10% of reliable sources on the subject and thus in accordance with weight and BLP.

Off2riorob then called the 31-year-old subject of another article I had written a "girl", nominated the article for deletion, and began to delete relevant and well-sourced information, writing "its rubbish". The user, who because of past problems has promised to avoid edit warring, repeatedly reverted (e.g., and ) to maintain the deletions, made further deletions, including without edit summaries and attacked me personally ( and ) when I asked for talk page discussion of these deletions. My explanation of the editing environment at related articles (where several editors with strong personal interests in a particular illness usually dominate the editing) only prompted further attacks, along with a profession of pride for past behaviour resulting in blocks.

Considering:

• the user's prominence and potential influence at BLP/N,
• the user's extensive block history,
• a past promise not to edit war, contrasting with behaviour yesterday,
• several unexplained, unprovoked and surprisingly strongly worded personal attacks accusing me of agenda editing (the validity of which accusations I categorically reject)
• and a profession of pride for the user's block record,

I would like to request that others review the user's behaviour. I believe this user has done some good work at BLP/N, and has the potential to do more, but episodes such as this one are unpleasant and disruptive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think that WP:WQA is a much better venue for a request for behavior review. Tan | 39 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seregain's disruption, POV-pushing, and WikiStalking

Going to bring this user's behavior and evangelcial-POV pushing here and let admins review it in it's own context, since this user continues to disrupt Misplaced Pages through POV-pushing and creating false AN/I threads on our earlier conflicts which contain intentional lies, misinformation, and (now) outing attempts against me on other website.

Sockpuppetry and attempt at "outing" other members

1. Seregain logged out of his account and made this personal attack using his IP ("Reverting censorship by disruptive troll). He admitted that his was him in these later edits 1, 2 "This was my edit. Neglected to log in.

2. In his latest disruptive AN/I comment, he attempted to "out" me by linking to an off-site (Misplaced Pages Review) profile which he believed to be me, complaining on Misplaced Pages because of a comment on Misplaced Pages Review which accused him of POV-pushing.

Suspicious/POV edits/outright trolling

1. He only has 200 edits, and (like Guy mentioned) his 1st edit was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance. This leads me to believe that he is a possible sockpuppet of a banned evanglical POV-pusher.

2. Soon after this AFD started, he removed a sourced entry about the Secular Student Alliance visiting Ham's "Creation Museum", using a deceptive edit summary. His summary stated that it was "in the wrong section", but he removed it entirely. After I added it to the correct section, he removed it again, this time giving the reason that it "doesn't belong in the article at all".

3. In Human papillomavirus (newer edit than original), Seregain inserts a claim (in an incorrect section) that "HPV vaccines will do little to reduce rates of cervical cancer" using Dr. Diane Harper (who apparently spoke at an anti-vaccination group's conference while delivering this statement) and the Catholic Exchange as sources (apparently to push an "abstinence-only POV". In the diff I linked, he also inappropriately reverted nearly 20 newer edits just to reinsert this dubious claim into the article after it was removed.

4.In Cervarix (newer edit than original , Seregain inserts the same claim he made in the HPV article, using Diane Harper as a source, claiming a "lead researcher comes out against Cervarix". Like in the HPV article, in the above diff he also inappropriately reverted multiple editors just to re-insert his questionable content after it was removed.

5. In Gardasil, Seregain removes text from the article which identifies Dr. Diane Harper with the anti-vaccination group National Vaccine Information Center.

6. In Carman (singer), he reverted a consensus-supported revision which was decided upon during a recent AFD.

7. In National Science Foundation, Seregain inserted a claim that "porn surfing is rampant at the National Science Foundation" (using the Moonie Times as a source).

8. In his latest AFD for The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Seregain showed a strong personal motive for wanting the article deleted, by attacking the owners of the article's sources personally (ex. He claimed that a source was "unreliable" because the owner of the source had criticized Jack Chick) and making otherwise disruptive and POV comments.

WikiLobbying

Seregain has frequently lobbyed other admins and members on their talk pages, such as SarekOfVulcan, Jclemens, and others to intervene at his earlier AN/I comments (while at the same time, he claimed that he only wanted the comments of "objective, uninvolved admins", therefore lying). I would be happy to provide specific links.

--SuaveArt (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked SuaveArt for 31 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. I welcome further admin review of this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I declined an unblock request, as the block seems reasonable given the circumstances. I also asked SuaveArt to disengage entirely from interactions with Seregain, just and you and JClemens have asked Seregain to disengage from interaction with SuaveArt. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My (Seregain's) response

"Sockpuppetry"

• Point 1: I took a break after attempting to reach an agreement with you on the Left Behind: Eternal Forces article. I was not up for that headache. When I returned to editing, I failed to notice that I was no longer logged in. I made three edits under the IP in question, realized my error, admitted to it and apologized for it. It was a mistake and not an attempt to be deceptive. The edit summary was, admittedly, based upon your own choices for edit summaries and justifications (e.g. accusing people of censorship and being disruptive trolls).
• Point 2: Do you deny that is you? It's pretty obvious it is you. I don't think Misplaced Pages looks kindly on people who go to other websites to plot their targeting of other editors.

"Edits"

• Point 1: WP:EDITCOUNT is not policy and AfDs are quite simple to create.
• Point 2: The section had nothing to do with Ken Ham himself. I removed it as irrelevant to the article, which it was, so it was not "deceptive." In fact, an editor far more established and far more respected than you has since agreed with me.
• Points 3-5: I did not add any sourcing from the Catholic Exchange, as my edits prove. The sources I provided were the Philadelphia Bulletin and CBS News. I reverted nothing but your censorship of the relevant material. And as far as I know, Dr. Harper is not directly associated with any anti-vaccination groups.
• Point 6: A consensus of virtually one - i.e. you - is not a consensus. To wit:

07:29, 9 December 2009 Seregain (talk | contribs) (11,425 bytes) (rv to last good version by Bucksburg at 14:11, 15 October 2009) (undo) 03:07, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) m (5,310 bytes) (undo) 03:06, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) m (5,329 bytes) (undo) 03:05, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,402 bytes) (removed tags) (undo) 03:04, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,815 bytes) (broken ref) (undo) 03:02, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (5,978 bytes) (further cleanup) (undo) 02:56, 9 December 2009 Gongshow (talk | contribs) (10,785 bytes) (some cleanup) (undo) 01:43, 9 December 2009 SuaveArt (talk | contribs) (11,781 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carman (singer). (TW)) (undo)

The first edit on the list is the reversion you point out and the last is your first edit to the article.

• Point 7: The Washington Times is not an unreliable sources, as you falsely claim. What the heck is "Moonie Times?"
• Point 8: The article lacked references establishing notability and no one was adding any despite it being tagged. Perhaps I should've given it more time, but I was not finding any reliable sources (and the fact that the new sources are either foreign language or very weak indicates a severe lack of reliable sources). The two sources I "attacked" were self-published by someone who is banned from Misplaced Pages. I never argued in any way, shape or form that a source was unreliable because of what they said about Jack Chick. I argued that the reference was trivial and pointed out the Jack Chick thing as something that was amusing. As far as your last assertion about me, I will simply ask you to consider the plank in your own eye.

"Wikilobbying"

• My comment to SarekOfVulcan was, in fact, in response to a comment he made first and he has stated that he did not see my comment on his talk page as anything you are trying to portray it as. My comment to Jclemens was due to the fact that he was mentoring you. He found nothing wrong with my comment, but clarified that his involvement would be as a neutral party. There have been no "others" regarding this accusation as is proven by my edit history.

Your accusations are groundless. Seregain (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• So what was your previous account? There is no way in the world you're going to persuade me this account is your first experience of Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty concerned by the following: "The edit summary was, admittedly, based upon your own choices for edit summaries and justifications (e.g. accusing people of censorship and being disruptive trolls)." This is not only a very childish response, but completely against WP:POINT. I endorse your 31 hour block. When you come back, please learn to edit in a more civil manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seregain wasn't blocked, SuaveArt was. Auntie E. (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disengagement injunction

I just left a warning on both users' talk pages to disengage. I suggest that if either chooses to ignore this they be treated to a WP:TROUT, with escalating slaps up to and including the full-on killer whale treatment. Meanwhile I think those of us on the sidelines could usefully take a long hard look at the contributions of both parties. I see significant cause for concern in one, I am less sure about the other. See here for some discussion of this, as you'll see from the talk page history he seems none too keen on having other people read that, much good may it do him. I vote that the first of them to start commenting on the other wins a kewpie doll. What say? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse as common sense and in line with what I've said to both of them. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Good idea, and really there's been too much drama about these two editors lately. -- Atama頭 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - My removal of your warning has nothing to do with being "none too keen on having other people read that." I don't need a warning regarding something I already agreed to. Seregain (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You have the right to remove stuff from your talk page. Guy was in the wrong to repeatedly reinsert it. SuaveArt as well, both editors are reminded to abide by WP:HUSH (although in SA's case, the disengage agreement renders that moot). -- Atama頭 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "repeatedly reinserting it", I was trying to have a conversation, which is hard if one party insists on deleting what you say and then replying in a different place. The conversation was necessary since Seregain appeared to be under the impression that any injunction should apply to me, preventing me from commenting here on Seregain's problematic behaviour. It don't work like that. You don't get to choose to have your case discussed only by those who are sympathetic to you. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He can delete anything he likes from his talkpage. Might I suggest that you just respond where he does, instead of baiting him? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is unnecessary, the conversation was over yesterday. Of course, if Seregain really wants to aggressively assert his innocence on one of the most watched user talk pages on the project I don't especially care, but I rather thought the attention would be unwelcome to him. Somebody might want to educate the obvious sockpuppet on the true meaning of harassmenat, though. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd AGF re: the sock accusations unless the editor is disruptive. If I may quote Tsbdy further down: "If the account is not being disruptive, then let's not concern ourselves too much. IMO, the only time to be concerned about sock-puppets is when they cause disruption." Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So would I. The editor is disruptive. A fundamentalist POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

IP:99.19.92.173

The IP:99.19.92.173 has been giving problems on the Johnny Test and List of Johnny Test characters articles. My problem with this IP began on January 15, when I ran across and removed several references that felt were unreliable as they used original research such as "Parody of Darth Vader" and didn't use any kind of source template. Shortly after the IP reverted my removal. So I removed them again and added in my edit summary that they were unreliable and not to add them again. So the following January 18, they resorted to blanking the article and adding "Knock if off Sarujo" in it's place, as seen here. After their attempts to add those sources failed, they began moving the main character section back to the main article and added a further information tag in it's place on January 19, which deemed as vandalism I restored back. So now they have resorted to tag the article for deletion on concerns that it fails crystal, cruft, and original. Claiming that they proposed that the article be merged back with the main article. However, records show that no such proposal was ever made. Instead, they have simply tried to move the main characters section into the main Johnny Test article without prior notice. Now keep in mind that I agree that the article is in bad shape, but it's issues can be treated some copy editing, and an outright deletion or a redirect is a harsh and unnecessary action. It has been pointed out that main articles on various media such as television and video games should always only focus on the series itself and not on it's stars ad characters. Yet it is becoming more and more clear to me that since the IP couldn't edit the article as it suited them, then they would just rather delete it. Which to me comes off as an attempt to "game the system".

It is my belief that this IP is also in reality the editor that previously went by the the name Warmpuppy and the socks Warmpuppy2, E-Asiegbu, and IP:66.99.23.194. As this IP appeared after the aforementioned editor was indefinitely blocked for the same shenanigans that this IP is engaged in. When I called them on this, they went and used strikethrough on the section of my comment that included the statement and responded with quote: "What Warmpuppy? That ship has sailed.", all of which can be seen here. So I informed them that I would report them. Following this, they removed the deletion proposal and them proceeded to edit my user page as seen here. I am also not the only one that shares in this belief. They have also vandalized the main article at least once as seen here. Their talk page has quite a few warnings from other editors on their actions. Sarujo (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me – blocked 3 months. –MuZemike 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trouble at McDonald's!

Hello everyone. I don't know if this is the right place to write this or anything but i thought I would let you know.

There seems to be a programming error or something on the McDonalds page. At the top it says "view source" where it should say "edit this page" and the page cannot be edited.--Wiki's Big Mac (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been protected to prevent vandalism, see WP:PROT. – ukexpat (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That means the page is protected from any edits by new users, mostly like due to repeated vandalism. To try and request an unprotection you could post at WP:RFPP, but a better option would be to discuss possible changes on the articles talk page--Jac16888 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

There is an edit war brewing on Creation_according_to_Genesis with various warnings issued on: User_talk:Ben_Tillman#Creation_according_to_Genesis_3RR. Please intervene to revert a POV edit war. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're making a fool of yourself. Ben (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no edit war, there are one or two editors seeking to overturn a long established consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually user Ben has been doing too many reverts and now personal attacks. If there is no edit war, can I revert him? History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this comment on my talk page, I actually said "long established consensus" (see above) and it's dealt with at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. I have nothing further to add. – ukexpat (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

To Misplaced Pages administrators: Please note that the above comment by Ben was a "direct and unprovoked personal attack" on me. By Misplaced Pages rules this can not be allowed to continue. Please take appropriate action against the offending party. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is that Ben is continuing his perpetual practice of labeling everything Biblical as a "myth", i.e. as "untrue". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Ben needs to be reverted so he will learn not to ignore 3 revert situations and not to issue personal attacks here. This requires admin action. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If he has broken the 3 revert rule, the best thing is to take him to WP:3RR and report him for edit warring. That doesn't preclude an admin from doing something about it here, but it's the more formal process. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone post diffs of the personal attacks? Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait... in reference to the personal attack again (making a fool). Ben: Stop that. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

k :( Ben (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict ad nauseum) Knock it off both of you (not you Bugs). This is already being discussed in an RfC on the article talk page. That's the appropriate place for this. Take it back to the talk page, work it out like mature people, and then abide by consensus...even if you don't agree with it. History: I don't read that as a personal attack, a slightly barbed suggestion, but not an outright attack. Ben: labelling something is "myth" is just as NPOV as not labelling it as such. Not everyone is going to agree with your assessment of it as myth, and if consensus and references are against you, then either find better references or take your seat and follow consensus. Frmatt (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Key question: whose version gets displayed while the debate continues? The debate is cyclic and Ben seems to enjoy these debates. Hence unless there is action, he will continue reverts. Can I revert him now? Does he have more revert authority than other people? History2007 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

( → Frmatt) It's all on the talk page, sources and cited policy. I'm not going to rehash it here. Ben (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on full protect for 3 days. Get an appeal at WP:RFPP if you folks can get it worked out by then. Otherwise, the RfC should help a bit. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was unfair to protect the page while it was on Ben's version. Encourages his type of behavior. After 3 days he must be reverted. History2007 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you both need to be a little more congenial; work it out on the talk page. As for whose version I protected on, see m:Wrong Version ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has discouraged Ben yet. He's bound and determined to push that "myth" POV, at any cost. Trying to work it out on the talk page is futile. That's why I stopped fighting him on the Noah article - it was like dealing with a mule, or my grandmother. Eventually other editors will have had enough and there will arise a consensus to banish him. But that might take awhile. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not an admin Bugs? Anytime now mate, I'm sure of it. Ben (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never been interested in being an admin, and you couldn't pay me enough to take the job. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. Have you considered WP:MedCom, WP:MedCab, WP:3O or something similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs)

It's a content dispute, but it's more than that, it's a philosophical dispute. For a long time now, Ben has tried to label everything Biblical a "myth", i.e. a "fairy tale". While denying it, of course. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is one of the troops and just came in guns blazing (see his recent edit history). My level of congeniality wrt to History2007 isn't a high priority at the moment, though I'm happy to discuss things on the article talk page with him. Thanks for everyone's time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me end by reminding every editor who's wandering across this thread that Misplaced Pages is a consensus-driven project, and that congeniality is a requirement, not an option. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel I must suggest that it would be best for Nefariousski (talk · contribs) to voluntarily ban himself from future discussion on this topic, on the grounds of ignorance. In this reversion, he made the statement, "There's no Genesis 2." He's apparently unaware that the Bible books are divided into chapters (1, 2, 3, etc.) I'm guessing even Ben knows that's not a myth. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He's even wrong about the movie. PhGustaf (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it too late to call WP:LAME on this? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy-User:Mrchenchen

Anyone else think it's odd that this users first and only edit is a correctly formatted quote to this article? Here's the diff Anyone else hear quacking I guess is what i'm asking, if not, I apologize. Going to go notify them now. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Supposing for a second that he's a true newbie, what's you opinion of the quality of the edit? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit itself seems fine, the other circumstances, especially considering the notoriety of that article, seemed fishy. If it's a sock of a banned user, which if my memory serves me there are quit a few people banned from that article, would it be worth knowing? I was merely asking if I was the only one suspicous, if so, my apologies. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For a brand-new redlink to go to a specific article and pick up (?) where a sock left off (?) is indeed suspicious. But that's why I asked about the edit. Are there any other name editors or IP's that have posted that edit previously? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. It's the reason I posted here, I thought someone more knowlegable of the article and the situation there might know what to do. I don't want to bite a newbie or accuse an innocent person of de facto being a sock, but it seemed a little strange. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If the account is not being disruptive, then let's not concern ourselves too much. IMO, the only time to be concerned about sock-puppets is when they cause disruption. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that certain well known members or ex-members of Misplaced Pages have alternate accounts they haven't disclosed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode making personal attacks

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

In responses related to the unref BLP deletion threads, Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made a few personal attacks on me, the first listed in response to my response that he stop after the prior ones:

...and one stunningly inappropriate suggestion:

The overall incident there is certainly not going to be helped by it escalating into personal attacks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or by distraction with irrelevant AN/I sideshows about sharp elbows. There's nothing really to this particular report in the grand scheme of things. How many of those deleted BLPs did you want userified so you can fix them? ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not personal attacks. Grow a pair. Viridae 05:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

George, I have access to Infotrac and am willing to help you find references for any of those deleted BLPs that you are currently trying to find sources for if you don't have the time to get down to your local library. Just let me know. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments were not very civil, but the overall situation is certainly not going to be helped by it escalating here to ANI simply because some infelicitous remarks were directed at an admin. A lot of heated things have been said in the last 24 hours or so, and it's best to let them go for the most part. There's no admin action to take here, and this is not the place to discuss userfication and sourcing of deleted articles. Next person who comes to this thread should close it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing per Bigtimepeace; feel free to undo/move it to WP:WQA (if you really want to), etc. NW (Talk) 05:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding incivility on BLP issue

Leaving the above section closed because we shouldn't single out one editor here - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to invest in a large WP:TROUT farm here. In the scheme of things, rudeness during the Wiki equivalent of a policy coup is not a huge deal. In fact, the entire BLP issue is not a big deal - it will merit at most a few blog posts by total wiki-wonks. I doubt many of the 50,000+ subjects of these articles will even notice. But the fact that there is widespread incivility on this issue doesn't mean it's okay to engage. I think we should encourage cooperative editing here, not insults. I've been on the receiving end of this particular editor's impassioned comments so I've got a conflict in recommending what to do here, but as a general rule an admonishment is in order at the very least when people get too uncivil, if it can be done in a way to calm rather than inflame. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think a few of the calmer sorts should watch Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and clerk the hell out of it if this sort of sourness turns up there. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

{{resolved|···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}} I've scratched that resolved tag per the user's edits, which I shall post my opinion on below;— Dædαlus 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

There appears to be an ongoing edit-war on this talk page involving multiple parties. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Incident concluded. The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom. Proofreader77 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I blocked Proofreader for a week for reverting several times, he has had a recent 72 hour block for edit warring as well that I took into account when determining this block length. MBisanz 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nod, but there were multiple other parties involved in the disruption of the page... Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could protect it, but it's a talk page and everyone else only reverted once. MBisanz 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. No worries, Cirt (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Now at User_talk:Proofreader77, he's requesting review for an unblock... Cirt (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And that has now been declined by Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).— Dædαlus 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And they have requested another one, which I have commented on. I suggest any reviewing admins read this comment.— Dædαlus 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock. If he makes another unblock request, best to lock the page for the duration of the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

indef?

This user continues to post copyright violations to their page.. they have stalked my edits, and, from the recent post regarding those edits, it appears as if they aren't taking this seriously at all, more like it is some game or debate. I don't see any evidence at all that they are going to stop their problematic edits after this all is over, therefore, I request that an indef block be considered, or, a longer block. For the version I refer to, please see this link. Please discuss.— Dædαlus 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scanning the user's contributions, I see little benefit to the project. I do see a sarcastic, idiotic tone in almost any discussion, a touch of MYSPACE, and currently a misuse of talk page by a blocked user. Grsz 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest locking Proofreader77's talk page for the duration of the current block and would advise Daedalus969 in particualr to, quite frankly, move on. HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:PeshawarPat

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

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

Fresh off the block edit warring, they begin the very same thing across multiple related articles, for the exact same term. They have obviously learned nothing from their previous block, and looking over their contribs, all I really see is an SPA whose purpose is to push their own POV. Another editor suggested an indef block.. such may be too harsh, it may not, but certainly, something needs to be done. Please discuss. Pesh has been notified of this discussion, as have others who were involved.— Dædαlus 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I submitted Pesh for the initial edit warring report and was surprised to see him back doing the same thing this evening fresh off his block. I am also the editor who suggested the above-mentioned indef block, which may indeed be too harsh, too quick, but I am very concerned about this editor's activity, which does seem to be 100% concerned with pushing a single POV regardless of consensus. It's the editor's willful disregarding of consensus that concerns me far more than his POV -- indeed, I don't altogether disagree with some of his edits, and there are some that I don't really think are non-neutral. I will leave it to less involved persons to have a more balanced opinion on what resolution is appropriate. I am perhaps only "involved" on the outskirts -- I have not had any direct contact with Pesh -- but I am still concerned that I am too close to the issue to have a perfectly balanced opinion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked 2 weeks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – User has agreed to pursue resolution at the proper forum. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards