Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 24 October 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

BLP/libel issue?

Resolved

material reverted, user blocked by vigilant admin; block independantly reviewed. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

(resolved again)... reopened to address question of new BLP issues, and ask for block review. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Open Indefinite block under review. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this diff a cause for concern vis a vis libel? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NEW, AFTER FURTHER REVIEW: The user has now posted links to articles here, avoiding the copyright problem, but potentially still raising a BLP/libel issues. Is this appropriate? Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How does posting links to reputable news articles raise BLP/libel issues? Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles themselves attack a public figure and do not contain or discose independant sources. It may be a reach, but there could still be libel liability issues. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

These are reliable sources. There's no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Used on a user page, they pose an undue weight problem. The user is welcome to disclose that they have had prior conflict with that judge, but not to present biased viewpoints, even if they are reliable sources, (see WP:COATRACK as well). WP is not a blog or a forum for continuing conflict from elsewhere. Admins should review the deleted edits on this user's page for more insight into why this is problematic. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, as few people will have the background on this situation: On her userpage, this editor posted (1) a copyright news report and then (after it was removed and she was warned not to do it again), (2) a series of links to news reports with respect to the same person, with the edit summaries "my good news hurrah hurrah". It should be noted that this editor has a real-world adversarial relationship with the subject of these news articles (administrators can see her description of it in the first version of her userpage, now deleted in part for BLP reasons). The links were not proposed for article space, they were put in userspace by a user who has been asked repeatedly to leave the external battles behind. Behaviour like this is exactly why WP:BLP applies throughout all areas of the project. Risker (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. Since we're here, let me ask for review of my block of Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). See my talk page recently... (topic "Query": User_talk:Lar#Query). I blocked this editor for a week (the next step up from 3 days) after my initial removal of the BLPvio/Copyvio text was undone by placing these links. Those who know me know that I am very reluctant to block, in general, and quick to give second chances and try to find other ways to deal with issues. This user is intransigent and either cannot or will not work within our norms and it's time to cut our losses and reduce the disruptive effect this user has. So far everyone who has reviewed it on my talk page has concurred with it, except Elonka. She has engaged in rather a long dialog with somewhat shifting goals as we've refuted various points raised. Right now I think she wants the block undone (since she doesn't agree it is a BLP violation to cite sources showing a clear adversary in a negative light without a chance to make them balanced as we do in an article) and redone under some other pretext. I'm not sure that's a good use of anyone's time and I ask that my block be endorsed, and her going to the user's page to contradict what I said be pointed out to her as less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like everyone on Lar's page agrees that a block is called for, leaving the only area of disagreement the reason for the block. My two pennies - given her history here, the statements she has made regarding her case and the judge in the past, and the seeming agenda with which she edits Misplaced Pages in general... it is reasonable to interpret her posting the bit about the judge with the edit summary "my good news, hurrah hurrah" as violating BLP. Folks might disagree with how serious a violation it is, given the news has apparently been covered in reliable sources, but the presentation of the material is not irrelevant in considering the BLP policy.

Kay has been blocked before, and has had the full attention of two administrators and a number of editors for quite awhile because of her disruptive and at times combative editing style. She has been warned repeatedly about soapboxing about her personal legal history, and a block is warranted this time around solely on that basis. Whether BLP was the best of the various reasons to use in the log is irrelevant - the block is good, and Elonkas suggestion to unblock and reblock with a different reason is a nonstarter. Avruch 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Kay's unblock request doesn't help matters at all either. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I echo Avruch's evaluation of this matter, and concur that Lar's original block was warranted. Anthøny (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. I've had my fair share of differences with Lar on many previous occasions, but not on this occasion - I am in complete agreement with Avruch's view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block Proper block, within discretion, no need to unblock at this time, let it run its course. MBisanz 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. User pages should not be used as a soapbox in real world legal battles. Also I do not consider some of these sources as reliable(e.g. ); they are breaking news (i.e. wild speculation), without a named journalist. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kay Sieverding. John Vandenberg 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am in agreement that a block was appropriate, though I disagree that there was a clear BLP violation here. A better block rationale might have been "disruption", "soapboxing", "inappropriate use of userpage", "tendentious editing", or "Misplaced Pages is not a battleground". Choosing a BLP rationale was fairly weak, and it is evident that not everyone is in agreement that there was an obvious BLP violation here. I would also like to say that I am very disappointed with how Lar has been behaving when his block was challenged at his talkpage. When independent editors/administrators expressed concerns to him about the block rationale, his response was to react with defensiveness, incivility, accusations of bad faith, and name-calling. Someone with steward access should be reacting with a far higher standard of behavior, and I hope Lar will take some time to think about how he could have handled this better. --Elonka 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm always open to feedback, but I thought this matter was resolved, as far as AN/I is concerned, anyway. I think your characterizations of how I handled the discussion at my talk are extremely wide of the mark (anyone else interested should feel free to review the entire thread and judge for themselves) and do you no credit. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of supporting accusations like "incivility, accusations of bad faith, and name calling" with diffs so that other readers can make an informed opinion. I thought we just dealt with the issue (in an ArbCom) of admins who make such charges about fellow editors at AN/I without substantiating diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the link is already in this thread, but here it is again: User talk:Lar#Query. --Elonka 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a diff (but surely you know that). I'd like to see a specific diff to back up each of these charges: 1) incivility, 2) accusations of bad faith, and 3) name calling. These kinds of broadbrush accusations about other editors should always be backed by diffs, and we shouldn't fall into the habit of taking one person's "opinion" as evidence. Again, I thought we just went through that at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI Sandy, there is an RfC/User re: the editor's alleged misdeeds, with more diffs than you can shake a stick at. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record I do not believe Sandy was referring to Kay. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, there is very little gain to be had in carrying this discussion forward in this manner. If there is a need for a user or admin conduct RfC, or a more structured discussion, then have it in the appropriate place. But the underlying issue of this section, and the purpose for its existence on this page, seems to have been resolved. I think the best thing for everyone to do at this point is to let it go, and move on to more productive pursuits. Avruch 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I always welcome constructive review of my actions, and more specifically, I am always open to recall if someone feels the need. Elonka would have to find someone else to start the petition though, per my eligibility requirements, since she's not open to recall. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a recall matter, but for the record, yes, I am open to recall. My standards are listed along with everyone else's at Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. --Elonka 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your last "recall". You're not open to recall. At least not as I would define it. That's OK, you don't have to be, most admins aren't, and there's nothing wrong or dishonorable about that. But it's disingenious to say you are. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar, that's kind of the point of our voluntary recall process, is that each admin can set their own criteria. Looking through the list, there are vastly different standards from admin to admin. Now, if you want your own standards to say, "Elonka can't ask me to resign," that's fine, that's up to you. In fact, some admins even go the other way, saying, only someone from a certain list that they provide, is allowed to initiate a recall. It's really up to each admin what they choose. But if the criterion is, "an admin open to recall", well, I'm open to recall. I don't have to be, but I choose to be. --Elonka 03:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, lecturing me on the point of a process I was instrumental in developing and promoting probably isn't going to earn you any style points with anyone. You do have a bit of a tendency to lecture others about stuff, don't you? Anyway, maybe you are recallable now. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, and gladly. But you weren't before, when your last "recall" went down. Not in my view anyway, and not in the view of quite a few other people (or perhaps you forgot the hue and cry about it, culminating in an attempt to get ArbCom to get involved to make you stick to your supposed terms, which attempt failed only because ArbCom had the good sense to say they weren't going to get involved in a voluntary process? Remember? ) Hence my comment that you're not recallable. But this is all irrelevant. You were asked to provide diffs, but your last two posts have focused on irrelevancy. That means this matter's closed, as far as I am concerned. The block stands, the BLP violation isn't there on the page any more, and you've accused yet another editor of bad faith. All par for the course, and everything is business as usual. We're done. You can have the last word, and then let's archive it. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

An update

Kay has not quit with her BLP violation-ating ways... see Special:Undelete/User_talk:Kay_Sieverding. She then deleted Risker's warning about it, which I restored, and followed up with a stern warning that she is about out of chances. I left the latest contribution though, at least for now. It may be time to cut losses here and just indefinitely block her and move on. Being the softie that I am, though, I'd probably let this block run out and see if by then she's gotten the drift yet. The wikiversity suggestion made in her RfC is a good one, perhaps there she could happily edit up a long instruction manual on how to self represent. But she already spurned that idea once. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This thread is currently flagged both resolved, and not resolved. Which one is it?--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. --Elonka 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But for the record Risker has just stubbbed out Kay's page, again after taking a good look at all the ... material that had ... accumulated there, and warned Kay again. I predict we'll be back here soon enough, to get yet another block endorsed. Sorry, but I'm about out of GF with this user. So I wouldn't be in any rush to archive this. It'll likely be back to unresolved shortly. (It would be awesome were I wrong!) ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all over... a dispute with a neighbor? Sheesh. Maybe it should be added to the appropriate policy page that warns against escalating blocks --NE2 19:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

eh? Could you elaborate on that? Fairly routine escalating blocks have been employed here so what is the warning you're thinking of? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm saying the way a minor dispute between neighbors became a major thing would be a good analogy to how a minor block sometimes escalates. But I wasn't saying it seriously. --NE2 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we want to re-open this, I think the main thing that needs to be decided is the scope of the restrictions to place on Kay's editing. This has been discussed a bit at Lar's talkpage, and if I can be so bold as to try and express the current consensus, it's that Kay Sieverding should be topic-banned from the entire law-related topic area on Misplaced Pages, to include all articles about law, jurisdictions, or any legal professionals. If she violates this ban, she is to be blocked indefinitely. What we haven't quite got nailed down yet, is some of the scope of the ban, meaning:

• Should the ban include articles, or both articles and talkpages?
• If talkpages are included in the ban, would this mean that Kay would even be restricted from suggesting reliable sources at her own talkpage? (see WP:COIC)
• How long should the ban be for?

--Elonka 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No longer relevant. User has been blocked indefinitely for this edit which was in direct contravention of the restrictions already placed. As always I invite review. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fully endorse Totally blows by all restrictions, good block. MBisanz 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)e
• Endorse block - Kay's post to her talk page this morning left no doubt that her intention is to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for her cause. Her insinuation that some editors were working against her because of their own financial self-interest is beyond the pale. Risker (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm having trouble figuring out how this edit triggered an indefinite block? I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's a long post and I'm not finding the sentence that was problematic? --Elonka 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  The pro se page currently contains these unsupported or untrue statements that is discussing a legal topic related to what she's been discussing before, without even going further, that alone is a clear violation of the restrictions. MBisanz 17:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, what restrictions? There was discussion about a topic ban, but to my knowledge it had not been implemented yet. --Elonka 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Please see the restrictions detailed here. MBisanz 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw that post by Risker, in an initial attempt to place a topic ban, but to my knowledge that post had no force. Admins can't go around placing topic bans willy-nilly. There are only three circumstances in which a ban can be placed: (1) With prior community consensus, and a link to such consensus; (2) With a user who is under ArbCom restrictions; or (3) In a topic area that is within the scope of ArbCom discretionary sanctions (see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions). There was no indication of any of these. And I'm not just arguing here to be arguing: This is an important point: Admins cannot place topic bans in non-ArbCom areas, unless they first have a clear community consensus to do so. Now, we were indeed discussing a community ban, and it's probable that there would have been consensus, but let's make sure we do things right here, without putting the cart before the horse. In other words: First let's get consensus for a ban, then let's implement the ban, and then if she violates the ban, we block. But just blocking someone for violating a ban that didn't even exist in the first place? No, bad idea. --Elonka 17:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Eh, I see it more as counseling a user on BLP by detailing how it applies to them, the user refusing to hear it, and being rightfully blocked as a result. Right now I don't see anyone supporting an unblock btw. MBisanz 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• endorse - as a bystander to this, the user really seems unable to understand what we are trying to do here as a project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• endorse (for whatever it's worth). That guy is using Misplaced Pages to petition the government (his words). Classic WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAPBOX. He can start a blog, ask for support from EFF, ACLU, and NAMI, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to broadcast his grievances. VG ☎ 09:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper off-wiki conduct by User:Alison on Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hello. I am just posting this here to inform you that User:Alison, an oversighter, checkuser and administrator, has posted dangerous personal information about a banned user off-wiki. Alison, who also has many posts on the Misplaced Pages Review, has recently (and yes, it has been confirmed to be her) signed up for Encyclopedia Dramatica and is contributing there regularly with personal attacks against a certain banned user. Whilst I am in no way condoning the behavior of JarlaxleArtemis, which is highly deplorable and has included disgusting threats, the way that Alison has insulted this user by taunting him with his personal information shows a complete disregard for the exceptional level of community trust placed on people who handle sensitive data relating to oversight and checkuser functions. Here are some of the things she has said (and I am omitting where she has given the user's real name and personal info in edit summaries there, and bowlderizing when necessary):

• "F**k off, G***p, you pestilant little child"
• "G***p, will you quit this s**t. We all know who you are, and "" has to be one of the faggiest names I've ever encountered"
• " FREAKIN' 'S 1" PIECE OF TWITCHING MANHOOD - lawl!"

Her contribs on ED can be found at

Because of this, I would like to instigate a discussion over whether her checkuser and oversight tools could be removed as she appears to have abused the trust that the community has put in her, and if she's willing to insult people with their private, non-public personal information on another website, there is no reason to believe she is trustworthy with the data she has the priviledge of access to in her position as a checkuser and more particularly an oversighter.--African Violin (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this about the anon who's been threatening Alison? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is African Violin's fifth contribution. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but it's African Violin's last contribution. Blocked as trolling-only account. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Seems that Grawp would never leave Misplaced Pages in peace for a moment... BUT, as Porky Pig would say: "A-ba-lee, a-ba-lee, gnat's all folks!". XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is about Grawp. Nothing to be concerned about. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was just reaching for a This template must be substituted. tag..._Gb 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a checkuser report from ED proving that this is Alison, right? ;o) Resolute 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He just posted an unblock request--since this is more than likely Grawp/Jarlaxle, I locked his talk page down and redirected it to his userpage. Blueboy96 18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Grawp-a-like! Nice try .... :) That may be my account, or it may not. Nobody seems to know - not even the great Grawp. Still, if there has been any publication of privacy or checkuser-related information over there, someone will surely provide diffs .... right? - Alison 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahahahaha nice one grawp, thanks for the lulz.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This failed so hard even 4chan doesn't want it. :D -Jéské Couriano 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What a waste of a fine username... bibliomaniac15 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Two words. Guys, it's one of the weirdest applications of BADSITES that I've ever seen. In an astounding moment of bass-ackwardness, a vandal comes to ANI to complain about an admin saying mean things on Encyclopedia Dramatica. In Soviet Russia, vandals complain about you! - Alison 04:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I have personally redacted large quantities of personally identifying information on JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp from enwiki. Grawp has never requested information be oversighted on enwiki, though he could if he wanted. Note also, that this deletion review from last week was set to overturn until I requested it stay deleted in deference to Grawp's own privacy. The person closing the DRV (Spartaz) commented, "Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis – Since this was nominated on the basis that the page may be useful to coordinate crosswiki responses to Grawp and given that Alison has confirmed that this is not necessary and cited the privacy policy I'm going to call this as no consensus to undelete". Rather than complaining, it might be nice to just say "thanks" every so often, y'know? - Alison 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Next thing you know they'll be knocking at your home door asking to have a little chat, or threatening to go to the "authorities". Or worse, maybe they'll even start calling your boss at work asking to get you fired or threatening you with bodily injury. No matter the many assumptions, which I think are way overboard, (just like this whoever put in this silly request), I believe there's a fine line that must be respected in between different organizations, and eventually real life. I trust it won't go too far in real life, but if they do start to harass you, I know a friend in Russia that works for the Hells Angels, they can go have a chat with them too and even put a bomb on their car if they start really harassing you. --CyclePat (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had all of the things you mentioned above as a result of my work on Misplaced Pages (well, they didn't find my home, but showed up at my workplace). I'm still here and since the last guy was sent back to jail, I got prepared. So I'm not worried, trust me - Alison 07:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

-By the way, I strongly urge people not to visit that link posted by the grawp/troll/sock who posted this report. I think it leads to malware (so said my Norton). Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahaha, thats the cherry on top. The link is harmless however i find it amusing how ED is classified as malware   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, really, something tried to shove a download down my throat. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NCL, the same thing happened to me. There was definitely something there, but my AV knocked it down. Dayewalker (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how web browsers work... unless you are using Internet Explorer. BJ 10:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, please delete the damn link, it grabbed my computer and yes I have IE and serious security. I didn't understand what was going on until it was too late, stupid me. My husband is still having to work my computer today since he still hasn't gottem all the malware gone. He found 5 copies of it yesterday and Norton is still screaming that there is more to be taken care of. So please oversight it or whatever to remove it from the site so others, like me that don't know much about computers don't get bit. This is a nasty malware! I am using my husband's laptop for the first time and it's weird to use. Thanks in advance for removing it, and knock yourselves out with the jokes that I did this, I deserve it for my stupidity plus right about now I could use some laughs. --CrohnieGal 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox. BJ 11:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's everyone-make-fun-of-the-clueless time. I followed a link from Misplaced Pages Review to ED not long ago and ended up having to restore my system to an earlier version to get rid of the resulting junk. Ha, ha, what a sap! Deor (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox with noscript and ABP will be way more efficient than IE and Norton to protect you from malwares. AVs are needed when a malware is in but are bad at prevention. Use a non-administrator or temporary session if you want more security. I've been on ED a couple of times and had no problem. Though I surely don't advise to use ED in IE, or registering there if you don't want your IP exposed.   Cenarium 13:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just went to the ED link originally posted with IE 7.0 and had no problems except for some annoying ads and an attempt to open a PDF. A check of the running processes and a scan with Ad-aware afterwards confirmed that nothing was wrong. I did run Windows Update just the other day. (There's another possibility I've thought of but I won't speculate.) --NE2 20:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things. For me, IE6 survived trawling about on ED for a while. And the big question: Isn't conduct on ED supposed to be improper? Now maybe if the OP had accused her of not being witty enough - or offensive enough - maybe there'd be a case to answer. Just sayin'. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you care to read Misplaced Pages Review (which is certainly not malwared), apparently there is something from an adserver that the ED people are attempting to fix: . So don't go there with IE, at least non-updated. --NE2 03:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal favourite was:

• You ARE a middle-aged Irish b*tch.

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RMHED blanking pages under claim of BLP

RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently blanked a number of pages on well-known holocaust deniers and other living people on WP:BLP grounds, claiming that they are poorly sourced. This follows WP:PROD-ing a number of unsourced BLPs, most of which have been reverted. Some believe that the editor is going too far.

The editor claims to operate on a theory that all unsourced material in a BLP is inherently contentious. However, that seems plainly at odds with BLP. If that that the case BLP would be quite brief - it would simply say "delete everything about a living person that is uncited" and we all go home. In reality BLP includes in its preamble (but does not define) as "contentious" material that is "positive, negative, or merely questionable". Much of what the editor is neither negative nor positive, and is not reasonably questionable either because it is well sourced, is obvious or readily verifiable, or is well-accepted or uncontroversial. Opposing a claim on procedural grounds having to do with citation links does not make the claim itself questionable. Others would disagree about policy, and clearly support RMHED's interpretation that everything unsourced is fair game.

Although sourcing is a debatable point bigger than a single AN/I thread, the wholesale blanking of pages is potentially disruptive so I propose that we discuss the matter sooner rather than later. The problem is really the edits, not the theory behind them. I'm bringing it here as a stopgap in hopes that we ask RMHED to put some thought into the matter rather than playing the human BLP-bot. Many or of the claims he is blanking are sourced, but not in typical style. There are articles that claims inline that so-and-so published book X in which he said Y, or that A claims B about C, than person N is in rock band O that released album P, or that Q "hit the headlines" over incident R. Those are all in fact sourced claims, but simply not in approved Misplaced Pages footnote format. A quick google search would easily find the actual citation links for these claims in most cases. Further, much of what is in fact unsourced is uncontentious. If we don't address this, there's a risk of losing a significant chunk of holocaust-related material for now, and whatever section of our encyclopedia RMHED wants to pacman-chomp next. If editors oppose this we may get into edit wars over BLP versus claims of blanking/vandalism. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• At a quick glance his removals look perfectly proper. Indeed good stuff. Any suggestion that someone is linked with holocaust denial needs cast-iron sourcing and if such is not there the claim and any implication of it needs immediately removed. Anyone wanting to put it back needs to properly source it. Give the man a barnstar.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A barnstar for this? Please don't encourage it. BLP is meant to improve the encyclopedia, not destroy it. But again, most of the material deleted was of the form "X said Y in book Z".Wikidemon (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, a barnstar for that. If you want to replace it, find some good secondary sourcing. That is exactly what BLP is for.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Scott, especially on the Carlo Mattogno article. I don't think we should be condoning articles where the entire content is a bunch of descriptions about the person (especially such negative ones) based on the fact that another wiki wrote them a while ago. We should be having sources of our own. WP:BLP seems clear to me: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable - should be removed.... "-- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Ridiculous and offensive. Carlo Mattongo is obviously a significant holocaust denier. Please spend five seconds on google finding the sourcing that is in the blanked article. The point of BLP is to protect Misplaced Pages from legal liability and avoid undue harm to living individuals, not to facilitate holocaust denial (which is a much greater harm, incidentally). Wikidemon (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • First, why is he "obviously" a significant holocaust denier? There are 80 people in Category:Holocaust deniers right now. Are all of the living ones obviously deniers as well? While I don't agree with the hit-and-run blanking, I did the same thing to John Gudenus here which had a source that no longer existed (and probably wasn't on point). If you can find sources, provide them into the articles (as I did). The fact that you feel that these articles are special and those facts don't require sources is an issue. BLP should be applied universally, if it is going to applied at all. It's not like he's blanking David Irving -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • (ec)"Obvious" to you is not good enough. The point of BLP is to prevent harm by prohibiting poorly sourced critical material on any living individual. You want negative stuff - the onus is on YOU to source it properly, not on the BLP enforcer. The minute we caveat such protections for living people with "except people we decide beforehand are not worth it" we open a dangerous door. There are no untermensch with BLP - no exceptions because we decide they are vile people who don't get rights. We protect one, we protect all. That's the essence of it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • And if you're talking about legal liability, wrongly accusing someone of holocaust denial is grounds for a pretty strong libel case: your source has to be absolutely bulletproof if you're going to do so. If it's so obvious, go out and find a good, reliable source, and then add it to the article. BLP always applies - it doesn't matter who someone is. Ale_Jrb 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Please don't get silly on the BLP kool-aid. I'm not stupid and no onus is on me. No, my argument is not to advocate that "don't deny the holocaust" is more important than BLP. If you read my post it is about the misuse of BLP for "hit-and-run" blanking, as Ricky81682 puts it. The editor I mentioned may be setting out on that course. Eleven articles today on the holocuast. Perhaps a hundred tomorrow on some other subject, perhaps baseball or automotive design? Better to deal with this before it becomes a blow-up. It goes to the "five seconds on google" comment. The only contentious claim in the article is the summary/lead statement that Carlo Mattongo is a holocaust denier. That's where the editor's WP:POINT is strongest but even there one can solidly meet the challenge. To claim the rest of the article is a BLP violation that has to be deleted to the point where it reads simply "Carlo Mattongo is an Italian" is ludicrous - why not delete "Italian" as an unsourced cultural slight, and "is" as metaphysically uncertain? Back to the lead, it's normally perfectly fine to summarize a person's main claim to fame without a source because the lead is the summary of the article, not independent material. The article, which is sourced, establishes clearly that Mattongo's main claim to fame is that he is a holocaust denier. How else can one interpret an author whose main literary output is a series of books, and articles in holocaust revisionist journals, saying Auschwitz is a myth, nobody was gassed, the alleged "eyewitnesses" are liars, etc. But yes, an especially strong claim in the lead ought to be sourced even if it's clearly established in the article. If the article's inline attributions aren't enough, a few moments of googling instantly reveals a breathtaking array of holocaust denial in Mattongo's own words, on holocaust denial websites, and on websites devoted to combatting holocaust denial. Blanking these articles without bothering to spend a few minutes verifying them is pretty close to vandalism. 90-95% of the material that was blanked is sourced or simply not controversial - that he published a given book? That he lives near rome? That he knows Latin and Hebrew? I didn't write that in the first place. If I did I would have sourced them properly. But as an editor and reader of Misplaced Pages, it is not my job to single-handedly repair all the damage by chasing after every half-cocked WP:POINT someone is making by mindlessly deleting content. If someone wants to go on a rampage in a china shop, it's fair to bring up the commotion on a notice board rather than running ahead of the vandal clearing the shelves of dishes. Blanking entire articles is an extreme interpretation of BLP, and something that ought to be taken up at an administrative level before it blows up into a serious problem.Wikidemon (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Wikidemon, you obviously don't understand the BLP policy. BLP demands proper sourcing for claims - sourcing that all the articles he blanked lacked (and he didn't actually blank them). It is not good enough to say "the sources are there if you google". What you call "a bull in a china shop" is exactly what we want people to do. If you see unsourced or poorly sourced critical material, then remove it. All of it, and immediately. The onus is on those who want it replaced to do the googling, not the remover. Calling people doing what we ask them to do "almost vandals" is wrong, unhelpful, and verging on a personal attack. No WP:POINT has been made here, since wikipedia was not disrupted, but improved by the enforcement of one of our more important policies. That's the non-disruptive point that you are failing to get.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I understand BLP policy just fine. In the past I contributed to making that policy. You seem to share the editor's interpretation of BLP, which is fine. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I brought the issue here for discussion. Back to the subject, the material is sourced in the article. That's the issue. 90-95% of what is removed is not unsourced and/or not controversial. And regarding the other 5-10% BLP is not about deleting all unsourced material, it is about deleting "contentious" unsourced material. The only place where you may have a point is the single claim, that the author is a holocaust denier - something best fixed by a five second google search, not disrupting an article. As for the rest, that author X published book Y is not contentious. Stubbifying an article to say "'''Carlo Mattogno''' (born in 1951 in ], ]) is an Italian {{DEFAULTSORT:Mattogno, Carlo}}" is pointy blanking. What about that are you not getting? We had the same fight a year ago over WP:NFCC and WP:TRIVIA. Running around the encyclopedia blanking things because you think you are doing the work of the Foundation is a big mistake and turns into huge Wikidrama - constant AN/I threads, de-sysops, arbitration cases, WR fodder. Best to keep cool and edit rationally. Wikidemon (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • So, source the material and replace it, if it is that easy. It only leads to "constant AN/I threads" because people start them. So, don't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict) That seems to contradict the lede of BLP; "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately ...". As in, it says "removed immediately", not "removed after doing a Google search to ascertain if it true or not". ~ User:Ameliorate! 11:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • Please direct the "source material" comment to the one who is blanking articles. My commenting on these articles does not mean I own them. Again, that's the same issue with NFCC and TRIVIA. I don't have to find sources for fifty thousand images or two hundred pop culture articles to point out that people are going about it the wrong way. Regarding the BLP preamble, the "should be removed immediately" is a bit of Jimbo's trademark hyperbole and not a realistic editing suggestion. But that's not the point. Again, most of the blanked material was sourced and not contentious.Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                      • I don't know about "most", but for Günter Deckert, which I've just expanded from sources, most of the material blanked in this edit was most certainly contentious (it relating to the subject's participation in the NPD) and unsourced (the article at the time citing no sources whatsoever). It still is unsourced. I've not been able to find any English language sources to support that content at all. (Any editors who are capable of reading German well are invited to flesh out the article with details of the subject's political career — provided that they cite good sources from the get-go.) Based upon what sources I've found upon actually going and looking for them, as a removal of unsourced controversial content under the BLP, it was quite proper. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                        • what do English language sources have to do with it? We do not require sources in English for BLP or anything else. If I were to remove all the material in BLPs cited by sources in languages I did not read, there would be little content left for some geographic areas. DGG (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                          • Please read the part in parentheses that immediately followed that, again. I said nothing about requiring that sources be in English, and indeed invited those who were capable of reading German well, and who thus could distinguish good sources, to do so, and use them to expand the article. As a matter of fact, I even cited one German language source in the article. I simply didn't trust my ability to translate it enough to base BLP content on it. So it's in Further Reading.

                            However, I translated it well enough to know that it, too, does not document the subject's political career. My point stands: The controversial content that was removed was unsourced and still is unsourced. And until someone finds a good, reliable, independent German language source for it, it will remain unsourced. The removal was quite proper. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can make a suggestion

The point is not to undermine BLP or pit it against anything else, merely to note what may be harm to the encyclopedia from its overzealous application. When deleting seeming BLP violations it is always best to be civil, precise, and helpful. One can pick any of the eleven cases in point but Carlo Mattogno has been the most discussed here. It would have been far better to replace Italian "holocaust denier" with Italian "author" or "writer about the holocaust" or something neutral, with an edit summary of "per BLP, a claim like this should be sourced." And it would have been better not to delete uncontroversial claims like that the author published a book, studied Latin, or lives near Rome. Beyond that, BLP permits deletion but doing the bare minimum of what policy permits does not make good editing. It is far better to improve than break weak material. Nearly everything deleted from the articles has a source, or is sourceable. Low effort article policing is fine on a case by case basis, but when it becomes a big campaign across many articles, it can be a big problem. A single editor on a policy enforcement roll can in ten minutes create a day's clean-up work for more careful editors, and that work often doesn't get done for weeks or months. Article cleanup is done with a broom and a mop, not a fire hose.Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Various points of varying length:

• Carlo Mattogno would have been a valid WP:CSD#G10 tagging.
• "Sources can be found" and arguments of this nature are over-simplistic, and ignore the responsibility this places on the editor doing the BLP clean up.
• Simply sourcing the contentious statements in a biography is utterly inadequate and completely misses the point - I have summarily deleted a number of well-sourced BLPs in which I had no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements made. Verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
• The editor editing outside his/her area of expertise may legitimately feel very uncomfortable putting his/her name to any edit to a contentious BLP when they do not feel qualified to judge the neutrality of the article, regardless of what they can source. Yet, when the alternative of not editing the article would be clearly unacceptable, deletion or sub-stubbing are the only reasonable options.

CIreland (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

G10?? This is an encyclopedia. Editors who want to help should probably concentrate their efforts where they know what they are doing. Not knowing what you are doing is fine on an article-by-article basis, but not when hacking away entire families of articles on important subjects. Wikidemon (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Every editor is asked to help the project by removing unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from BLPs. You don't have to understand the field, or be willing to contribute to the article. If you see material that's negative and the sourcing looks wobbly, remove it. Someone who knows something about it can replace it with sourcing later. However it is always better that we exclude such material until and unless someone is willing to sort it. The subjects of wikipedia's biographies are living people - and wikipedia can have real life damaging consequences where we get it wrong. Excluding all poorly sourced allegations is really the least we can do.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with what ahs been said so far in this thread, BLP is a bright-line urgency focused policy. It requires immediate removal and places the bar for re-insertion on finding sources. It is not a "lets leave it in while we debate it" situation, it is a "remove it until we are sure it can be included" situation. MBisanz 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. BLP like everything else is subject to some degree of reasonable judgment, and if carried to the extremity of the letter becomes ridiculous. Not everything about a person is controversial. Using the excuse of BLP to remove noncontroversial material, or to blank or delete whole articles where lesser measures suffice, is abusing the policy. You do have to understand the field a little in most cases to know what material is controversial. Even in BLP, it is more helpful to source than to delete. The ease in finding adequate sources for the material under discussion illustrates the harmfulness of these blankings. Not every BLP case is an emergency--we have a noticeboard for the purpose of discussing them and asking for sources. The response should be proportionate to the possible harmfulness. BLP if over-interpreted will be discredited. The actions here were, in my opinion, a pretty remarkable over-interpretation. DGG (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is it harmful to remove something for a bit when it can be replaced with a source as soon as anyone is ready to do it? Who is harmed if we've got a bit less info on a neo-nazi for a bit? "Harm" is a really easy word to bandy about, but ultimately the "harm" of some unsourced and potentially unreliable information missing for a bit (and still in the edit history) is no harm at all, compared to some untruth remaining because we relaxed our guard. Yes, source when you can, yes discuss, but in the meantime if the information is likely to be damaging if untrue (and associating people with far-right organisations and holocaust denial will be) then take it out. If it is true and sourcable then "eventually" it will be restored or replaced. Little, or no, real harm is caused by that, plenty potentially by the opposite.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) English language sources have a good deal to do with it. Misplaced Pages has no fact-checking mechanism. If someone posts something it is published globally. Our only fact-checking mechanism is that someone says "hm, I'm not sure about that", so they click on the source that's referenced at the end of the statement and say "oh, it's fine - that's a good source and it clearly supports the claim" or "nope, not in the source, or not a good source, take it out". Now, with BLPs and negative claims we need brilliant sourcing, so that any bad stuff has a hope of identified. Foreign language sources can be fine - but are not going to be adequate to support strongly negative BLP claims, simply because there's a lesser chance of bad stuff being spotted - also if there are no english language sources claiming that Joe is a paedophile, then we really need to ask ourself whether the claim is really noteworthy at all. If we allow people to insert "Joe was convicted of paedophilia" and reference some Chinese source, then any hope of quality control just left the building.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• But wouldn't that also be true for print sources? You can't just check those, either, especially if you're British and want to check an American print source (or vice versa). --Conti|✉ 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately yes. Any source that is not online, or otherwise readily available, ultimately leaves us having to trust the editor who says "This books states he's a pedophile". The best conditions are where we can cite a printed source and also an online one that states "this is what this book says". Think of it this way, if you had a wikibio, would you want me to be able to alleged that you'd murdered your mother and put a citation to some obscure book, and your only chance of it being removed was if someone a) got suspicious b) checked the book at some well-stocked university library?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Several hoax articles have come up at AFD where the creators have tried to be clever and cited books. The experience of AFD is that it actually makes it a lot easier to check. False citations work heavily against the hoaxer, the malicious editor, and the vandal. Misplaced Pages editors are far from being incapable of checking books. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. We should not succumb to "FUTON bias", many editors are at universities with extensive libraries. I recall the case of Tuatafa Hori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here, where the hoaxer cited a book reference that was rapidly proven to be bogus. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I think Scott is totally wrong here. The English Misplaced Pages fortunately has editors who can handle essentially every language in which sources are likely to exist--there are at least a hundred active editors, for example, who can read German; any of them can be consulted. we can further assume the deWP to have taken some care in its judgements, though we are not bound by them. I would require pretty strong evidence that a German source they accept is not acceptable here. We are not the encyclopedia of the online world only. Choosing an example of "pedophile" is a version of Godwin's fallacy. DGG (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RMHED making a point? That's never happened. There's a difference between questioning the reliability of a source or questioning the accuracy of an article, and blanking the page. If they've published a book about their positions, it isn't a BLP violation to state those positions. If they didn't want those positions to be known, they probably wouldn't have published the book. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

right--to take almost the most drastic of possible actions is what makes these really questionable. DGG (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone removes unsourced material from any article on the basis that it is unsourced the easiest thing to do is find a source and add it back in, if a source can't be found then it's questionable whether the material should be included in the first place. WP:BLP and WP:V make it pretty clear that if it would take a ten second Google search to find a source, do that search don't just put the material back in on the basis that such a search would be possible. The burden of evidence falls on those wishing to include material that has been challenged - as the material has been in this case. Guest9999 (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If any article on a holocaust denier is challenged on the grounds that "this article uses only German-language sources", feel free to drop me a line on my Talk page and I will be happy to check out what the source says and report on it. This offer goes for on-line sources as well as for print sources. The city I live in is home to the Deutsche Bibliothek, which keeps a copy of every book that is printed in German, as well as periodicals.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged, vandalism rampant

What can I say, Clue Bot down, no huggler's online, and those reporting to AIV continue to vandalize. Please can I get some help --Flewis 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Empty, as of 12 minutes later. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 09:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Youknowbest

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

I'm not going to say anything, but I reckon this user, their contributions and their interactions with me this evening (check my talkpage history) need some looking into. Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did say something just by posting here. Nevertheless, it appears we have a warrior for The Truth when it comes to Judaism. As an atheist, I proudly know fuck all about the subject, but I've reverted his unreverted contributions because they're simply not encyclopedic, rely on interpreting a single source and just read like bollocks. He may be right, or not, but such debate needs to take place away from Misplaced Pages and be reported here, rather than happening here and being reported elsewhere. I'll mention this to him. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I ran into him at Aaron - I haven't the foggiest idea why he is adding large chunks of text as he has there. He is editing a lot of articles though and I think someone who does have a less foggy idea needs to take a look. Doug Weller (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for all the attention. It could be tough dealing with a sadducee after 2000 years. Lets all just get along, eh. Youknowbest (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was this type of thing I was talking about on your talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

His message on my text page says, among other things, "For the site to ramble on without these specific commandments shown, sis somewhat pointless" -? Doug Weller (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. One should not defend ones self, despite vicious attacks. PS. I sent a note to Doug and hopefully he will respond. In response to Redvers: We are talking facts after all; but if one doen’t believe in the 'bible' in question or the people involved in the bible, that is another issue entirely. My quotes are directly from the 5 Books of Moses. Like it or not, how it is packaged on your site may be relevant, but the word are exact and are more important that some commentary about them. IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowbest (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a request for a specific administrator action (blocking, protecting, deleting) anywhere in here, or should this content dispute be carried on elsewhere? Certainly, we don't need to use our magical admin powers to decide whose version of these articles is more compliant with Misplaced Pages policy, we have dispute resolution for that! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like no, there isn't. If users would like to continue whatever's going on here, dispute resolution and user talk pages are always open. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha

Youknowbest (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bible a reliable source? maybe for fiction. The Bible is a tricky subject, as it's seen as the truth to some & the false to others. Anyways, that's my opinon, cheers. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this helpful? Enigma 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure; I was merely pointing, not everybody consider the Bible a reliable source. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

According to wiki: 'Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care'] 'Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident written or narrated by the eyewitness is an example of a primary source.'

Wouldn't you agree that the 5 Books for Moses Sefer Torah be just that, a 'Primary Source'? Youknowbest (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! I'm an atheist. PS- use whatever sources you wish; cheers. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay mate. Have a look at the section deuteronomy. Here is a perfect example of the contributer re-writing their own version of the book. How can that be more accurate the the original? You can't make this stuff up! Regardless IMO wiki is a good source but users should be allowed to post FACTS and that is what I try to do. If a sentence is quoted from the bible and you want to interpret it one way or another, that is your choice, but please place the orginal for all to see it. I rest my case. If you like I will change my name to PRIMARY_SOURCE in the hopes for a higher acceptance rate. I am so unpopular ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowbest (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing you, YKB. Feel free to do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have no idea who the author of the athiest script is; it might not be available, (maybe hidden in a Barnes and Noble cellar) but if it is, one should be able to quote directly from the athiest script and post it on the athiest page. Maybe you can write the bible for athiests and it will be too a PRIMARY SOURCE. Let me know if you need help. Then all future athiests can find their roots at the wiki athiest web.Youknowbest (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to express some discomfort here. Youknowbest is an account that has existed for three days and made about 200 edits in that time, adding a large mass of text with sophisticated formatting. It is clear to me, even knowing little about the topic, that many of these edits will be seen as disruptive once people have time to review them. Looie496 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Looie496 and Redvers here. This is not just a content discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The above issue appears to be 'resolved' but nobody has taken any action other than criticize one who has spent many hours trying to contribute to a website viewed internationally with some level of respect. I don’t plan on being leader of your group, or even popular, but I do propose to level the clear bias towards Rabbinical Judaism on this site. I have been attacked, called names, my comments deleted without explanation like some kind of sick soap opera. Please leave me alone if you cannot be cordial in your comments. I too can be boorish, delete and manipulate, but I choose not to. You manly men and pretty girls have a great day! Oh and my source of information, a PRIMARY SOURCE and legal to use in WIKI is the Sefer Torah located at : "Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon thy land." Youknowbest (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how this can be explained any more simply: if you add material where you have come to a conclusion, it will be removed. You need to quote others who are saying this. You may not like these rules, but they are indeed the rules. You're not being attacked or called names; and no one on this page cares about how popular or not you are or wish to be. But one fact remains: don't add material where you have come to a conclusion unless you can quote others that have come to the same conclusion. Are we there yet? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You could be but lets talk facts, kind fellow. Take a look see at http://en.wikipedia.org/Deuteronomy and cast your eyes down to 'Second sermon' and what do you see? You see a CONTRIBUTORS opinion on the writings of the sefer torah. Then be so kind to look farther down to the section named 'Christianity' and what do you see? You see a direct QUOTE made form the bible.

So lets be reasonable. If I am the only one being denied making PRIMARY SOURCE quotes, what of the rest of wiki? Is there a special law just for me? Yes we could be close, but please understand my frustration in many hours lost of good work with honest intentions. Youknowbest (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I APPOLOGIZE***

The subject matter of Rabbinical Judaism may be beyond the understanding of many contributors, so for the sake of trying to conclude, I offer you another example:

On wiki : Orthodox Judaism teaches that sodomy is homosexual anal sex, and is a sin and toevah (abomination), based on the Bible passages Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; the injunction "Do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman; it is abhorrent." THIS IS A QUOTE FROM A DIRECT SOURCE But it isn't quite right. It should read: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.'
So you see many quotes from the bible are made without quoting a source because it is meant to mislead the public. By the way, under teh word 'abomination' doesn't appear even once even though the direct quote is: 'And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'
Yes maybe I get it now, I see your point, in a nut shell, the skinny, the nuts and bolts of it. Youknowbest (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does this come with a point? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Disregarding the absurd comment below, I think the threat of "Keep watching," combined with the hassle I'm getting on my talkpage and the hassle he's giving other completely random editors (Andrevan, Dougwellre, Lifebaka etc.) on theirs merits some admin intervention. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't get it, I tried but failed, I bent over backwards to please, but there was for me no cigar, but I do get it. Keep watching because YOUKNOWBEST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowbest (talk • contribs)

The point seems to be that he thinks he knows what the only TRUE translation is, and my fear is that he is trying to impose it on Misplaced Pages. I've just looked up the wording he doesn't like, and found it being used on the website of The Rabbinical Assembly, the international association of Conservative rabbis "Do+not+lie+with+a+man+the+lyings+of+a+woman;+it+is+abhorrent"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk - pdf itself is here . He claims the version used by the Rabinnical Assembly is meant to mislead the public, if I understand him correctly. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

...Tag, Red and Doug. Are you one in the same people? If you make a quote, you should supply the source. No? Do you see the source you quoted on wiki? No you had to dig for it. I have posted quotes and reliable sources and you have objected. Fine and Tag, that was no threat. Duh, if there was a consequence stated after the action it could have been determined to be one. But so is "If you don't cover your mouth when you sneeze you could infect people" be considered a threat too. Get a freekin life. Oh, and RED, would you like me to post the names that TAG so eliquently stated on wiki so you can then say that I broke one of wikis cardinal sins. Oh boy and abomination, death befalls me. Give me a break...Youknowbest (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)names that TAG so eliquently stated on wiki - what does that mean? I don't understand a word... Anyway, I propose that unless YouK drops this campaign of hassle, POV-warring and general disruption he is blocked for 36 hours. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, all religions are meant to mislead the public. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

TAG, you're such a bully. Just stick to the subject and answer the questions. It shouldn't be too difficult. I hate to tell you other than members throwing legal wiki humbo jumbo at me, you still haven't addresses the many, many inconsistencies in your one sided message. Would you prefer a different language?

And why do you keep deleting my answer to RED's question and that is:

MISLEADING THE PUBLIC!!

Please don't be a pain and try to force the issue. Just leave it up like good fellas.

Youknowbest (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are, or Misplaced Pages is? I ask purely for information, as you have, at last count, at least 4 editors here completely baffled as to what the problem is. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan

:-) I really would like to know if I am right in thinking that Youknowbest is claiming that his translation is the only correct translation and that the translation used by the Rabinnical Assembly is wrong and should not be used. Doug Weller (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no need, I am right, he's said as much on his talk page . That's why he's editing articles saying the translations in them are wrong and adding his. I think this discussion is at the right place. Doug Weller (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DOUG, its not that they are wrong, they haven't made a clear destinction as to which belief of Jew it comes from. That would be like saying the New Testament is 'wrong'. If you say the JEWISH BIBLE, then according which group of Jews is it the JEWISH BIBLE, because your version isn't the same as mine, but we can both make our references, right? I don't see the problem other that the reluctance to accept another point of view, in this case mine, the sadducee view, which never died, just got stored away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowbest (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never stated that my opinion is right and you maye be wrong. That is a lie. But I have made direct comments from articles in the bible offer in a point of view with accurate references.

Doug; A Rabbinical Judaism has a different take on on religion versus a sadducee versus a conservative Jew versus a Messianic Jew versus Reformed. All could be quoted BUT all should have accurate references. My references for Aaron were that of the 5 books of Moses, which for most Jews, I haven't found one that doesn't, believe IS THE WORD OF GOD. They believe it is the truth and the words can be displayed as such and if they have adifferent version they can display that too but it shoudl be source as you did with A conservative WEBSITE AND NOT A Rabbinical JudaismWEBSITE. There is a clear difference here. Does NOT think that his translation is the only 'true' translation - What an assumption to make! Youknowbest (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is really a bad idea to call other editors liars. That was my interpretation of what you wrote -- "then the 'other' writings of Rabbinical Judaism are all hipocracy and against the word of God" and of course you also wrote " Then they had polpe like rambam agreeing with the talmud and so on another layer of lies was added." You also have just said that a Rabbinical Judaism website should not be used as a source, and I can't see why under our policies and guidelines it shouldn't be. Anyway, you now seem to be stating that you are not claiming that the translation you prefer is the true translation, which is good even if it seems to conflict with other things you have written. Btw, would you please use edit summaries? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"TAG, you're such a bully. Just stick to the subject and answer the questions." What does this mean? What questions? What "names" that I apparently made public are you going to cause more trouble about? What have I done that is bullying and not asking you to stick to our policies?

And everyone else, thoughts on a block? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a block maybe required. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has announced an intention to edit disruptively. ("I do propose to level the clear bias towards Rabbinical Judaism on this site"). Given the lack for tolerance for other viewpoints shown in the present discussion, that seems to me to justify a block. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a block? Like a building block? Is it a threat? Why aren't my questions being answered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowbest (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One last attempt at WP:AGF. Youknowbest, is English your first language? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can take AGF too far. How can someone who's received warnings on Misplaced Pages not know what a block is, when they can use words like "source" "reliable" "rabbinical" and "consequence"? I don't think so, personally. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can take these things too far, yes. But with AGF the "too far" is very very far, just in case. If YKB has stopped pestering you on your talk page, we can afford to extend the AGF a bit further. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

< True. I suggest that if there's any more nonsense, righteous POV-"correction", rudeness, hassling, canvassing or generally awkward behaviour and absurd comments, then a block for 36-48 hours might be in order. We also have to bear in mind Looie's quote above, threatening to wreak havoc! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

When disagreement occurs, explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus.

QUESTION: HAS THIS BEEN ACHIEVED? YES OR NO? No. So lets be creative and act in good faith to try to improve this wealth of information.AGF signing outYouknowbest (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That was worth it: extend the AGF, prove that we're being trolled. So now I can be added to the list of people prepared to support a block should YKB add any of his WP:SYNTH rubbish to articles in the near future. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What was worth it? Is this a bait and switch? Is that what it is, a game to waste my time? I am done with the nonsence, collectively, give each other a big hug, keep the site the way you see the world through rose coloured glasses. I don't care, but it was an education how this site operates and I will be copying this page for future reference. What a joke!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowbest (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bye, then. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So wiki is outa San Francisco? Boy they musta got a rise about my comments on the anal sex and the abomination deal in the sefer torah, which REDVER never answered. No wonder the site leans so far to the left, it's almost bending over. Just so you know RED, the Jews don't accept a gay way of life, it's an abomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowbest (talk • contribs) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it; whatcha talking about YKB? GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Further up this thread, YKB switched targets from... well, whatever it was... to suddenly talking about homosexuality and how much of something it is about something and such. To which I didn't rise, which must have been very annoying for him. But he missed the point that I don't care what he thinks about what I do in the privacy of my own home. Or elsewhere, on occasion. He's entitled to his worthless views. I'm just in the whole poky-bum-sex thing for the cock, not the politics. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks, Redvers. That's a new keyboard you owe me, if I can't dry the coffee out of it ;) Black Kite 21:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just muddled through this whole thread. I can't believe this user isn't blocked yet. Tan | 39 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if we can block merely for complete cluelessness, although clearly there is an element of trolling as well. Black Kite 21:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Competence is required. Tan | 39 21:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Having said that, he claims to have left Misplaced Pages now, so there's nothing more to do here. If he comes back and repeats the behaviour we can always act. Marking this, therefore, resolved. Black Kite 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In agreement; though I'm not fully sure what it was we resolved. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing protected pages

Protected pages - the text box area now shows up in light RED when edited.

This should help to avoid the occasional problem when an administrator edits such a page and for whatever reason, doesn't realize or notice it's been protected (despite the header). FT2  01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Having been the victim of having a page protected when you weren't looking, I think this is an excellent idea. Shell 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It happened to me once to, I simply didn't notice it was protected. 68.10.122.209 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. No. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I believe the above IP is in fact an admin not logged in. If you're reading this, I recommend one of these gadgets. — CharlotteWebb 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me: I just tried editing the main page, and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. A couple of possibilities: I'm using Opera and I'm using the Classic skin. --Carnildo (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be the skin - I've tested it in Opera (windows) and it seems to work there as well. Did this change only happen to the css for monobook? Shell 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you bypass your local cache? The change was made to Common.css, so it should affect all skins, though that page is cached for 30 days unless bypassed explicitly. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to edit the main page also -- a quick flash of red which I could have missed, then I was down the page in the Edit field. Maybe that's what happened to Carnildo? Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be fixed so it works for pages which are transcluded in cascade-protected pages - ], for example.

That didn't last long. ~ User:Ameliorate! 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested to be discussed by a user to confirm there is consensus - see MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Red tinting of edit box on fully protected pages. FT2  14:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached and tint re-established. However, to quote Carcharoth: "If any admins accidentally edit a protected page and claim they didn't see the tinting, it is worth remembering that they may not have cleared their cache." So AGF for about 30 days, please. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What if they started editing before it was protected? How hard would it be to tweak the software so that protecting a page automatically gives everyone an edit conflict? — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Random question

I changed MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning to the new format, but I don't know how (or what) to change in Common.css to make the edit window show up with that awesome red background thingy when you try editing a cascade-protected page. Can someone who does know change it? J.delanoy_adds 05:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

barack obama

Have you read the introduction of Barack Obama the early years, child was on the site, the lanuage is outrages and it will be reportes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trenide (talk • contribs) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if there was any vandalism/rude text in the header, though this site is subject to a disclaimer that such material may be there and children read Misplaced Pages at their parents' risk. Out of interest, who are you planning to report it to? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious. That makes at least two SPAs created apparently just to point out IP vandalism on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

You know what's more curious? We have a new editor who's first and ONLY edit is to WP:AN... Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism that Trenide is complaining about was self-reverted, too... curiouser and curiouser. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, very strange... First edit on WP:ANI... I smell sockpuppets! --Mixwell! 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not to breakup the conspiracies, but I know the first time I saw vandalism on this site, my first thought was to report it to administrators. It's not always sinister, and admins on most other sites admit to holding a position of authority. - auburnpilot talk 17:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well "officially" admins have no authority here, but whether that's actually the case is another matter ;-) -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

Hiya, everybody. Yesterday I protected Joe the Plumber for 48 hours due to an edit war, and that protection is gonna' wear off early tomorrow morning. It doesn't seem that the content dispute that triggered the war is at all over, and I fear that it will resume as soon as the protection does expire. I wouldn't like to extend the protection, so that non-warrior editors can continue to work on it as normal, so if I could get some more eyes over on it now that'd be great. Cheers, and thanks. lifebaka++ 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about blocking the people that continue to edit war? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whether its the same people or random IP vandalism. If there are a small number of edit warriors and they don't get the message from page protection, then definitely block the edit warriors next time. Thatcher 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

With sufficient warning, that is in fact my plan. I just can't be on 24/7. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Editnotices have been shown to be incredibly effective for edit wars, if you're interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that looks like a useful idea. Any examples of effective ones in recent use, MZ? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There's one on Sarah Palin, actually. Just read up on it. Thanks for the link, MZ, that will help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, that one's good. Agree with lifebaka - a useful tool to consider in the future. Ta muchly, MZ. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a list of editnotices currently in use? Or a way to find out whether a page has an editnotice without actually clicking on "edit this page"? I've asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Editnotice. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and sort of. --Carnildo (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PrefixIndex is a bit more of a 'canonical' way of getting the list. That is, it doesn't specify a start and end like AllPages does. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and a wikilink can be made so readers can see where it goes without clicking: Special:PrefixIndex/Mediawiki:Editnotice. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is restarting: , . Basically no compromised can be reached because some editors strongly believe that facts published in mainstream media of all political leanings (from WaPo to Fox News), should still be excluded from Misplaced Pages based on BLP policy. Good luck sorting this one out. VG ☎ 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also fighting over "the most famous plumber in the nation" statement . Seriously WP:LAME. VG ☎ 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One editor has made at least 4 reverts in a very short time period. QuackGuru 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Petitions

I keep finding petitions linked in articles. Sites like petitions.pm.gov.uk (see Special:LinkSearch/petitions.pm.gov.uk) and gopetition (Special:LinkSearch/*.gopetition.co.uk). In every case I would say the the link exists for one of two purposes: attracting signatures, or original research, as in "an online petition gained 50,000 signatures", which is inappropriate unless cited from an independent source which contextualises it and maybe tells you that this was only because it was spammed on Misplaced Pages.

Here's a pretty standard example: - "On May 31st 2008, a petition was created asking the producers, Kevin Wallace Limited, to release the show on DVD for those who wanted to enjoy the show again or for those who could not afford to see it.<ref>Petition: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/19670.html</ref> It is yet to be confirmed from the Producers whether or not the petition will pass through." Not a surprise that it was "yet to be confirmed" since the text was added on May 31 2008, the same day the petition was started.

I think that petition sites should be blacklisted due to systematic abuse. I know that each petition is added by a different user or group of users, and I know that the petitions may be significant in that they may gain media coverage, but the way to cover petitions both before and after the event is through the filter of independent media coverage. I really am uncomfortable with the idea of linking direct to petitions in this way. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes good sense to me. (Leaves to set up a web petition in support of this idea.) alanyst 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, if a petition becomes notable - an independent source will report on it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Guy. There have been some notable petitions online, but even when reporting them we would link to sources talking about the petition in question first and the petition itself at the end, if at all. But in a general article, all petitions are non-notable events until they have significant third-party sources. And the link to the sources should suffice. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Petitions are often associated with POV pushing and soapboxing, and lead to obnoxious talkpage exchanges. See Talk:Venlafaxine for a prime example - lengthy explanations against and handwringing in support of a link to a petition (just hit CTRL-F and navigate thusly - it permeates 100k+ of conversation). I particularly advocate blacklisting petitiononline.com as well as the above sites. In general, online petitions fail WP:EL without independent sourcing. Skinwalker (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Oh, and while we're on the subject, how many of the several thousand links to freewebs.com are legitimate, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 23:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Or indeed all the links to wikia.com . RMHED (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to filter by article space. Pity that doesn't seem to be an option. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

← Agree with blacklisting the petition sites. Freewebs and Wikia may be harder. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot would be appropriate in that case. MER-C 09:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot won't revert refs, though, and I think freewebs is mostly used as such. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whack it on the User:XLinkBot/OverrideList and it will. There's also the issue of links on legitimate Wikipedian's user pages. MER-C 11:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gopetition isn't linked from any mainspace page. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not any more it isn't, no. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It was linked from a number of mainstream pages, I examined the links and removed them. Not a single one was required for the article or notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know freewebs. I've just clicked on a link and I really don't like it because I got a message at the top of the page saying I'd been selected as the winner of an Audi and to click on selected-winner.co.uk -- I don't think we allow links like that, do we? Doug Weller (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with blacklisting petition sites. Durova 16:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with any combination of blacklisting and documenting in WP:RS and/or WP:PSTS that they are in general not desirable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about unlinked items in list at List of web application frameworks

Quick question for an admin's attention, if somebody could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Over at List of web application frameworks, the list has contained at various times quite a few examples which did not have their own Misplaced Pages page, and instead only served as pointer links to the websites for those applications (or redlinks). I brought this up on the talk page here , and received a grand total of one response. What's the proper thing to do here? Should we purge the list, or leave the redlinks and website links up? Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of external links in the body of articles, especially in the body of lists. My instinct is: see if a source out there lists these frameworks and make a list with plain text for nn entries (there should be a list in an RS out there, this is a common "Oh crap we need some copy" type of topic). WP:EL and WP:NOTDIR both frown on leaving this as a list of external links, for what it is worth. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• I've trimmed a lot of those entries per WP:EL. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• It is normal and quite acceptable to prune those which do not have articles, perWP:LINKFARM. We can link to an appropriate DMOZ category for those who wish to promote their new freshmeat project. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

I have recently noted a few problems with AfD closure process. Since this is mostly an admin process, this seems like the best page to discuss it.

The main problems are that AFD's are closed too soon, and that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old is updated too soon. The WP:DPR clearly states that "Every day, the day page (i.e. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." This is what Mathbot does, but people can't wait for it and add the next day (much) earlier. As an example, the page for the 17th was added early on the 21st, which means that many AfD's were only 3 1/2 days old, instead of the required 5.

Today, 18 October was added some 12 hours before Mathbot would have done it automatically: more serious, at that time (less than 4 1/2 day after the last AfD's were started), only 20 of the 112 discussions were still open! Excluding Speedies and relisted debates, this still means that many AfD's were closed before the page was listed on the /old page (as the Deletion Process mandates", and that they were closed before 5 days had passed (e.g for the second one, 4 days and 2 hours had passed).

I am not arguing that these closures were incorrect wrt the result: I have not checked them. But five days was the compromise between a swift process and sufficient time for everyone to research articles and improve them (and the suggestions to lengthen the period are regular fixtures on WT:AFD). Could we all please try to not close regular AfD's before five days have passed and before the page is listed on /Old, and could we also not list new dates on /old manually, since Mathbot does that automatically? Thanks... Fram (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue here. Mathbot does not list the days on /Old automatically. The AFD page is listed when the page is more than five days old — the AFD page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 18 was created at 00:00 on October 18th (i.e. the start of the day) and that page became five days old at 00:00 this morning and was listed on WP:OLD at 03:19 this morning, at which stage it was just over 123 hours old. Process has been followed here, although as you rightly point out, Kurykh added the 17th too early.

It's a side effect of the instruction that an AFD listed at 23:59 on the 18th will only be open for four days and a minute when that AFD page becomes eligible for listing at WP:OLD. However, the current instructions are being followed as written.

On a side point, there is a discussion at WT:CSD on lengthening the delay on delayed speedy deletions to seven days; it's been suggested that AFDs should go the same way. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, Stifle (and I'll revert your change to the AFD/Old page). Mathbot does list pages if given the chance, e.g. here. Pages should only be listed five days after the page has been "closed" for new entries, so that all discussions get at least five days. If this is stated differently somewhere, those instructions should be changed / clarified. I'll take a look at the CSD discussion, hadn't seen that one yet. Fram (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the procedure says — it says that they are listable on /old when the AFD page is five days old. If you wish to change the current practice, please establish a consensus for that. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Or just call over to Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Time limits where we're trying to unify all the limits anyway. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for inadvertently removing two of your comments, they have been kindly reinserted by Tikiwont) The prodcedure says to movethem when it is "more than five days old", which is open to interpretation. Five days and one minute? Or at least 6 days? In the end, all guidelines have to be in line with the policies, and the deletion policy clearly states that "The discussion lasts at least five days". If you wish to change the policy, ... ;-) (by the way, the discussion at CSD will not be good enough tochange time limits for other kinds, this has to be done at WT:DP or the Village Pump) Fram (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue? Some AfDs become speedy deletes. Others become snowball keeps. There are nonadministrative closures. Specifically what is the problem? Things that should be deleted that are kept before their time? Deletes that happen before the appointed time? If I were to name a single problem with AfD procedure it is that nonadmins sometimes jump the gun by closing as keep in unclear cases and before the discussion is done. And a close second is the participation of sockpuppets, hotheads, and SPAs. Wikidemon (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The specific issue that I understand Fram is making is that AFDs are being closed earlier that he feels they should be. (Feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you, Fram.) Stifle (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. For a number of reasons (one being guidelines that are unclear or not in line with policy), the correct procedure as described in the deletion policy is rarely followed anymore: while on the one hand we have discussions to lengthen the time deletion discussions stay open, on the other hand actual practice is to close them (individually) or move them to the "old" page (in group) before five days have passed. As long as the policy is to have at least five days of discussion, we should stick to that and not close AfD's early en masse. Fram (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

About the duration of the AfDs - I have started to go down the list of AfDs and see what the results were and when the decisions were made (currently at User:Od Mishehu/notes). In the first 40 we have 2 relists; 7 speedy delete; 2 withdrawn; 1 with a WP:SNOW deletion and userfying; 1 early non-admin closure; 1 still open; the other 26 were all closed after anything from 4 days 2 hours till 4 days 11 hours, mostly by MBisanz around 1:43-1:49 UTC today. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the technical instructions when to list log files are subordinate to the policy covering the time for the deletion discussion. As that is five days for AfDs the section marked 'old' should only include AfDs that have passed that limit. As AfDs aren't listed single but in logs, the log should be moved there only when the most recent AfD inside is at least five days old. Which seems to mean once the log is six days old. People can still close those AfD individually that are five days old or close to it. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry sounds like process wonkery for me. From what I've seen, any close that isn't clear more often sticks around 6-7 than 5 in the first place; and those that get close by shaving the 5 day delay are the clearcut ones that aren't going to be saved at the 11th hour by a cleverly rewritten article. Unless a demonstration can be made that there are cases where the result would have been different a few hours later, I'm certainly not going to stand around XfD with a stopwatch and yell "out of process" if a clear discussion is going to be close early. If this leads to actual abuse, then it needs to be examined. If the only problem with the rounded delay before closure is "it didn't last the specified duration", then it's a non-issue. — Coren  12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coren (Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy)- but the question is: What is the minimum time? When Serpentera was deleted, it had 3 votes to delete, none to keep. In the 21 hours it had till the end of the 5 days, a couple votes may have been cast to keep - and then there wouldn't be a clear consensus to delete anymore. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if the keep votes had just been 'this is an interesting article please don't delete it'? I'm getting tired of 'no consensus' closures when all the policy arguments are one way and the SPAs, first time editors who have edited nothing else, bring up a blog or a self-published website and the decision isn't made on policy grounds but, as you say, on 'votes'. Doug Weller (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's another issue entirely. The reason things happen as they currently do is simply one of practicality: XfD nominations happen at all times of the day, and administrators closing them have better things to do that trawl the page looking for the ones at the right time for closing... hence we organize into daily pages; which tend to be closed in one fell swoop (regardless of the time the XfD was put on that date's page). In practice, the clear XfD get closed really fast (which means that some may be 4 days and a few hours), the others not so fast, but all are potentially closed. Unless that few hours' difference actually changes outcomes (which would be made obvious by DRV), there I don't see an issue at all.

An argument could be made that we should have one (entire) extra day of delay, but (a) I don't see a need and (b) wanna bet some people will then start complaining that debates that should have been closed 23 hours ago!!1! have been affected? — Coren  13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Process wonkery? Then why have a policy at all? I am not complaining about some individual AfD that should get overturnd because it was closed 15 minutes too soon. I am complaining about the culture we have here of closing almost every AfD too soon, listing them on Afd/Old too soon, and so on. Admins are supposed to follow policy, except where it harms the encyclopedia. Waiting five days to close an AfD will probably not harm the encyclopedia. However, if you think that 3 days is enough for most AfD's, let's just change the policy to reflect consensus. I don't care either way, but it would appear a whole lot better if discussions actually run for at least the amount of time they are supposed to. Fram (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't. As I've stated just above your comment, an argument could be made to add one more "daily page" in the queue and thus make the discussion last from 5 to 6 days instead. My point is that arguing about which hour in that day is the right one is pointless. — Coren  13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think my argument boiled down to that. I will not complain if someone closes too late, or if it is closed five minuts early for some reason. The problem was with the systematical closures hours (and even more than a day regularly) before the policy-defined minimal time. Adding one day to the queue would help a bit (but isn't even needed: just wait for Mathbot to add the day, instead of doing it manually 16 hours earlier), and waiting for all normal closures until the page is listed at afd/old would help as well. It would make life even simpler: you (plural) don't have to add anything to afd/old, and you don't have to worry about the starting time of the AfD: if it is at /old, you may close it. Nothing more, nothing less. Fram (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Then why have a policy at all?" - Good point, policy is supposed to be descriptive of actual practice, not proscriptive of what people should be forced to do. It should probably be updated. That said, 90% of AFD comments some in the first 48 hours of the discussion, the other 3 or so days are mainly just a courtesy to people who don't check Misplaced Pages every day. But the odds of a comment after 4.5 days changing the consensus of a discussion are quite small. The only cases where it would would be active AFDs which should be left open longer, and cases where the consensus is so weak that one comment can change it, which should probably be relisted. Mr.Z-man 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can nobody see the problem here? 4 simultaneous corner 24 hour days and 4 Earth rotations occur within a single 24 hour rotation. Duh.

AfD discussions are meant to run for five days. Because AfDs are grouped into 24-hour "daily" pages, and because those pages are moved into the "Old" listing as a group, then there is inevitably a difference of up to 24 hours between the durations of AfDs. The solution, then, is, is to decide whether we want the error to be positive, negative, or split - in other words, whether we want discussions to run for 4-5 days, or 5-6 days, or 5 days +/- 12 hours, etc - and having decided this, to adjust MathBot as necessary.

Personally I see no harm in guaranteeing every AfD gets five days. Articles that survive the first few days of AfD without being speedied are unlikely to harm Misplaced Pages by sticking around for another 24 hours. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that harm could be done by cutting a discussion short. We're talking about getting rid of peoples' contributions here, and there should be no question in anyone's mind about whether or not we're giving their article a fair chance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved attention please

• Darren Meade (bodybuilder) (AfD discussion)
• Samanthadecanta (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Special:Undelete/Image:N630806210 6404.jpg (and diff)
• User talk:Samanthadecanta#Writing good neutral biographies
• diff
• diff
• diff

Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading that correctly, the user should be blocked immediately under WP:NLT, with an explanation of WP:NLT thrown in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Note Thread already on ANI Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_User_talk:Samanthadecanta. Pedro :  Chat  11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images across tool

Hi, try this new tool and if you will have a time, please clean it.--Sevela.p (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Block User:Merkinsmum

Can someone block User:Merkinsmum and revert their edits Gnevin (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? What have they done to warrant a block? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

] Whoa, looks like the account was compromised in the recent set of edits. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just everyone's favorite page move vandal, who sharked up an old username of someone who got renamed. MER-C 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Youknowbest - Part 2

In re: the the discussion about User:Youknowbest, said user has continued disruptive editing (See user's last edit to Aaron). Normally I'd just keep reverting & warning the user until I escalate to report to admin for vandalism, but since we've started a discussion here, I guess the right thing to do is bring it up here again. The specific edits involved now are regarding the user's continual replacement of Hebrew Bible with Sefer Torah, which is factually incorrect. Not sure where to go from here. Shirulashem (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For those who aren't Jewish, the Hebrew Bible refers to the content, to the words, whereas the Sefer Torah refers to the actual physical scroll. I think that a block is necessary; he's rude, abusive, a POV-warrior. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was already blocked, via his IP account posting -yesterday-. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys should ease up already. If you want a decent conversation send me a message. But please, you are setting a bad example to the public and the use of this valuable toolYouknowbest (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a checkuser without knowing what the alternate accounts might be? The level of trolling here is much too skillful for this to be as new a user as the history indicates. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We should start with a block on the account in question now, though, to start! But I agree, a CU might be insightful. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

< He's just gone way over 3RR on Aaron, too. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When there's a bull in a china shop, after a while you don't really care what the bull's motivation is; you just want him out of the china shop. After watching out of the corner of my eye (via the constant updates to the User:Youknowbest ANI threads on my watchlist) at this disruption for the last day, I think Youknowbest is disrupting multiple articles and discussion threads, making very questionable edits and rants mixed in with some inarguably good edits.

If he is a troll, we'll know soon enough. Assuming he is not a troll, but a well-intentioned newcomer jumping into everything feet first, I think it's time for me (a 100% uninvolved admin) to say:

• No, really, slow down. Discuss, calmly, before repeating more of the edits that are getting everyone excited. Please try to be more coherent; a lot of what you say doesn't appear to make sense. Avoid posts to ANI that appear to be trolling. If you continue to edit the way you've been editing up until now, a block may be in order, and will very likely be issued immediately if this continues.

Then, see what happens, and act accordingly. I won't be around this afternoon to act on it, but I really think this has been going on long enough. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked 24hrs by FisherQueen for the edit-war. Let's say that if he comes back and still starts making trouble (we can "mentor" him while he's blocked) then he goes for longer - 3 days upwards? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I declined the unblock before even coming here, mainly because the request was more of a rant than anything else. I did take the opportunity to provide a few guidelines links for him to read, so hopefully that'll help him figure out what's going on. Hersfold 19:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone seen his edits to his talk page recently? I'm tempted to block him from editing it, what do others think? Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen them. His talk-page edits are turning into hate-mongering. I'd let the Administrators decide on wheither to block or not. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

His talk page is an absolute hoot. The gay anti-Semitic editors of Misplaced Pages - you know, all of us - are out to get him. But don't worry, he has The Truth on his side, care of his own translation of the Torah. So that's nice then. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protected for remainder of block (~40 hours, give or take). Enough is enough, let's move on. Tan | 39 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

His block was extended to a week. DCEdwards 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved, experienced admin requested...

... to determine consensus and close and archive the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Arthur_Rubin with a clear and neutral statement of consensus. I think the productive part of the discussion is over. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks a "Wikiquette alerts" page is pure silliness? Furthering its silliness, how does one even pronounce "Wikiquette"? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been pronouncing it like "WIKI-kett." I'm not sure if there is an official pronunciation. Mr.Z-man 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IPA: . — CharlotteWebb 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the IPA. Problem: many people have difficulty reading pronunciation guides, because they are written in such a way as to be understandable by people from only one country or region. Solution: a truly global pronunciation guide, written in such a way as to be understandable by no one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus F. Christ, my head hurts. Access the reliability of your sources and somebody will report you for racism. Make a political joke and somebody will report you for "BLP". Yet people still argue that we need more noticeboards? May as well lynch everybody who's ever disagreed with anybody and be done with it. P.S. there was no productive part, I looked. — CharlotteWebb 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for lynching? I must be psychic! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but fits the rest of the description. Anyway, closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• The WQA noticeboard is far older than PAIN/CSN/BLPN/COIN/RSN/ORN (as I remember, it was part of Esperanza) but perhaps it should go the way of the first two. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback

Just to mention it at the beginning, it is neither my intention to criticise someone personally nor to criticise a particular person. However I feel there is a need to bring up this matter here. I have been watching (and helping out at) Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback for a while now. To put it bluntly: Regretfully there are made, sorry, quite bad decisions far too frequently. I have seen that a lot of users who had reverted good faith edits were granted rollback. Honestly I think this can just happen because the review of users before granting rollback is not always sufficient/too fluffy/inaccurately. Again, it is neither my intention to criticise someone personally nor to criticise a particular person. I just would like to ask for taking a bit more time when reviewing rollback requests and doing an appropriate, sufficient and reasonable review. Needless to say, such a review can simply not be done within 5 minutes. Thanks in advance. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Often there is even no time to comment on a request, as the request is “reviewed/decided” that fast. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think the real thing is that each and every admin have their own set of requirements when granting rollback, and some are very low. I also know a few admins who just go around handing out rollback to users who they think would do a good job with it even when they do file a request. So, while you can ask admins to take more time reviewing, it does not mean they are going to make a different decision simply because they took longer. As for the archive time, I agree the bot needs to slow down a bit and leave a request up for at least 2 hours for administrative review. Tiptoety 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the requests ought to stay open for a certain set amount of time? Best, --Cameron* 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x2)This is somewhat intentional. Rollback is supposed to be an "easy come, easy go" tool. Unlike adminship, this really is no big deal. If people spend half an hour digging through users' contribution histories looking for any possible hint of improper reversions or we mandate a minimum review level, it starts to become a big deal. Obviously if they have problems recently with bad reverting or edit warring, it wouldn't be a good idea to grant it, but there's no reason to go back more than a month or so in their contribs looking for a reason to deny them. What would you suggest be a reasonable review? Mr.Z-man 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole idea behind rollback is that if abused, even unintentionally it just simply gets removed with a note left on the users talk and a option for them to reapply later. Tiptoety 16:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: Of course it is no big deal. And there is absolutely no need to spend half an hour for a review. Ten minutes are normally more than sufficient. To answer your question: Normally I review the reverts within the last 50 contributions at least, preferably the reverts within the last 100 contributions (if I'm not quite sure after having reviewed the first 50 contributions). Just this morning there was a user who had reverted one clear good faith edit within the last 50 contributions and two good faith edits in the last 100 contributions. I would have not done the request, but I planned to ask for another admin opinon before declining it. However I was not even able to comment on this request, as it was already done when I tried to save my comment. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole request process is by design very open, and it allows for any administrator to simply undo the others actions (this should not bee seen as a invitation to wheel war though). If you come across a request that has been marked {{done}}, and you feel it should not have, comment directly below the closing administrator and strike {{done}} to ensure the bot does not archive. Gain some consensus and remove rollback if that is the correct course of action. Tiptoety 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, generally I would not undo another administrator's action/decision if there is no really serious reason... —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You must have thought there was some serious to this, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up here. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said several times above: It was not my intention to criticise a particular person/a particular case. I just think there is a need to discuss about the general situation. This is the reason why I brought it up here. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As likely the reason he brought this here, I'll just say this - rollback really is not a big deal - You commented recently after I gave a user rollback and said you disagreed with it. Well, maybe you're making it into too much of a big deal. The wiki will not shut down if a user uses rollback and reverts a couple of edits that should not have been reverted. We simply remove the tool, and it is as simple as giving it to them. Why not let people try it...you never know. Of course there are some users who definitely shouldn't be trusted - those who have demonstrated a history of abuse - but the particular user I'm thinking of hasn't, to my knowledge. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrative rollback

I've seen administrators frequently abuse rollback for good faith edits. Why is it a problem if a non-admin rollbacker starts using it for non-vandalism? Rollback was created to revert edits quickly, not necessarily just for vandalism. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point here, sorry. Besides: It's not very civil/polite to revert a good faith edit using rollback. WP:BITE. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BITE is for newcomers, not regulars. I honestly don't see the issue. The only reason rollback should be taken away is if it's used for edit warring, or if it's clearly being used maliciously (e.g. if this edit was reverted on purpose, I'd count that as malicious). -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While we rarely call out admins for abuse of rollback (probably an internal failing more than condoning their behavior), Arbcom has ruled that administrative abuse of rollback is wrong Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Rollback MBisanz 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, just block people who revert good edits for no discernable reason, whether they're using rollback or not. — CharlotteWebb 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is different people have different standards for granting it, and what counts as misuse. I, for example, have rolled back good faith edits. I then went straight to the user in question's talk page explaining why I did. Does that count as misuse? How many reverts should a user have before getting rollback? And it is all rather trivial because scripts could just be used instead of rollback. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using rollback on good-faith edits is the edit-summary. While a (basically) meaningless summary is fine for vandalism, if you're undoing (reverting) something that someone thought was useful, it's better if it says why in the edit summary: that's sort of what it's there for. Your example isn't really misuse, but it still might have been better if you'd used an informative edit summary and explained in detail. Of course, the problem isn't you - it's people who use rollback, and then don't explain why they've done it, so the person who's contributions have been removed is left with Revert edits by you to last version by me as the explanation, which isn't great. Ale_Jrb 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the edit summary is what matters at all. Whether it says "Undid edits by John Doe (revision 235463634)" or "Reverted good-faith edits by Jane Doe using popups" or whatever, it's all the same really. The point is, rollback is quick and easy. If you're ready to explain your revert, there's no problem. The problem isn't when edits are rolled back, it's the lack of explanation to the user in question afterwards. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Really, you shouldn't be using pop-ups to revert edits anyway, but at least they say that the revert was a good-faith edit. Most people, when seeing the rollback summary, assume vandalism was reverted. They shouldn't have to check if that was the case. Undo is different, because you edit the edit-summary (or at least, ideally you should) providing a reason, just as you would if you reverted manually by opening and saving an old version. And explanations (especially on a user talk page rather than an article talk page) don't show up, or really help, when viewing a page history or a user contributions. There, Reverting good faith edit: addition of factually inaccurate information. is much, much better than Reverted edits by someone to someone-else. Personally, I think people should use both. But an edit summary is better than nothing, which is what usually happens when people rollback good-faith edits using rollback (admin or no). Ale_Jrb 17:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of somewhat common situations where reverting good faith edits with rollback would be okay. The only things I can think of would be instances where we would warn users with templates like {{uw-test1}} for possibly-good-faith but unconstructive edits, bot screw-ups, and cases where you have permission from the user/community to do so. Rollback is not a 100% substitute for "undo," if the reason for the revert is non-obvious or would not be considered a minor edit, it generally shouldn't be done with rollback. Leaving a note on the user's talk page is okay, but what about other users who see that revert in the page history later? Without knowing the details for this specific case it may not matter, but reasons for making an edit should generally go in the edit summary. People shouldn't generallly have to dig through talk archives or ask users why an edit was done, if the reason could be condensed into 255 characters (though the article talk page with a summary of "see talk" is still better than a user talk page). Mr.Z-man 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo does the same thing as rollback, except it's more adaptable (as in, you can write an edit summary, or remove old edits in the history, or one at a time). I'm not sure why we need to make a distinction; simply put, one is faster and less adaptable. If people saw the revert in the history, and checked the diff, they'd see exactly why it was reverted. If the revert was a bad one, the revert would get reverted.

Also, some new users have no idea how to look at diffs, or history pages. Reverting them, and explaining in the edit summary isn't particularly helpful to them is it? Communication should take place on talk pages, not edit summaries. That's what starts an edit war. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If its obvious why it was reverted, then it doesn't need an edit summary, I think I said that. What's the point of asking for an edit summary if we didn't want people to summarize their edit? Certainly if you don't think a user who should know the reason for the edit won't see the summary for whatever reason you should notify them, but that's no reason to make it more inconvenient for everyone else to figure out why you made an edit. Mr.Z-man 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with reverting good-faith edits, so long as a meaningful justification for the revert is given. There is, arguably, something wrong with using rollback to revert good-faith edits, but that's a different story. Thus, having reverted good-faith edits should not automatically count against getting rollback. Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Looie; I wanted to say that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the sort of good-faith edit as well; there are plenty of good faith edits that are fine to rollback. Test edits in particular come to mind but there are others. The main thing is that if an edit summary is needed, rollback isn't an adequate or acceptable tool. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Are self-reverts OK? (things like "oh crap I just messed up this template and need to fix it asap") ffm 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok and encouraged. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Take a look at User:Yahel Guhan. Is there racism on Misplaced Pages? If yes, why so much? 66.56.26.75 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Although this is not the place for such a discussion) A bit - but most gets wiped quickly. This is an internationally viewed space that can be edited by anyone; racists find other areas of mass communication rather unreceptive to their desire to broadcast their small minded hate, so they hijack this one (for a while). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some neutral input please

Three weeks back I closed a WP:RM, and moved Flag of Ireland to Flag of the Republic of Ireland, largely based on what I thought were the better arguments of the pro-move side.

There is currently another RM to move the article back to Flag or Ireland, which has descended into a squabble about the original RM and various accusations of bias (apparently because I once used the term "Republic" to refer to the Republic of Ireland on someone's talk page, I have a "conflict of interest"). At the moment several of the contributors are people involved in the many Irish-related arguments, so it would be good to have some neutral input and feedback on the original decision. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring in people from the Chinese and Zimbabwean versions of Misplaced Pages to decide this using reliable sources, and require the two sides who are arguing this to accept whatever they decide. People who bring these outside fights into Misplaced Pages are incredibly disruptive. Remove them from the argument altogether and half our problems go away. For heaven's sake, people are screaming at each other about what to name a flag. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:LikesPoodles

This user is evidently a single purpose account whose goal seems to be to get The Living Word Fellowship deleted despite much evidence tha the organization is notable. On the 15th, they accidentally blanked an older afd and over-wrote it with a new reasoning. I reverted this and, in good faith, moved the discussion to a proper "(2nd nomination)" page, which was closed as a speedy keep. Just today, this user nominated the page for a third time, which I also non-admin closed as a speedy keep. I would ask that others please help me with this user, who seems to be fairly insistent and WP:POINTy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a hand and keep an eye on any nominations. I'm coming onto IRC now, you can alert me there if there are any major problems occurring! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tag was removed

The speedy tag was removed. Could an admin evaluate this and delete the article if it meets the A7 criteria. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin Moreschi unresonable ban

I got banned from editing Macedonian talk page and article under "recent disruptive editing" just few things to point out:

• The Atricle page edit warrning from 10:33, 19 October 2008 was closed after 1h with 11:42, 19 October 2008 the last edit of the page. the page has not been edited since. We have found an agreement with the admin BalkanFever as you can see on his talk page section n°74 Request assistance Macedonian article and n°81 Bold thingy and the matter was definitely closed on 09:58, 20 October 2008.

So whats the point of bannig me at 23:28, 21 October on "Long-term edit-warring" when it was a long closed matter?

the admin also noted "talkpage stirring" as the reason for the ban.

• First thing to note is that finding a consensus with some hot headed greeks over Macedonian issues is very very very hard, hence the necessity to write so much arguments in many sections that resulted

in the article improvement from this to the the current revision Macedonian. The price of this improvement? + 39,1 KB, the talk page sections: n°28 Macedonian, n°29 Macedonian improvement suggestions, n°30 Previous version, n°31 Diaspora question; and my ban (lol). Yes things got a little out of hand (and off topic btw). But if we ban people for Macedonian "talkpage stirring" perhaps first on the list should be the off topic racial personal attacks by people like User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ like "That's rather rich coming from a Slav" and similar dont you think?

In the bottom line id like to ask a withdrawal of this senseless and useless ban thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Although this ban may very well be deserved, Moreschi does not appear to have acted in full accordance with WP:ARBMAC, which requires a warning before sanctions are imposed. I see no evidence of any warning being given to this editor since April. Looie496 (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

They were notified. See this warning and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Alexander Mak which connects the accounts, and also mentions the case. Claim of unawareness are not reasonable here. Jehochman 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That warning was over ten months ago and from the way I read the ARBCOM remedy it it says the user should receive a direct warning before any ban, not just that they must be aware of WP:ARBMAC. Icewedge (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I read it the other way. Once people are aware of the case, they're aware of it. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Alex was aware of the case and had been blocked for two weeks in April. Why should any further warning be necessary? Doug Weller (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The last part of the relevant sentence, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.", indicates that the intention of the warning is to bring to the attention of the editor in question, the decision under which they can be banned. Hence, I don't see any problems with the lack of recent notification. Daniel (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to Doug) Because article probation and discretionary sanctions was, imo, never intended by ArbCom to allow admins to use draconian measures. If a warning is placed by an uninvolved admin that the user is going to be re-sanctioned if the recent misconduct continues, and that warning is sufficient to persuade that user to refrain from editing like that, then that should be used as a first resort. (Speaking from experience, I cannot emphasize enough how important this step can be in a lot of cases.) April is a long time ago in terms of wiki-time, so it's a question worth asking. I personally think that the (problematic) nature of editing by the sanctioned user was such that a warning wouldn't be enough to prevent it. He needs to take a break from that area for at least a few months. If he can demonstrate that he can edit constructively in the long term without abusive/disruptive edits in other areas, then appealing to the community may not be so much of a bad idea. I'm not sure if Moreschi or others will agree with me on the last sentence, so some input would be helpful. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Vandal bots not running?

Looking at the Recent changes, there are a lot of cases of page blanking and vandalism by IP addresses, which are not being caught by the bots which usually catch such things. Are they not running? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha... I hope you don't mind I renamed your thread. Confusion and generally hilarity may have ensued... Moving on, it seems ClueBot is not operational at this time- last edit was October 19. According to its page it is undergoing a code rewrite. :\ ~ L'Aquatique 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The code rewrite's been going on for a while. The problem is that the server it runs on is down. Xclamation point 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now's the chance to Huggle for a while without conflicting with ClueBot! :-) –Juliancolton 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I see what you mean.  :) OK, it's probably incumbent on people to keep a closer eye on the Recent changes page, then. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're doing our best- you know how many edits happen every minute? We have literally hundreds of users who do nothing but fight vandalism... It's extremely difficult to check every edit, especially using the RC page. If you're interested in helping out, check WP:HUGGLE. : ) ~ L'Aquatique 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's really important, but ClueBot is actually back online according to Special:Contributions/ClueBot. Calvin 1998  01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I pinged cobi about it, and he restarted it. Apparently it had crashed. Xclamation point 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

/me high fives X!. ~ L'Aquatique 06:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What Happened

First of all, sorry if this belongs at AIV, but it's not specific to a single vandal. Anyway, today's Achewood strip () is prompting a series of unhelpful edits to What Happened and its talk page. Although the vandalism hasn't been too severe thus far, it is likely to continue for a while at least. Deleting Image:What_happened.png, which, except when unhelpfully placed in the What Happened article, is an orphaned non-free image (uploaded just for vandalism) and I assume a non-controversial deletion (but not a speedy candidate), would certainly be helpful. Just a heads up, since I assume that article doesn't see a whole lot of traffic under normal circumstances. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's only been a couple of incidents today as far as I can tell, but if it continues I think s-protecting the article for a few days would certainly be justified. Lankiveil 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

I semiprotected for 24 hours due to continued vandalism. How often does Achewood come out? I suspect once another strip is released, the vandalism will die down. Note: this is my first s-protect, so I apologise in advance if I've screwed anything up. Lankiveil 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

There should be a new one in one to three days, and yes, I agree that its release will put an end to this for the most part. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I'd like to bring this redirect to attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sparkling_Wiggles&redirect=no. The phrase "Sparkling Wiggles" derives from a video of a little girl who is told by her parents to say "sparkling wiggles", but sounds like "fucking (n-word); If you unaware of the video, Google will show you. The redirect redirects to, well... African American. I find this highly offensive to African Americans, I think an administrator needs to delete this redirect and salt it. I would have speedied it, but wasn't sure under what criteria to fit it under and it might not be clear to whoever is reviewing it, so I brought it here instead. DiverseMentality 06:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect as vandalism. Would other administrators please take a look at The T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The user's good-faith contributions along with the creation of this bad redirect seem to show that the account was briefly compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice Cold Beer (talk • contribs) 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Block review please?

I recently issued an indef block against User:Kurfürst in order to end a long-term pattern of abuse and disruption that was affecting a range of articles connected to the Battle of Britain. This followed my own (inept and miserable) attempts to broker a peace, and a voluntary mediation regarding the content dispute which unfortunately only seemed to inflame the situation but which was still open when I issued the block.

Unfortunately, User:Kurfürst has chosen to interpret this as my taking a side in the content dispute; which I strenuously deny. However, since I had previously been involved in the negotiations, and was participating in the mediation at the invitation of the mediator, I acknowledge with the benefit of hindsight that choosing to place the block myself rather than raise the issue at ANI has placed me in a compromising position.

Could someone here please take a look?

I have come to deeply regret entering this minefield at all. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The comments that the user made were clearly out of line and unacceptable, but an indef block does strike me as a little over the top. I think that perhaps a probationary period for the editor (with an emphasis on civility and working constructively) would have been best. From the user's contributions at this mediation, it looks like this is a good faith editor who unfortunately has a knack for getting tangled in content disputes. Lankiveil 07:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

Sigh... acting in an administrative function in a case you are involved in never ends well. In any case, what's done is done. I've reviewed your block and decided to shorten it to one month, with the express understanding that if the user comes back and continues the behavior, I will be more than happy to indefinitely reblock him myself. Try not to beat yourself up about it, mmkay? ~ L'Aquatique 07:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I guess an apology is in order. I won't be making that mistake again. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, you'll know for next time =). Lankiveil 07:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

A good faith editor? Are you kidding? User:Kurfürst has edit warred since the moment he started editing. He produces "citations" that are no verifiable, as they are not in published sources, and claims they are primary sources! A number of editors have come to the correct conclusion that he cannot and will not work with others, spread his agenda-driven editing of the Spitfire and Battle of Britain related articles, and will systematically engage in edit warring with anyone who gets in his way. After this block has expired, he will return to the same old User:Kurfürst. It seems like you have been taken in by this guy. Dapi89 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not pretend to be over the whole history of this dispute, but he appears quite reasonable on the mediation page. Edit warring has no doubt occured, from both sides, but if User:Kurfürst and other involved editors (including yourself) cooled down and discussed this rationally, I have no doubt that a compromise could be worked out. Personal attacks, edit warring, and insults will not get this solved. And if User:Kurfürst continues acting aggressively and rudely upon his return, he can always be indef blocked. Lankiveil 13:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

What he does and what he says are two very different things. He has promised to compromise before, but then does that exact opposite, particularly over sources. He acknowledged on the archive page of the Spitfire operational History that using a particular website and self published sources was unacceptable (his comments on 10 September), but then continues to use them afterwards. He can't be trusted. You will find, upon his return, that the articles will fall back to their old state as he strives to distort history again. My own position, in relation to blocks, was that each and everyone nvolved this editor, and were in response to direct abuse received from the above user. Dapi89 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what the Mediation is there for. This is not the cause of his block, though: it's an unacceptable level of civility while these problems are worked out. While you may have a hard time working out your differences in Mediation (let's face it, if it was easy, mediation wouldn't have been neccessary), he should only be prevented from participating in it to the extent that he is being unhelpful. For instance, I would favor an unblock if the parties agreed to work everything out in mediation and not edit the article(s) in question. Mangojuice 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

Hi. I raised an issue a few days ago concerning the activities of an editor on this particular article - see here: . The basic argument was that this editor was adding unsourced, POV, fan material to this and related articles - the editor had been previously blocked for 24 hours for this activity and, in this instance, a 72-hour block was imposed. Checking the article today, I see that an anonymous IP editor had restored the POV/fan material. I've reverted the article back, but would it be possible to see if there's any instance of sockpuppetry at work, or is it just a huge coincidence that the restored article was phrased identically. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 203.123.34.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for obvious block evasion and disruption. Some more diffs (e.g which IP) and links next time make it still easier to figure out for whoever is new to the scene.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

archiving my user page?

All I want to do is archive my user page at User talk:Fyunck(click) but someone I have had problems with in the past has reverted it. This would be "Tennis expert." I want nothing to do with him (not wanting to stir up any more problems on a one-to-one basis) but could someone please make him leave my user page alone? I wasn't sure where to post this since it's not really vandalism or personal attacking. It's just mischief. Thank You. 75.16.42.69 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a confirmed sockpuppeteer, so you lost a couple of rights when you started socking. One of them was the ability to remove the category saying that you're a sockmaster.

Additionally, you'll need to log in before we'll do anything about a user page, in order to confirm your identity. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops... thought I was logged in, Sorry. I didn't want to remove anything even though it's all in the history. Just archiving all but current events. Surely that's ok? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the "offense" was back in June, that's OK with me. Just don't do it again ;) -- lucasbfr 12:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

However, Tennis Expert is correct; Fyunck(click) has conveniently omitted the section about sockpuppetry in the archive he created. It's not a complete archive as he has claimed. Horologium (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it only me or does one clearly see the f word in this username? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One clearly sees it, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it also. Action? Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps I'm missing something? "F word" is a bit ambiguous, but the username doesn't contain "fuck" if that's what you mean. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the Scunthorpe problem? (Which is good for a laugh, if nothing else.)--ROGER DAVIES  15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)First, re: to Horologium, the sockpuppetry thread isn't in the archive because Tennis Expert took it out, not Fyunck(click). Second, per MZMcBride, I think you have to work hard enough to see the f-word in the user name that no action should be taken on it (also, he's had the username for over 2 years). Third, per Lucasbfr, I'd say if this occured 4 months ago, and the user has been editing productvely since then, it's Ok to archive the sock notice. A cursory glance through a few recent contribs shows mostly good edits; does someone have diffs of recent bad ones? If so, let's see 'em. If not, let's leave him be, with Lucasbfr's "just don't do it again" caveat. --barneca (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

to restore article on Kumar Vishwas

Dear Administrators. Kindly restore deleted article on Kumar Vishwas. This person is notable and available on Hindi wikipedia. Please refer to link http://hi.wikipedia.org/कुमार_विश्वास

Aminami (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of this discussion. If you want to overturn the deletion you should go here. Hut 8.5 14:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

Martinphi (talk · contribs)

I orgiginally sent this to the arbcom, but they said that it should be dealt with by the community, so... here we are!

Martinphi is under an editing restriction because he " has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, threatening disruption of the project, and making deliberately provocative edits" (Finding of Fact #2, sans links). It is becoming increasingly clear that he has not yet learned proper Misplaced Pages behaviour. and, as the restriction is due to expire in November, I am asking that it be extended a further year.

For instance, in a thread which I've sampled here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, a part of NPOV policy that has been part of policy since 2001 in nearly the same form as today does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology. He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through, then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.

Here is a recent Arbitration enforcement thread about his editing of policy.

I think that Martinphi's statements in the Paranormal Request for clarification are also relevant. In the face of every arbitrator clearly stating that the finding of fact does not set out an explicit content ruling, but was simply an effort to understand the party's points, he continues to insist that the arbcom, in fact, made a content ruling, and that he should be able to use it to push his point of view.

Martinphi has a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes him very frustrating to work with. The Arbcom restriction somewhat mediates that, but I don't think he has demonstrated any real improvement in the last year that would justify the restriction's removal, and would encourage a community restriction be placed on him.

I would also suggest that he be banned from editing policy. Besides the examples from above, back in April, he specifically admitted to editing WP:CIVIL in order to better use it to attack ScienceApologist. . (Background, abridged: he was adding words he had seen ScienceApologist and other people he disliked using to the Civility policy as "actionable" examples of incivility. ) Between this, today's editing of WP:NPOV/FAQ (described above), and the more recent WP:NPOV incident (courtesy duplicate link), I don't think he can be trusted to edit policy.

I would encourage anyone with doubts to review Martinphi's edits to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view from about 29 August to 7 September. This will give clear evidence of a pattern of editing I can only hint at in this brief summary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, note that the "today's editing of NPOV/FAQ" refers to editing that took place about a month ago, not actually today (10/24). Avruch 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No action was taken by the committee upon your identical complaint there, and apparently no action taken as a result of any threads on WP:AE. That suggests to me that no action is really necessary at this point. Shoemaker, haven't you been advised (and even required) in the past to leave policing Martinphi's edits to others? Truly, your years-long feud is becoming tiresome. If his editing style is as egregious as you say, surely someone else is willing to take over the role of watchman? Avruch 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From my Rfarb comment pasted here. Nothing has changed since then, and I consider Shoemaker's part in this to be disruptive. I am greatly concerned about his motives.(olive (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Statement by olive

Concur with Coppertwig: Have I stepped into an alternate universe? I initially decided not to comment here because I couldn't believe that anyone who has been watching Martin's editing in the last few months could take seriously what is being said here. I've met Martinphi on a few of the policy pages where I have been working, and did a little work on Psychic. Here he is obviously working in consort with editors who have multiple views on the topic of NOR. Martin has been clear, measured, intelligent in his comments, and obviously is collaborative in his editing. Yes, he's also strong and forthright, but needs to be given the editing environments on some of these articles. I would say on the policy pages there is very little friction among the editors, and whatever is there isn't coming from Martin. Here, he and OrangeMarlin although apparently in disagreement agree to compromise on Psychic. . I understand as Ludwig mentioned that editors can disagree, and may have strong differences of opinion, but as with Martin and OrangeMarlin there are other, less disruptive ways of dealing with it than an Rfa.(olive (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Comment by MBisanz

Usually when Arbcom tells the community to handle something, it either means the behavior issue is not yet ripe enough for them to hear or it is a content issue they will not hear. If it is a content issue, the general progression is WP:3O->WP:RFC->WP:RFM. If it is a long-term behavioral issue, the usual progression is WP:EA->WP:RFC/U->WP:RFAR. From my brief glance at the issue, it appears to be a behavioral complaint about Martinphi's actions in editing articles. As there is near unanimous agreement that WP:AN is a poor forum for handling long term behavioral issues, could I suggest that a WP:RFC/U appears to be the best forum for resolving this matter? MBisanz 16:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I second this. List the request at WP:RFC/U. -- Suntag ☼ 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• I see value in getting broader input from the Community and think a RFC/U will be a good method. If issues are noted that need to be addressed, then we can decide the best way forward, with new ArbCom restrictions, maybe. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to be extremely franks here as I have never been before on Misplaced Pages. This complaint should never have been filed. Its not real, and I can't believe that it is even being discussed. This editor in the last months has been blameless, and I mean blameless . His progress and maturity have been a pleasure to see and watch. To have another editor who would seem to have ulterior motives trump this up and for the community to even consider the charges in any way, in any way at all, after the Rfarb in which only one editor responded against Martinphi and in which three editors with diffs showed the accusations to be false seems completely beyond understanding. I am incredibly reluctant to speak against SH here so I won't say more. Yes I'm upset, and outraged. How can this happen? This should stop here!

Comment by FloNight

Shoemaker's Holiday, my statement did not say that Martinphi should be "dealt with by the Community". I said that ArbCom was the proper venue. And I also said in my statement that I wanted input from a broader section of the Community. You have made your opinion known. If others see a problem with Martinphi, then they need to let ArbCom know so we can make or modify any editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards