Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 4 February 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Admin opinions needed

Saint Pancake has been speedied, undeleted, flagged for speedy again, had the flag removed, and had the flag reapplied all today. Can some more admins chime in and help develop consensus for what should be done?

Full disclosure: I was the one who flagged it for speedy deletion as a G10 first, and I believe it is a valid G10. After it was deleted and then undeleted, I tried to start a conversation about the situation—and about NPOV as it applies to redirects in general—at WP:NPOVN, but only 2 people have chimed in (one on each side).

Thanks, Mike R (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted again. G10 doesn't only apply to living people (G10 quote: "it serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject"), and this is a particularly unpleasant pejorative epithet - used practically only in blogs - the existence of which reflects really badly on Misplaced Pages. I actually don't understand why it was recreated, especially as the recreating admin said "the term is a disparaging name " which is exactly what G10 actually says. Black Kite 21:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While technically BLP does not apply we should rightly consider the feelings of her friends and family. Leave deleted and salt if required. Exxolon (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed - and as said above, G10 doesn't only apply to living people anyway. It can also refer to groups, companies, organizations - in fact really anything that can be disparaged. Black Kite 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Per all of the above. This should not be a redirect; G10 applies. MastCell  22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, G10 certainly applies to the dead as well as the living. —Travis 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• G10 does not apply, since the redirect does not "serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject". Likewise per the examples at WP:REDIRECT "Butcher of Kurdistan redirects to Ali Hassan al-Majid" and al-Majid is a living person while Rachel Corrie is not. This is not as cut-and-dried as the above opiners would like to make it. Actually, it is... but in the other direction. Marked this thread unresolved. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Take it to WP:RFD. The discussion at WP:NPOVN shows that there are non-trivial arguments on both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you cannot threaten the deceased, articles and redirects can still disparage a dead person. G10 does apply. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only does G10 apply, it's a textbook G10. I'll say it again - "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage ... their subject or some other entity". What other possible purpose could the page have? Since the nickname only exists to disparage (it's just an unpleasant nickname used on a few internet blogs and other user-generated sites) then it follows that the page only exists to do the same. Black Kite 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference, Jclemens, between this case and Ali Hassan is the reliable sources that have the 'butcher' reference. If and when the term becomes widely used and reported in reliable sources there may be a case for inclusion/redirect of this term in/to the article, until then there is none whatsoever. Quite frankly it disturbs me that an admin has such a poor grasp of That's not how I see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Exxolon (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Find me one policy or guideline, anywhere, that requires redirects have reliable sourcing, and I'll withdraw my objections. Fact is, if someone had created Saint Pancake as a POV fork with any keepable content, it would have been merged back intoRachel Corrie and the redirect left in place. Really--read WP:REDIRECT; there's simply no support for your position there. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That took me all of 30 seconds. WP:RS says "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies. I have however refactored my sentence as you've requested to avoid any appearance of a personal attack. Exxolon (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)\

Then we have a serious disconnect between WP:REDIRECT which governs the specific case, and WP:RS, which doesn't mention redirects by name. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We do? I've just (quickly) scanned WP:REDIRECT and came across "Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article." - this would seem completely appropiate to this case - which part of WP:REDIRECT are you looking at? Exxolon (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a large does of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going around. The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for Rachel Corrie, it's not a Misplaced Pages-centric phenomenon. There is really no comparison with the "Joe Bloggs is a loser" example. The Butcher of Kurdistan example is far closer to the point. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of the regular editors of the article, we've declined to put the Pancake into the article, it comes up every now and then. Lack of RS, mostly.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and no one in favor of keeping the redirect has argued (that I've seen) in favor of inserting it into the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to expect that redirects would be specifically called out as a form of attack, though I'm sure consensus to add it could be rapidly generated if it becomes an issue. If I created an article named fucking asswipe and redirected it to a person's page, would anyone seriously argue that that wasn't an attack? It's reasonable to argue over whether Sarah Pancake is an attack or not, but if it's an attack, formatting it as a redirect doesn't provide it with some kind of magic armor plating.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your strawman, Kww, is that your example describes someone who uses a non-unique term in a specific redirect to disparage the target. As I've pointed out in the NPOV discussion, no one else is called "Saint Pancake" besides Rachel Corrie, the redirects have been averaging 12 hits a month in 2008, and the use of Saint Pancake to refer to Rachel Corrie clearly has a non-Misplaced Pages origin--thus the redirect reflects a disparaging name for Rachel Corrie widely used in right-wing circles, rather than a Misplaced Pages-specific attack on Rachel Corrie. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you accept that "12 hits a month" is demonstrative of actual usage, it isn't very convincing for a site as visible in search engines as Misplaced Pages is. If a "St Pan cake" link gets a top spot among other "St Pa ncake" links in Google by virtue of being in Misplaced Pages, and therefore is occasionally clicked on, that means it should stay in Misplaced Pages? That sounds dangerously close to indirect self-referencing.

Additionally, that premise is based on a rather faulty assumption - that all of the clicks are indicative of usage rather than someone following a discussion thread. I know I can account for a few of those clicks, and a closer look at the general "stats.grok.se" link you referenced at NPOVN shows that "usage" spikes around discussion of the redirect's validity. arimareiji (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but I've Googled for "Saint Pancake" and I don't see Misplaced Pages anywhere in the results list, so up until today, it wasn'a substantial issue. I agree, though, that this thread has probably brought more awareness of the term than the redirects ever did in their 6+ years of combined existence, which seems the height of irony. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah... what other discussions of the redirects' validity? I wasn't aware these had been discussed previously. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check over at the talk page and archives, if you're asserting this hasn't repeatedly been brought up and linked to. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was discussed on that talk page, or the inclusion or exclusion of the term from that article was discussed on that talk page? The latter is common knowledge, referenced above. The first, if true, is news to me. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's news to you, some would-be humorist keeps using fabricated/misrepresented sources to insert such gems as "Rach el Corr ie supporters held a fundraising pancake breakfast" and "known in her official hagiography as 'St Panca ke'". So yes, the nickname does come up along with a cutely-placed redirect to it. arimareiji (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this discussion here? Anyone opposed to me reinstating the redirects and listing them at WP:RfD? If we're having a debate about it, then it's obvious that WP:CSD do not apply. ANI is not a place to discuss redirects--RfD is. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object. I have come up with two crystal clear quotations from Misplaced Pages Guidelines that preclude it's existence. The first mandates against it's creation (WP:RS says "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies.) and the second would mandate it's deletion should it be created ("Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.") - Unless the term is mentioned in sufficient reliable sources AND consenuse is established to include it in the article itself then there is absolutely NO case for having the redirect at the present time. Exxolon (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To put it pithily, the name is unsupported by reliable sources, hence a CSD, both as an unlikely search term and prankish vandalism. If it ever becomes widely cited, for whatever reason, that'll be another tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Point - "The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for <name of subject>" - I've yet to see you actually come up with any evidence that it is a NOTABLE off wiki disparging name. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

G10; a redirect is mainspace and is not protected from general WP policy. In response to your question of "Anyone opposed?", I would note that five people had already voiced explicit opposition just above the question, and two more since you've asked. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses. Exxolon, Gwen Gale, lack of RS is not a speedy criteria under any circumstances. Arimareiji, G10 is disputed by multiple editors (check the NPOV noticeboard) and WP:CSD is not for things that are disputed. All of those arguments properly belong in an MfD disucssion. Now, does anyone have a policy-supported reason the CSD should stand, instead of being reverted and sent to MfD? Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy - G10 - "solely to disparage it's subject" - which was applied on the 2nd deletion. Exxolon (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, G10 is disputed, so disputed discussions (and it was disputed before Black Kite deleted it the second time) should properly go to XfD, not wheel warring to re-delete a contested CSD. Oh, wait, I just said that above. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Gwen Gale said before your above comment (per timestamps), WP:DRV applies. "Misplaced Pages:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." arimareiji (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's not sufficiently clear: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion." Not "Reverting a speedy deletion is the process to be used, then discuss it." arimareiji (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The RD is a CSD. CSD deletions can be disputed. See WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Redaction required

Normally I'm loathe to refactor other peoples comments, but I strongly feel we should remove all mentions of her actual name from this discussion - we're heavily spidered and we could create a self-fufilling prophecy here. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but not in practicality. If any reliable news organization picks up on this when there are much more pressing topics to cover, I'll eat my hat. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly object as well. Rachel Corrie is dead, has been for years, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. The term has been in use since she died, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. There is no reason to WP:CENSOR this thread. As I said elsewhere, I think the fact that this WILL show up on Google shortly is pretty funny--the redirect sat there minding its own business for years, then someone decided it was an "attack page" and pretty soon Google will have more hits on the term. Misplaced Pages didn't start the use of the term, but in the attempting to excise a relatively innocuous appearance thereof, the exposure of its use has been amplified. Classic Streisand effect. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to Misplaced Pages editors to forestall this kind of thing. If the term sticks, it'll be echoed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a good idea, the argument that excising the name here will lead to its being spread further doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was actually the other way around, that excising the name from this talk page would prevent it from coming up as "hits" for search engines. But like I said, I'll eat my hat if anyone outside the Little Green Footballs blogosphere thinks this is more newsworthy than what else is going on in the world. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since it appears to be an outcome that Jclemens has been pushing for--or at the very least he believes will happen--then I'd say yes, delete all references to forestall it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, CalendarWatcher. Finding it "ironic" doesn't mean I desired that outcome. I've reverted the changes to my comments. The redaction here is pointless censorship, since the deletion review will list both the redirects and their targets anyways. Again, I'm specifically objecting to other editors refactoring my comments. If anyone wants to put in a request for oversight here, great, but as has been pointed out above "Saint Pancake" is regularly brought up on Talk:Rachel Corrie, so it would be rather pointlesss. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I did not use--and can't imagine ever using--'ironic' in whatever debased sense you're implying, I fail to see why you bring it up. I will say that I believe that yes, you do want to spread this mocking insult to a dead person used by fanatics, and given that Google relies upon linking in building up its rankings, using the phrase and inter-connecting it among different pages as much as possible increases attention to it, and that that outcome of using Misplaced Pages to promote it is what you would like. Clear enough? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, I meant that I found it ironic. You may feel free to assume bad faith all you want, but the simple fact remains that the only reason this is on the NPOV noticeboard, ANI, and now DRV is that those who've been advocating for the redirect's permanent deletion have gone forum shopping, twice, and insisted on DRV rather than taking it straight to RfD where a contested G10 should have gone initially. A proper application of process would have minimized such exposure. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that WP:TALK#Others' comments provides for such removal only in cases of libel. Unless anyone is asserting libel, refactoring another editor's comments is contrary to accepted conventions of Misplaced Pages behavior. Please follow such conventions and continue to assume good faith, especially on politically sensitive topics like this one. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% true - WP:BLP allows refactoring/removal from any part of the encylcopedia, although it does not apply in this case. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit about 'libel' is pure wikilawyering: I would have thought simple human decency would have sufficed, but apparently not. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment seems to overlook folks who disagree with Corrie's political stances--simply Google for evidence thereof--and unnecesarily imply that those who believe such disparagement should be accurately reflected in an NPOV encyclopedia somehow lack human decency. I'll note that while a motive has been ascribed to me several times by others, no one has bothered to ask me why I think the redirect has merit. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of folks who disagree with Corrie's political stances, in fact I'd wager the large majority of them, would also find that "humorous" nickname reprehensible. You're both overgeneralizing. If you have a good reason the redirect should be kept but haven't volunteered it because you want someone to ask, I think that's silly. But I also think that my editing of my own comments (adding spaces) was silly, and I think editing others' comments is completely undue. If this gets blown up into an RS news article because we didn't edit Jclemens' comments, I will personally drive to Olympia to apologize at her graveside. If I can find it. arimareiji (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot believe that we are seriously even debating this. Saint Pancake -> Rachel Corrie. Perfect for Encyclopedia Dramatica, breathtakinlgy crass and horribly inappropriate here. Just how do you think that kind of crap looks to the outside world? Guy (Help!) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, "breathtakingly crass" and "horribly inappropriate" aren't reasons to delete anything outside of BLP around here. They ought to be, but for whatever reasons, the community wants to keep the crass and inappropriate and WP is saddled with all sorts of hit-pieces whether political, nasty redirects, or pile-on allegations and alleged but notably bandied-about conspiracies. Unless concensus on including this crap changes, a DRV of the deletion will likely succeed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Disagree, unless they can find a source more reliable than the chatter at Little Green Footballs. From past experience, check the source if they find one - I was unamused by the false sources they used to insert that Corrie supporters "held a fundraising pancake breakfast in her honor" into her main page, tee hee. x/ arimareiji (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor revealing too much information?

Is This user, a minor, revealing too much information on his Talk page? AnyPerson (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. Isn't there a policy against e-mail addresses being posted? ArcAngel (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted their userpage per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and left them a message pursuant to the Arbitration case. Tiptoety 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

... there is a policy against e-mail addresses being posted? Um, wtf? -- Gurch (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No...the user in question was revealing more information than just their email address. Tiptoety 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your opinion on a minor posting their name and photo on their user? If the user is an adult, this is acceptable but this is a minor. The child is 15 years old so he's not that young. I think his name should not be there unless he has written permission from his parents. If it's just his photo and not his name, then it might be ok (but I would have to think about it). Chergles (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Second user: resolved. Chergles (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Intermittent Personal Attacks

User:Btzkillerv appears to make personal attacks intermittently, getting away with them each time.

The following recent diffs illustrate what this editor has been up to.

As can be seen from the above diffs, this editor has made a number of personal attacks against other editors who have violated Misplaced Pages policy. In the latest and most serious incident so far, User:Btzkillerv viciously abuses an indefinitely blocked editor after a series of vandal edits were made by various user accounts to User talk:Btzkillerv, User:Btzkillerv and Template:User_Manchu_Chinese.

It also seems odd that Btzkillerv labeled User 77.182.67.105 a Hanjian(i.e. a traitor), considering that the vandal edits concerned (by other users) all involved denigrating people of the Manchu ethnicity only.

The question now is "What sort of remedies and sanctions should be applied to stop this type of conduct?" Does the editor involved simply get blocked for a period of time? Or will the editor be banned from editing certain pages? 72.43.122.208 (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh there's good timing. ^One more Tor node blocked. I'd just point out that I've blocked several other Tor nodes as well as some sockpuppets (User:Manchurianisation, User:Manchurianization, User:Anti Manchu Lobby, ...) who have been racially harassing Btzkillerv recently, and I've semi-protected Btzkillerv's user and usertalk pages as a result. Probably nothing to see here. -- zzuuzz 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, User:Btzkillerv has also abused indefed user Manchurianisation by calling him or her a "traitor". 85.31.186.211 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i was pretty pissed off by the presistant attacks even through i have politely answered, i lost my temper, and i regret that, please accept my apologies Btzkillerv (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

those other edits were made over a year ago, i wasn't very mature at that time, which i admit. Btzkillerv (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted BLP violations being restored by Landon1980

Scjessey removed blatant WP:BLP-violating troll comments here from Talk:Barack Obama, and warned the IP user appropriately. Landon1980, on what basis I have no idea, has decided to restore the material 4 times, , , , . Posting here as this will likely need admin intervention to bring the disruption to a halt, as this user is not even slowing down for WP:3RR. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Landon of this thread, and asked him why he chose to edit war over this as well. Tarc, it is common courtesy to notify users when you open a AN or ANI thread about them. GlassCobra 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, I did. :) Landon deleted it. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarc did notify me, I reverted his comment. Landon1980 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After all the rude comments from Tarc in the past I have a hard time assuming good faith when dealing with him. I know for a fact he reverted me in pure spite of me. He has called me insane in the past, and edit-warred with an admin to keep his personal attack on the talk page of this same article. Landon1980 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of, um, ad hominem hysteria there. We already dealt with the spurious "insane" thing last year, discussion of which is probably still on my talk page, as I archive infrequently. As for "spite", no, I reverted you because you were restoring a nothing-to-do-with-the-article anti-Obama slur, which ran afoul of WP:BLP, as well as your removal the warning issued to the IP. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Tarc, I should have checked the page history. Landon, why were you edit warring over a trivial and borderline offensive comment? Assuming bad faith against Tarc aside, that's no reason for breaking 3RR, especially when an admin was the first to remove the comment. GlassCobra 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

At least four editors have reverted the comment. Landon1980 made an identical claim about me, that I did so to "spite" him, and is engaged in a discussion on my talk page suggesting that he seems to regard the whole thing as a battle against a cabal of Obama apologists. I have no opinion on whether the editor should be warned or blocked again. He says here that he is not going to revert anymore. The whole thing is unnecessary if everyone just calms down and moves on.Wikidemon (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Large family is not a living person, and calling a person charged with drug possession a criminal (in which Obama barely knows) is not a BLP violation. Try assuming good faith from time to time. Landon1980 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Landon, please hold to your statement on Wikidemon's talk to cease edit warring over this comment. I'm marking this thread as resolved since no admin intervention is required now, and will continue this conversation on your talk page. GlassCobra 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs) has taken up the edit war and is dropping vandalism warnings on the talk pages of editors that have removed the comment. --Bobblehead 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like an admin or somebody should decide whether stuff about Obama's relative in Africa constitutes a BLP violation. The original posting by the IP address was certainly a POV-push. Baseball Bugs 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a discussion open on WP:BLP/N. It's a legitimate and in my opinion unclear question whether repeating the (apparently true) reports of this person's arrest in his home country are a BLP violation in the first place, or are inappropriate on other policy grounds (weight, POV, notability, coatrack, NOT#NEWS). We also have no idea what the story really means and what will come of it. What is clear is that it can become a behavioral or content problem if taken too far, too fast, or too enthusiastically. This is yesterday's front page news (now a day stale, and no longer on the front pages). For anyone who is truly here to edit an encyclopedia, we can afford to take a breath, wait a week, then see what if anything comes of it.Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, assuming good faith it appears that Eugene Krabs, is just trying to help but new to Misplaced Pages and a little slow on the draw... He/she has been doing non-partisan wikipolicing elsewhere on the subject of urging people not to modify talk page comments. If it's truly a BLP issue, the comment about Obama's brother would be a rare exception to that rule. I'll be bold and mark this resolved again, in hopes that everyone gets it by now...Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is of any relevance here, my problem with the "Obama's family..." line is that it a) presumes the guilt of someone who has only been charged with a crime, and b) defames the Obama family by implying that there's bound to be criminals in there somewhere, since there's so many of em. One could even draw a racial undertone from the latter. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the reasons I removed it in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter was not part of the comment. There is no "racial undertone" in the comment of the IP. Before you tamper with the comments of other editor's you should have a good reason. Also, read WP:BLP so not to misapply the policy in the future. You have to try extremely hard to interpret that comment as an insult to the Obama's. Landon1980 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This matter is done, but I hope nobody takes from this discussion the notion that it is okay to edit war to restore unproductive comments to talk pages after they have been removed on BLP grounds.Wikidemon (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what grounds they were removed on, that comment was not a BLP violation and you know that. Large family is not a person, and George Obama being charged with drug possession can be reliably-sourced. So which part of BLP does the comment violate exactly? The comments insulted the human race and nothing else. It suggested in such a large group of people it was no surprise one was a criminal. Is the human race now being treated as one big "living person." You need to read WP:BLP then tell me which clause the comment violates. Landon1980 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

With comments such as these, it is best to err on the side of caution. The comment's meaning is open to interpretation, hence the ensuing discussion about it right here. I suggest we leave it at that.--Atlan (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want "large families" running a muck on Misplaced Pages having their way with the project. I bet you are yet another person that would not remove that comment if you just stumbled onto it on a talk page. Lots of comments are open to interpretation, that is why we assume good faith. You shouldn't tamper with other editor's comments unless they actually violate a policy, the fact you could possibly twist them into a violation is not enough. The comment should have been left alone, bottom line. It was on the talk page, not the article. Calling it a BLP violation is utter nonsense. The only thing I did wrong was edit war; I should have brought it here instead.Landon1980 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a BLP violation to call George Obama a "criminal" based on the news of the day reporting that he had been arrested on allegations of marijuana possession. According to BLP one should not write, and editors are right to remove on the spot, poorly sourced information that tend to disparage living people. There is no source for George Obama being a criminal. That is a claim of fact not supported by any reliable sources, which (incorrectly, it turns out) say only that he was arrested on allegations of that petty crime. It does not matter if you could interpret it to be a comment about the human race. Others read it as name-calling against the President's half brother. BLP is about the words on the page, not what the Wikipedian editor meant when he wrote them. Even if those editors were wrong -- they aren't -- it is a violation of Obama article probation to edit war with them over a matter that is not remotely likely to ever make it into the article. And even if that were not the case, it is a 3RR violation to revert them four times. None of that has anything to do with good faith. You are within your rights to bring things here next time and that is better than edit warring, but you have a serious lapse of understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and norms here. You would do well to listen to the other editors around here.Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See this edit, which shows you that I have removed a talk page comment for BLP issues as recently as 5 days ago. You're assumption that "I am yet another person that would not remove that comment if I just stumbled onto it on a talk page", seems to be baseless and uninformed. Furthermore, WP:AGF does not trump WP:BLP.--Atlan (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was getting Rickrolled there! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I sure missed that opportunity! ;-) --Atlan (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)True, but seeing as the comment is not a BLP violation that is irrelevant. I would have personally removed the comment had it been in the article itself. However, just because you can twist a comment into a BLP violation is not grounds to remove it. So you are telling me that if you were just reading that talk page and saw that comment you would remove it, honestly? It would have been different had there not been news reports of an alleged criminal act. Landon1980 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's open to interpretation. It's pointless to keep insisting it is not a BLP violation, when so many others in this thread disagree. I guess you just have to agree to disagree here.--Atlan (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think this edit (which I reversed) makes his/her intend more obvious. I know they're different IP addresses but check them out and you'll see that they match quite well.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Landon1980 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Overly hostile editor at the DYK talk page

User:Politizer has been overly hostile to people who do not agree with him for over two months at the Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know page. Recently, he posted a response saying this in the edit summary: "clarification about yet another Ottava Rima factual inaccuracy. come on, man, learn your shit already". I asked him not to put personal attacks in edit summaries because he has a habit of it. He responds with "don't want personal attacks in the edit summary? fine, I put it in the edit itself" in the edit summary and this in the edit: 1) "Hey genius" 2) "Once again I am in awe of how poor your understanding of DYK is. Non-admins can update Next, and they do all the time. You fucking moron." 3) "this is how you repay me—by whining about the same old bullshit and being too thick-skulled to read or understand anything I say.".

The user has attacked others besides myself, but it is harder to dig through the archives (I can easily find my name and match the conversations). For instance, there was this where he was warned about his hostility by User:NuclearWarfare. This original diff shows his use of edit summaries to further hostilities ("haha, that's just precious..... oh well. gonna try to avoid this thread now"). As you can see here (" hi asshole :-D") I am not the only one who he does this to. Upon looking at edit summaries, he does it frequently such as here. As a side note, he also has a strange habit of issuing "final warnings" as a non-admin (examples): 1 and 2. (these were found on the same pages as diffs related to the user's actions above). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the other comments right now because I'm in a hurry and other people will be better able to piece through them in an NPOV fashion. As for the final warnings, I issued those two because the users were VOAs who inserted libel into BLPs (for the one) and attacks against living individuals (for the second). But that's really irrelevant to this thread. Politizer /_contribs 04:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Any user can issue any warning. Final warnings aren't limited to an admin. Grsz--Review 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Using "bitch" in one of the edit summaries as you can see above shows that there is a problem with how the user handles vandals. I removed the last two, but the above is enough to show a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really much for me to say here, other than I urge people reading to read the entirety of the most recent discussion (the bottom portion of WT:DYK#Closer look, starting from "I would really like to know who promoted it.") rather than only the diffs that Ottava Rima provided. Politizer /_contribs 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And another response...regarding Ottava Rima's "I'm not the only one he does this to" diff, that edit was in response to one of Ottava Rima's buddy editors, who had already attacked me just a few edits before that (in that diff, scroll up in the conversation to Malleus' comment "More experience than you of counting?" If you're unfamiliar with DYK and me, this comment was mocking me for having once challenged one of Ottava Rima's DYK nominations for not being expanded fivefold.) This ANI thread would mean a lot more to me if it were something other than just Ottava Rima and his friend wanting to tattle on a guy they don't like. Politizer /_contribs 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why User:Politizer has no warnings for these type of comments in his/her recent edit history. Looks like there should be a warning for being chatty around the holidays (Misplaced Pages is not your personal chat room or some such), but it seems that an editor who is this hostile would have lots of warnings for personal attacks given on their talk page. I'm not going to be reading the entire conversation because no one felt the comments by this editor were serious enough when they were made to warn him/her from making them. --KP Botany (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, which comments are you questioning if they are hostile? The one set (the old set) were deemed hostile by Nuclear Warfare who mentions that. The recent set says "You fucking moron" and "this is how you repay me—by whining about the same old bullshit and being too thick-skulled to read or understand anything I say" which seems blatantly hostile. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning if any comments are hostile. What I am questioning is whether or not you considered the comments blatantly hostile at the time they were issued or continued to engage him at the same level, and, if the latter, why there is an AN/I discussion about an editor who has no user talk page warnings.

It's hard as an outsider to see what is going on. Your comment about his edit summary, in the first diff you list, is an aside, and an order to him, not a request. Obviously your telling him not to do an admin-only task that apparently was not an admin only task was more important than the command to stop being hostile. If his behaviour was so bad, it should have merited a direct civility warning, rather than an aside to the more pressing issue of his editing pages he shouldn't have (which, I assumed you were wrong about, because admin only edit pages are protected). He next calls you a "fucking moron," and this does not merit a civility warning on his user page. Huh? I'm lost at what he is doing now that tops that, but, again, it did not merit a civility warning.

The exchange with Nuclear Warfare does not appear to have been escalated by Politizer. The conclusion about this exchange seems to be that Politizer was whining about something that happened in the past, not that he was being particularly hostile, and, again, it didn't merit a civility warning on his talk page. So, again, I'm just lost about what is going on here.

I checked out his talk page, going back 500 edits, and I don't see a pattern of this editor receiving civility warnings. Congratulations, barn stars, thank yous, holiday greetings, yes, but civility issues? No, I don't see it there, and I don't see that the way it has been handled according to the diffs you provided, that it's all that big of a deal right now.

Please reread my post where I don't say anything about questioning the hostility of the editor's comments. Then please reread the diffs and consider them from the angle of someone looking to see what is going on, and I think you might see that in both cases you read something that wasn't necessarily there. Potty mouth? Yes. The hostility though, if it was really an issue with this editor, probably would have gathered more comments and some serious user talk page warnings and discussion. I can't find this. --KP Botany (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of talk page warning does not justify a user's behavior, nor does it mean that their continued disruption should not go to ANI. It is obvious that there is a discussion involving a DYK issue and he is being disruptive with his language. He has a history of being disruptive with his language. It seems that you want to justify bad behavior because of a previous lack of oversight. Why would you do something like that, by chance? What possibly motivates you to want to bend over backwards to make it seem like someone has the right to act in this way? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "being disruptive with his language" means. Misplaced Pages has no rules against using language that you don't like. If you believe I am disruptive, please comment on the substance of my remarks, not the words in which I put them. Politizer /_contribs 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see my self bending over backwards about anything. You raised an issue in a public space, it sounded dreadful, I clicked on links, it seems overblown. You keep making what I am saying into something completely different, though. I think you're not paying attention to what others are saying. Which is not unusual when someone is upset about a situation, so it doesn't matter that much. However, I don't see Politizer coming across the way you have presented. And, I only looked at the diffs you provided to show this, and his talk page, because it (the latter) was rather boring, and I wanted to see a really bad and nasty editor who was getting away with murder--I had a paper due and was procastinating. What I see is someone who has been foul-mouthed on Misplaced Pages for a long time, and no one has really called him on it. When I reviewed his talk page to see how many other editors were outraged by his behaviour I found a bunch of congratulations, DYK comments, barn stars, and holiday greetings. The issue isn't justifying his bad behaviour, but, rather, trying to decide why it's become such an issue now, when it does not appear, from his talk page, that it has been a real problem before this for any other editors. Anyway, someone did give him a talk page warning to chill out with the bad language. He seems to have taken it rather mellow. --KP Botany (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I stated that there is hostility. I never said there was a large amount or anything. I didn't characterize it in any way. Therefore, the large portion of your claim that what you saw doesn't meet what I stated seems to have no connection to what I say. Compounded with your claim that I am upset, which is clearly not the case, I think it appears that you are trying to dismiss me as someone who is emotionally upset and wanting to whine about it. Clearly, that is not the case. As I stated before, you have characterized his comments in a way that is apologetic. Combined with your recent posts that demean my initial entry through claims of an emotionally charged entry, I feel that you are simply trying to rationalize bad conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So then, a trivial amount of hostility that you're not upset about....definitely sounds like the kind of thing that needs to be brought to ANI. Politizer /_contribs 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see anything that requires any admin action. The editor hasn't even been recently warned for incivility, so there's absolutely no call for a block over this incident. This barely warrants a wikiquette alert, and only because both sides of that argument need to take it down a notch.

And on the point being bickered over: if there's a page in the DYK project that only admin are allowed to edit, why isn't it protected? -- Vary Talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to Vary Because it's not a page that only admins can edit. The pages that only admins can edit (Template:Did you know and the queues) are protected; as I mentioned in the conversation that sparked this ANI, the DYK rules clearly state that non-admins can edit Next, and in fact most of the editing of Next is done by them. Just for some clarification. Politizer /_contribs 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There was. It was the DYK queue. Then that was moved onto the Template talk page and was no longer protected as before. The protection was lost for whatever reason. Only admin are allowed to edit the main page and this loophole allows for a contradiction against a greater consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only admins do edit the main page. Nothing moves from Template:Did you know/Next update to Template:Did you know except through an admin; the admins generally review the stuff at Next before they move it to the queues and the template. So that's how it goes: anyone can move hooks from the DYK suggestions page to Next, and then only admins can move them from Next to the template. Politizer /_contribs 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd how Vary seems to apologize for the user's edits that were made just recently because he wasn't warned over them. He was asked by me not to continue. He was asked by NuclearWarfare not to be so hostile. So even then, there were two warnings. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to interject something here, as a disinterested third set of eyes on this. Ottava Rima, he wasn't exactly asked by you not to continue, he was told. (See again the DIFF that you yourself quoted above. Granted, the response was a bit on the hostile side, and Politizer should not let things escalate to this point. IMHO, what I think needs to happen here is a warning for Politizer to try adhering to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF a bit more, and refrain from letting things like this get the Wiki stress level up. Like your userpage says Politizer, think happy thoughts. When you feel like you're going to type something that you know is going to fly in the face of civility guidelines, back off from the keyboard a minute, breathe, and take a moment to compose your thoughts in a more productive fashion. Here are a few suggestions:

• Turn negative statements into neutral or positive statements.
• Try disagreeing agreeably.
• Never start a sentence with "You", always start with "I" or "We". You tends to sound attacking, where I or we is more neutral. Try, instead of "You're wrong to feel that way!", "I regret that you feel like that." It puts you in the position of taking the moral and conversational high-ground.
• Try nodding your head when you type your response, soon you'll be looking for more affirmative statements to type than negatives!

All of these can be applied by not only the editors involved in this dispute, but also all others that are reading this. Edit Centric (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2009 (

(outdent edit conflict) To provide some context, Mid-December Ottava and Politizer had a argument regarding the use of block quotes in size calculations. Thread 1, Thread 2. Both Ottava and Politizer have had their altercations, but nothing that, at this stage, deserves admin attention. Edit Centric is spot on. » \ / (⁂) 05:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• A few more - 1 ("I'd rather not go back to dealing with that imbecile at wt:dyk") and 2 (taunting). Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If he has in fact been advised by uninvolved editors that his conduct of late is out of line, then take it to wikiquette if you must. Taking something like this straight to AN/I (do not pass go!), especially when there is no urgent admin intervention required, just increases drama. I'll say again, though, that both sides of that discussion needed to disengage: you'd both be better off dropping the issue, taking the advice above and using it to avoid escalating any future conflicts you might have. -- Vary Talk 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this at the DYK talk page are a disruption to a process. Wikiquette does not deal with that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly what the Wikiquette alert noticeboard deals with. Other than your terse order to Politizer to "Stop now," it seems like there was no attempt at dispute resolution at all. AN/I should not be your first stop for something like this. -- Vary Talk 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken. This is about disruption at a process through language. This is not a content dispute. Therefore, Wikiquette is not acceptable in any regards. ANI is for immediate action in terms of disruptions. Your persistence on the matter is quite interesting, especially when you overlook the fact that the one you are defending even admitted that he was personally attacking. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, these are moot at this point, we get it. There's been disagreements. Again, a warning for Politizer to be better about adhering to WP:CIVIL, and quite possibly a nudge for Ottava Rima, try my suggestions above. I looked a bit at the two threads cited by \/ (reminiscent of OJ Simpson? Sorry, just HAD to!), and it looks to me like Ottava is fighting an uphill battle on consensus issues. Ottava, those suggestions might work in the context of these discussions as well, instead of the apparent finger-pointing and recriminations that I'm seeing. (Instead of the "you're wrong" conversation track, try "Hmm. You know, you might be right there, however the way I'm reading this guideline, and I could be wrong about this, but...") Try that. Edit Centric (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement? No. There are attacks. Why would you attempt to soften his actions with such coded language? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of content disagreements, Politizer has crossed the line several times. I'm going to give him a warning and ask him to act more in line with our behavior expectations here. RxS (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Extensive removal of comments from Talk:Cold fusion

There have been numerous removals of comments from Talk:Cold fusion recently, plus use of strike-out (of another editor's comments) in lieu of removal. Today, User:JzG archived an active section. Because this had recently been referred to in an RfAr, I restored it. User:Tony Sidaway reverted. I then created a section briefly referring to the removal, not to reawaken discussion, but simply to point to it. It attracted some comment, then Tony removed it also, with the comment, Take this to ANI or somewhere if you care. This page is for discussing the article.

Well, Talk pages are not just for discussing the article, i.e., specific content, they are also for "the topic of how to improve the associated article, which involves process and editors. Rigidity on this can exacerbate editorial conflict. Nobody likes to be effectively told to shut up. However, I'd not have brought this here if Tony hadn't suggested it, I consider posting to AN/I about as pleasant as a tooth extraction. I did not insist on leaving that discussion in place, but because there had been reference to it, and so that the editor, if he returns -- he was new and may have had an external agenda -- would know what had happened to it, I made that small section referring to it.

And I'm leaving it at that, I'm not reverting Tony, I don't edit war, period. However, I am concerned that removal of Talk text and other restrictions on Talk seem to be frequent at Cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other issues you raise, I would note that even as article talk pages exist only in order to further article development and so are to be cleared of discussion unrelated to that purpose, it is not unreasonable that one should raise on a talk page a removal or archiving from that page (even if simply to offer a link to the content removed); those who are involved in the editing of an article are, after all, best situated to adjudge whether a talk page discussion was productive or whether archiving or excision was appropriate. Tony's removal of your section, then, wasn't compelled by WP:TALK and was otherwise unhelpful. 68.248.228.88 (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked briefly at the text removed, it seems to be not so much a discussion about improving the article, but more a series of recriminations regarding other editors' perceived editing rationale(s). Not sure about the actual deletion of text from a talk page though, need some illumination on that aspect... Edit Centric (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My reason for supporting (and aiding) the removal was from a similar perspective. The discussion there could take place here, or on user talk pages, or in personal conduct RFCs, or mediation or arbitration, if at all. Attempting to continue an off-topic and unproductive discussion on the talk page exacerbates the interpersonal problems on the talk page. I don't take this step lightly, it has its costs, but it seems to me that those involved are either unaware that there are more appropriate venues or they do not care. I've nudged them to use external venues (such as this one) and I think that was the right thing to do. Talk:Cold fusion has been subject to chronic abuses of Misplaced Pages is not a forum and Misplaced Pages is not a battleground (see the recent arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion) and now it's time to get back to productive editing. --TS 09:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now really starting to piss me off. Over at WP:RFAR there is clear and unambiguous consensus from the arbitrators that Jed Rothwell's input is unhelpful (it is Rothwell's comments which were struck out, not by me). Abd appears to be engaging in a one-man crusade to stand up for the rights of the cold fusion kooks, which I am sure is not what he intends, but simply archiving a troll-infested thread from a talk page with a long history of trolling, POV-pushing and the like is not in any way contentious. It's not extensive removal ZOMG CENSORSHIP !!111!1!!!, it's archiving (to the current archive page linked from the talk page) threads dominated by inappropriate advocacy. What is needed on that article is for the decent editors - i.e. those who are not disruptive WP:SPAs - to be left in peace to get on with the business of restoring the balance that was destroyed by Pcarbonn, Jed Rothwell and a few others, free of their pernicious influence. What Abd is doing seems to me right now to be a concerted effort to prevent that happening, with a side order of massive dollops of bad faith. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, not a battleground, not an appropriate place to influence public opinion, not the place to "fix" real-world problems. It may well be that the scientific establishment is excessively skeptical about cold fusion but Misplaced Pages is absolutely not the place to fix that problem, and there is significant work to do in rolling back the efforts of those who have been trying to do exactly that. The last thing, absolutely the last thing, that we need right now is philosophical argumentation from the people who caused the problem, Jed Rothwell specifically and prominently included. We know what he thinks, and there is no way that a policy-compliant article could ever be acceptable to him, so we must ignore him and carry on.

I am unable to understand why it is that Abd seems so determined to have the input of Jed Rothwell (see also ). It would be really helpful to me to know why he wants this, as it is not in the least obvious to me; I see Rothwell's input as analogous to having Kent Hovind trying to edit the article on evolution - it's not that he supports the fringe POV, it's that he sees it as a war of good versus evil, with the consensus view being evil. It is impossible to have calm on a contentious topic with the input of such zealots, and we rightly topic ban those who are here to fight these external battles. It's a perfect case for WP:RBI so by archiving instead we are giving more than the usual consideration to Rothwell. We are trying to reflect what the world thinks, he thinks the world is wrong (as evidence things like his "DOE LIES" editorial on his website, which he asserts is not used for advocacy), so I'm afraid he can't help us achieve our goal. It really is that simple Guy (Help!) 11:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JzG. These actions are proper and there is no problem, except those made by Jed and those he influences. Verbal chat 13:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the edits made by JzG. Talk page refactoring is an accepted and useful part of editting. Although I know it's a fine point. I don't like the removal of discussions about the editing, however. Dousing with petrol, as effective that is likely to be. Use compress boxes, move to a subpage, whatever, but making complaints about disappearing text disappear does actually feel like ZOMG1! censorship, and it requires a slightly lighter tough.
brenneman 13:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of unhelpful, and nonsense discussion postings from heinous single purpose editors. seicer | talk | contribs 14:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize that in removing the text, Guy also placed it in the archive page. --TS 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I wasn't complaining about Guy's behavior here. Yes, he placed it in the archive. The subsequent removal (not by him) wasn't, if I'm correct, nor were some other removals. But I could be wrong, haven't checked this morning and gotta go. The matter of Talk page removal of comments is complex, and I'd not care to debate it on AN/I, I was simply following a suggestion. Maybe it was a bad suggestion! I'd agree with Brenneman, though.--Abd (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the other removals (including one such by me) were of material that had no ghostly relationship to improving the cold fusion article, being just complaints about the archiving). At what point do we slavishly and painstakingly record every off-topic item written to a talk page, not only in the history of the page, but also in an archive that is intended only to aid those who genuinely want to improve the article. Speaking for myself I think copying any off-topic material into an archive is counter-productive. This website isn't a talking shop. --TS 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Right. So can we please just put Mr Rothwell aside and get on with the article? Guy (Help!) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not right. The notice that TS removed with his suggestion that I might go to AN/I was not a "complaint" about the archiving, it was a notice of the archiving. That's all. However, it seems that some editors may be disposed to see a simple notice as a "complaint." To me, it's symptomatic of the battles that raged over Cold fusion last year. , it is not only Pcarbonn who (allegedly) saw Misplaced Pages as a battleground. The notice I placed briefly described what had happened, it didn't accuse anyone of improper behavior, and it informed editors -- who might not understand, and I've seen admins make the error of responding to a comment in an archive -- what they could do should they wish to respond. Seemed pretty neutral to me. There was then a positive response from Olorinish, a comment from Dtobias which I considered inappropriate, Enric Naval fixed the header, I chided Dtobias, gently, to "be nice," and then TS deleted it. Above, TS points out, correctly, that JzG archived the material. He did not archive what he removed, though. These are just facts. Please don't project some imagined emotion onto them. And, JzG, this has nothing to do with Rothwell, if you want to "put Mr Rothwell aside," why do you mention him? --Abd (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(relevant removal)

Although the wording of the notice was neutral, I have to agree with TS that this sort of stuff should be brought up at ANI. After all, the removed thread was a WP:POINT violation (his confession that he was testing wikipedia). The valuable contribution that Abd wanted to save was just an unsalvageable primary-sourced WP:UNDUE text. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that thread. I'm really sure it was likely to improve the encyclopaedia. Though while we're here, I'd be grateful if someone could ask Dan Tobias to stop following me around stirring up shit in the apparent hope that some of it will one day stick, it is getting just a little bit wearing. See my talk page for example.

I am sure that with time and patience Gen ato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will learn our policies, but I am not inclined to think we should be wasting time on him and Rothwell jointly asserting, per that thread, that Three Misplaced Pages's Pillars that don't seems respected at the voice "Cold fusion" - here is his very first edit - On May 2008, cold fusion finally become a reality. Yoshiaki Arata, a senior esteemed japanese Physics Professor and his collegue Yue-Chang Zhang, made a famous demonstration in front of many journalists and researchers. And we're supposed to be taking seriously his claim that the five pillars are being undermined? WP:AGF and all that, but honestly, the article is a mature one and has a long history and many experienced editors are currently interested. We don't need WP:SPAs barging in to tell us that the world is falling around our ears, when their idea of WP:NPOV is that far off base. It's just hyperbole and nonsense, not actionable. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I really wish that editors would stop assuming what I "want," as in "the valuable contribution that Abd wanted to save." The contribution, which I did not assert was valuable, was saved. It's in history and it's in the Talk archive. No, what I wanted to do was place a marker, after it was removed, that the discussion, which involved a number of editors, had been quickly archived, and that's what I did. What should be brought to AN/I? Okay, okay, you twisted my arm. I'll agree: when an editor (in this case Tony Sidaway) removes a simple notice relevant to article editorial process and the editors editing the article, not disruptive, not argumentative, from Talk, it's improper, and if another editor thinks the issue has some weight, taking it to AN/I could be appropriate. Or, better, to AN, if there is no emergency. Further, for an editor to say, "Take this to ANI or somewhere if you care" is confrontive, not cooperative. I certainly don't think we should take disputes that might be resolved with some simple discussion to AN/I, where they can be, effectively disruptive. Look, above, how JzG is now again wasting our time bringing up Rothwell and Gen ato and a bad edit of the latter. Why? It's totally moot, the edit was reverted, every established editor agreed that it should be reverted. "Not actionable?" Sure. But why, again, is the argument brought here? I simply commented on the frequent removal or rapid archiving of Talk page posts, without asserting that any one of these -- except now, perhaps, the single one by Tony Sidaway -- was improper.

I also see that Enric might be referring to the fact that when Gen ato was reverted, I placed the text in Talk so that it could be discussed. I did so as a courtesy to a new editor. I happen to think that we should welcome new editors and not accuse them of "POV-pushing." I assumed good faith, and make no apology for that. Was there something of value in that text? Perhaps, perhaps not, but I'll affirm that I don't trust JzG's judgment on that, he has a strong POV partly based on his personal history. My advice to Gen ato was that the editor pick one item from his substantial text and discuss it. Gen ato, instead, argued censorship, which was unfortunate. --Abd (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese (dog)

This page has been turned into a petty edit war over what appears to be nationalistic pride. From what I can tell, two editors, Pietru_il-Boqli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Imbris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), disagree on the origin of the term 'Maltese' as it applies to the dog. I've warned one user regarding the NPOV stuff , and warned the other about edit-warring and that they need to seek third-party resolution.

Pietru il-Boqli then leveled a personal attack against me for getting involved.

At this point, each user is constantly reverting the other on the main article. Neither has (from what I can tell) violated 3RR, but it's become long-term, annoying edit warring, without an end in sight.

Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's your user name! the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a portion of his user name, obviously used as a pejorative in this case, and thus a personal attack. Don't do it again. (I'm not touching the nationalistic side of this argument, I have other things to do this month.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically "Pietru" translates to "Peter", which is an old-fashioned synonym for the same thing that "tool" is a synonym for. Hence Dick Cavett's comment that "Peter O'Toole has a double-phallic name." Baseball Bugs 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not ironic, though it is amusing. Some guy called Dick playing the phallic name game: that's irony. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick Cavett is a clever guy, so I'm sure that fact was not lost on him. The point being that your user ID is every bit the "tool" that Tool2Die4's ID is. Baseball Bugs 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He sounds fascinating. No, really. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick Cavett was probably before your time. I'm guessing Windows 95 was also before your time. >:) Baseball Bugs 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Get a Mac :P the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You might not have heard the rumor that when Steve Jobs dies (which could be soon), all the world's Macs will cease to operate. Your next comment should be some variation on "Oh? Why is that?" Baseball Bugs 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, tell me. And does this mean Mickey is dead meat too? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mouse might still have a future. But the Macs will cease when their code branches to a hidden, built-in command: End of Jobs. Baseball Bugs 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the wake of worldwide redundancies, that would be pretty poignant. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can say that again. Baseball Bugs 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the history of the article leads me to believe that all three of you are going to end up being blocked for edit warring. Stop. Now. Please seek dispute resolution. —Travis 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been established with User:Pigsonthewing, it is considered uncivil to call someone by a portion of their user ID in an insulting way, and if it persists, it is a potentially blockable offense. Other than that, presumably this is a content dispute. Baseball Bugs 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why my editing is called POV and the editing of Pietru il-Boqli is not called simmilary? When I looked at the article for the first time, it was all Malta this, Malta that. I have offered to my fellow user to add a name in the Maltese language, but he stopped discussing and shut every attempt at constructive communication with me. I have offered that we do not use the possibly defamatory sentence from the standard (naturally properly quoted) that states "His name does not signify that he originates from the island of Malta...". He continued not only with edit-waring of the worst kind (deleting sources, writing sentences with negative comments about sources in the article itself, ...) but also and more importantly offending almost every of my edits as being nationalistic. I do not know why wouldn't someone revert Pietru il-Boqli when it is obvious what he is doing. He is even reverting Tool2Die4 and I propose that the article would be reverted to the state in which it was last time Tool2Die4 edited. Then can we seek 3O and other methods of resolving the issue. -- Imbris (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, my objections to your seeding the article with Yugoslav propaganda are documented. Your removal of referenced information regarding St Publius and Martial, for reasons unknown, helped provoke this. If the content is to be disputed further, it will be towards an inclusive article, not one slanted to sources of your preference. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Prior to my editing the article was pure Malta POV, this is what is documented. Your attempts to strain this discussion into a nationalist vs. nationalist one is null and void. You have yet again omitted the fact that Tool2Die4 has deleted that (at the time) unsourced para. Also you are very well aware of your deletionist crusades and insults appearing in almost every edit summary. Acussing me of provoking this ANI is ridiculous, it is all your work, from the very begining you have objected every sentence, every source, denied Central Mediterranean, Italy, other name associations, changed wording of sentences I wrote to make them seem meaningless. You have then turned to matter of inclusion of facts, denied first Greek, then Roman sources, denied Roman language in times of Publius (mistakenly considered them to speak Maltese language), then you turned to omitting fact from Briggs, omitting how the Maltese were called by Italians.

Now you stand before admins complaining about me as a source deletionist, at the time that paragraph were not sourced. You speak about inclusion and your editing speaks volumes about exclusivity.

This ANI will go nowhere because you keep on offending editors and you should be disciplined. You have not documented anything of a sort that you claim - the history of the article speaks for itself!

Imbris (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Empty vessel, methinks. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Article fully protected for one week. Quit yer editwarrin' and hash it out in the appropriate venues. Any admin may remove the article protection without contacting me should s/he believe the issues have been settled. — Scientizzle 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested (ThuranX)

I have been attempting to informally work on a dispute between Arcayne (talk · contribs) and ThuranX (talk · contribs). As part of this dispute I asked arcayne to run all concerns he had with Thuran X's behavior through me so that i could filter extraneous requests (possible wiki stalking). After i made the request to arcayne, thuranx began a wild trail of straw man accusations against me. Any editors attempting to clarify the situation were attacked. I would appreciate a review of my actions to ensure that the initial comment to set this in motion was not inappropriate. here is the comment Below is a rough timeline.

• Arcayne reaches out to me for assistance on an edit dispute
• I reply telling arcayne to assume good faith and that thuranx is acting in good faith as well.
• Arcayne expresses concern of incivil behavior
• i drop a note at thuranx's page asking him to make content disputes about the content, not the editor
• i notify arcayne that I dropped a note at thuranX's talk page asking him to make content disptues about the content, not the editor
• thuran appears frustrated with apparent continued wikihounding(stalking) from arcayne. I drop a note asking that arcayne cease editing thuranx's talk page and instead run concerns through me (an attempt to diffuse the situation).
• thuranx mis-interprets my above statement and accuses me of coming to arcaynes defense.
  • Several other un-involved editors come along and alert thuran that he misinterpreted my statement. Thuran in paranoia accuses them of coming there to protect me
• Thuran again makes a long statement telling everybody that I am wrong and that there interpretation of what I have said is wrong. That I am in fact endorsing stalking and harrassement.
• I again try to clarify my initial comments were made with the itnent of asking arcayne to leave thuran alone. I also warn him that is blatant accusations of bad faith against all editors in the thread may get him blocked (I however intentionalyl do not state that I would block him as that would be a COI).
• again other uninvolved editors attempt to explain that the comment was direected at arcayne not him.
• thuran accuses me of posting the message directed at arcayne on his talk page because, "The reason that conversation is placed here is so that I don't forget that Arcayne has friend in high places."
• I tell thuran I am done sticking up for him as it has been thrown in my face repeatedly and that I am done dealing with it.
• Thuran uses a straw man argument on my above statement saying that I am endorsing stalking and that I am a bad admin.
• I tell thuran that watching problem editors is not stalking and that I am done being involved. Isattre, " Should you engage in any blatantly inappropriate behavior I will block you, no questions asked." and otherwise I am done.
• engages over and over in straw man arguments, implying extremes and things I never said with an edit summary, "go away already, you fascist." tells me to reverse the statements I have made and threatens to take it to ANI.
• I encourage him to take it to ANI.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! Chrislk02 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ThuranX is one of the most overtly hostile editors whose account is still active. His block log does not begin to reflect the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and invective, and AFAIK (though I could be wrong on this) he has never indicated a willingness to abide by community norms. IronDuke 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He has been notified here. Chrislk02 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. ThuranX's aggressive attacks on me on this very page were criticized. He obviously needs to learn how to be civil. AnyPerson (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A block won't do that, though; it solves the short-term disruption but nothing else. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps a mentor is in order here, someone (who ThuranX respects) who can block if/when ThuranX gets out of hand and monitor his posts for gross incivility. IronDuke 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need a mentor, and you and I have past beefs that prevent you from being at all neutral, so be honest about that. What I DO need is for Arcayne to be prevented from stalking me, and Chrislk02 prevented from acting as Arcayne's bully-protector. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that we have had past beefs, this is why I said "In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ..." Thats' why I knew, when I saw this post, that Chris was correct without having to wade througha lot of diffs. Would you be willing to promise to adhere to community norms re civility? Is that possible? It could at least preclude something like a mentor.IronDuke

Another recent discussion was at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive57. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is half the story. Arcayne has been harassing me for years on here, and I've repeatedly left pages to disengage with him, starting with Thor (Marvel Comics) and most recently Joker (comics) and The Dark Knight (film). Chris has actively endorsed, shepherded, and protected Arcayne while he engages in a protracted period of wikistalking and harassment, and edit warring. I spent days on talk watching Arcayne continually ignore consensus, and policy, to maintain material that ONLY he felt was germane to the articles. Eight editors on one page, five on the other, all reverted him directly, or otherwise removed his addition. Many, though not all, used the talk page or clear edit summaries about this. I engaged him on talk at length. His responses were the same sort of obtuse wikilawyering others have seen in him before, each followed by a restoration of the material. Here's one early example:, wher Fbunny had just commented on the talk, and instead, Arcayne chooses to open a new section, in one of the oldest moves for gaming consensus, start a new section and act like you don't see the old. I think that's in WP:FLAT section 6, Gaming. When multiple editors present consensus by act and reasoning against him, and he's running close to 3RR, he turns around and warns me about it. I wasn't there at all, but it's a good move that Arcayne enjoys - Strike first, right or wrong. Then he runs and gets his protector, Chrislk02. Lest you think I'm kidding, - Some quotes from Chris: " Arcayne is welcome to review everything that you do. In fact, I will be paying a bit of attention to what you do too, especially due to your long history of incivility. It is not wrong to follow what other people do, in fact that is what makes this wiki such a great place." After Arcayne escalates a WQA in three places, deliberately NOT redirecting potentially interested editors to one central section. He gets three separate groups of people fired up about me, constantly posting and increasing the noise. Then I get blocked, and Chris sanctions Arcayne's actions. Since then, I've been under Arcayne's "watchful eye", which is really manipulative stalking. I have never represented, contrary to Chris and Arcayne's interpretations, that I think I'm above scrutiny, I simply do not want Arcayne to be the one doing it. That's all I keep asking for. Now, however, I have to ask that Chrislk02, who comes running at Arcayne's beck and call to back him up, also be precluded from coming around at me.

Further proof this is all Arcayne's game to get me? After I stated that I would be unwatching the articles, he completely stops editing them. He doesn't respond to other editors asking about the sections, he leaves the pages. Based on that, I have re-watched them. I am being held hostage to his games on Misplaced Pages, and my options, as I outlined earlier this month, are simple. I can either leave the project, or endure his constant gotcha-games. Neither's ideal for me, because outside of his nonsense, I enjoy what I do here, and I've been doing good stuff for a long time here. I'm sick and tired of worrying about when Arcayne's going to come out with another attempt to get me banned, which IS his ultimate goal here, and unless Chrislk02 is prevented from assisting him, that ban will be quietly imposed one evening when no one is paying attention, as an indef block.

I will admit, I was rude to R Baley for no good reason; it appears he was actually trying to help. But I have no similar good faith for Chris or Arcayne, both have made quite abundantly clear that they want to see me banned. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that, based entirely upon their block logs, that indeffing both ThuranX and Arcayne would perhaps reduce third party editor/admin workloads but it should also be noted that both editors have made very many good contributions to the project. There needs to be a way of allowing both editors (and any alleged supporters) to edit the encyclopedia. The best way would be for both parties to agree not to edit in each others areas of interest and where there is already an established contested article for them not to directly revert each other or interact. I have some experience of formulating such conditions (see here - well, supporting Ncmvocalists work) and wonder if they might be adopted by the parties here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse LessHeard vanU's helpful suggestion. We can't go on like this. --John (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I...I want to weakly endorse Thuran's summary of events here. I don't want to say that Thuran is a charming fellow or that he didn't say the things in the diffs above. But I do want to say that the...coverage of Thuran's edits by Arcayne/Chris is outside the norm. We saw the last AN/I about Thuran, with a number of users (most notably Manhattan Samurai) clearly agitating for him to be blocked. They got their wish, partially because Thuran acutally was incivil but partially because hectoring in AN/I usually achieves its desired objectives. I suggest that editors and administrators commenting here look through the last AN/I about Thuran (the wonderful new search means that I don't have to dig through looking for the link myself) before determining which "side" to come down on. I will also note that LHVU does have some experience in setting up mutual topic bans but that those work best when the users share a minimum of coinciding interests. This may not be the case with those two. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans aren't needed for either of us. All that's needed is a clear statement to Arcayne: "Stop stalking ThuranX, unwatch his page, stop playing tattletale, and remember, he's not always wrong, when consensus is 8-1, and 5-1 against inclusion, then material should probably be out." A simple statement to Chrislk02 that in the future, he should ask another admin to review material he thinks is objectionable instead of doing it himself or coming to me about it, would be enough. This second part is commonly stated here on AN/I about admins and editors they regularly butt heads with.

Check my talk page and my contribs. Outside of those two, I've been FAR more considerate since the last mess. However, Arcayne's deliberate provocation eventually worked. I can't report it, there's an admin endorsing it, and I just kept trying to make him see that there's great consensus against it. Unfortunately, Arcayne went and came at me, got an admin who I know is hostile to me to help, and pushed things back up to AN/I levels again. If not told by the community to disengage, he will do this again and again. Look at the long, contentious problem between Arcayne and DreamGuy. And once Arcayne drives me away, he'll move on to another editor. It's like he's got some passive-aggressive compulsion, which compels him to take on, headlong and unstoppably, any editor who stands up to him at length.

I'm not denying I'm prickly at times here, I had a long row with David Fuchs, who has commented above. However, since then, he and I have settled things, and have worked together on things. Other than Arcayne, and now Chris, I've got no regular editor to whom I can ascribe no good faith. I'm not saying many of the blocks in my log weren't deserved; they were. Some weren't. But this is getting ridiculous. Am I supposed to just unwatch every page Arcayne shows up on? I'll be off the page after a few months of slow, steady, expansion by Arcayne. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no one notified me of this discussion, of which I appear to be a part of. Allow me to be blunt: I stopped watchlisting ThuranX some time ago, almost simply because he doesn't want to modify his behavior, and I have better things to do with my time here than babysit his edits. So I don't. I have not hounded his edits; in point of fact, I only discovered the last instance that resulted in his being blocked because I watchlist some of the pages that apparently he does as well, and noticed his throwing an undeserved beating into a fairly new user. As WQA has had little effect on his behavior in the past, I thought we were at risk for losing yet another user to ThuranX's behavior, so I took the matter to AN/I.
My first interaction with thuranX, more than two years ago, was no more pleasant than the one two days ago. His good contributions aside, his unchanging behavior is problematic. Granted, I've had a bumpy past, but I think I've grown as an editor, especially in matters of editorial interaction. I've seen newer users leave the project specifically because of his behavior, which is largely, 'it's my way, or fuck you'. Prickly doesn't begin to serve as an adequate descriptor.
It was because of this animosity on his part that I sought out the last admin who told me to come to him if I encountered problems. When I saw that the problems with ThuranX were only going to escalate, I needed some advice. Not protection, or preface to reporting him here, as Thuran kept claiming.
I want to stress that blocking/banning him shouldn't be a goal here; it has not in the past addressed his behavior at its core, and he would likely see such as unfair. As well, that might affect his mostly good contributions, turning them ever more sour. As to what would be more appropriate escapes me. I can't see him accepting a civility modification mentor, but maybe that might be a choice. - Arcayne () 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that after making such a big deal of how he was going to be policing me, that Arcayne instead quietly,without fanfare, changed his mind and unwatched my talk page between 6 Jan and 27 or so Jan, when we again came into conflict. He made such a big deal of how he had every right to watch me, supervise and report me, that it would simply be absurd to assume he'd changed his mind silently, without telling anyone. As for his first interactions, I left the Thor page because of him, since then, I've left other pages to avoid him. Arcayne, however, every few months, shows up, picks some point to build contention, and whenever I try to talk about it, escalates, usually by digging in his heels for a few days, then reporting me when I get frustrated with his behavior. You would think I would have learned the just report him even faster than he reports me, but no. each time, I go into it thinking 'this is the time I'll get him to listen to others.' Each time, I wind up reported and hassled. I just don't have any interest in being the aggressor, but I'm no good at not looking like one in the face of his behaviors.

This ist he best way I know to summarize how I feel about him: Arcayne is the kid who pokes the other kid in the back during class, randomly, and not too often... just enough that the kid in front knows that it's coming, but he doesn't know when. Then, the kid in front abruptly turns around and punches the kid behind him, and gets in trouble, and the kid behind knows it worked, and prepares to start all over, because the punch is worth the misery caused. That's what dealing with Arcayne is like for me. ThuranX (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If ThuranX were under the impression that other editors were watching his behavior, it would serve as a temper on the behavior. After the first few days following his block, I kept him on my watchlist for a short period of time. I didn't interact with him, and went about my business. After a while, I took him off my watchlist and went on. convinced that - if the problem had not been resolved - someone else could deal with it.

A more accurate representation of his provided analogy would be the bully who picks on folk, and when someone finally decides to tell the principal about it, the bully either pretends to be sorry for it, or complains that he had to hit the kid because the kid wouldn't walk the way he wanted him to.

The best way to summarize Thuran's issue here is that if he doesn't want to feel at risk for being reported, he needs to sufficiently modify his behavior so that he no longer is susceptible to being blocked for a civility issue. ThuranX thinks he is the smartest kid in the room, and the reality is that no on e is the smartest person in the room while editing Misplaced Pages. - Arcayne () 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A civility probation should suffice to suppress many conflicts involving Thuran. I have his talk page on my watchlist since I blocked him for incivility last year. Since then, it has become clear to me that Thuran has a problem in the way he expresses himself to users who are bringing him frustration. Thuran also seems to believe that users who complain against him are "out to get him", like in a conspiracy ring. Thuran does not seem to acknowledge own fault, always preferring to adopt an aggressive posture to defense himself against any admonishments, regardless of their rightfulness. This behavior should be restrained. Húsönd 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though i'm not an admin, i've dealt with uncivil editors before. They continually revert pages and make personal atttacks because neither one refuses to admit their wrong or reach a compromise. I think that either they both apologize and end this year long fight, or ignore eachother enitrely (at the risk of both being indef blocked). Elbutler (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been seeking a compromise in the article discussion virtually since this issue arose, so long as the event being disputed is included; as per at least three different policies, while at least one person keeps characterizing them as BLP and undue weight. As far as ThuranX is concerned, I'm not following him around; we simply edits some of the same pages. I leave his edits alone and perform mine. He chooses to attack my edits (not reverse, or question but attack), despite being repeatedly asked to focus on the edits and not the editor by no less than four different people.

In the best of worlds, he could be a lot nicer to folk (not just me). At the very least, the guy could stop attacking me at every given opportunity. Have the pages the wikitool indicated a commonality one or both of us have dropped from our watchlist. Thor is a typical example; I haven't edited there since five days in August, 2007, and during that time, none of my 11 edits interacted with ThuranX' edits). I don't seek the guy out (I mean, seriously - considering the guy's behavior, only a masochist would), and he in fact follows me to articles to post complaints, and has done so for more than a year. I am not sure why I should apologize for not backing down to a bully, or defending the new folk. - Arcayne () 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of stalking you now? Is this the level of absurdity that you must resort to? I can't believe this. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

One possible solution that might work is the "bang their heads together" probation: if there are any incidents of incivility or disruption between the two of them, they will both be given equal blocks regardless of who said or did what. This might sound a little odd, and I admit it's stretching the "deterrent" clause in the block policy, but it does provide an incentive for each to make sure that there aren't future conflicts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd totally endorse that. There are a couple of beans-y issues, but those would quickly become incredibly obvious. I suggest six months at the outset, to be reviewed at three. Either of them causes a stink with or about the other and they both get blocked, escalating times, reset the BHT (Bang Heads Together) timer. //roux   05:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thirded, though I'd say start the blocks much lower than six months. And having looked at the "extreme" incivility (, , ) that Chrislk warns ThuranX for... Chrislk really does need to step back and let another admin handle this. I'm disturbed by his elsewhere-quotes of "You don't make friends and gain respect by being a dick and I would go as far as to say at time be a total asshole." and "Arcayne is welcome to review everything that you do. In fact, I will be paying a bit of attention to what you do too, espeically due to your long history of incivility." in response to ThuranX protesting that Chrislk was enabling Arcayne to stalk him. If ThuranX's behavior is really that egregious, it ought to be obvious to an uninvolved admin. arimareiji (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A look at the talk page and article page of the article in question reveals that Arcayne was edit warring against at least six other editors by my count, including ThuranX. When Arcayne couldn't get his way, he went to Chrislk's talk page with claims about incivility. Chrislk then leaves a warning about incivility on TX's talk page. Take a look at the three diffs Chris cites as examples - I can't see any incivility in any of them, let alone of the "rather extreme" variety that Chrislk purports to have encountered. No wonder then, that ThuranX considers the warning from Chris as unjustified. Having got a negative reaction from ThuranX, Chrislk then comes here to start a case against him for doing so. But on what grounds, apart from the fact that ThuranX said in effect he doesn't believe Chrislk is acting impartially? That doesn't seem like any ground for an AN/I case to me. It's hardly suprising in the circumstances then, that ThuranX feels he is being victimized.

I therefore see no ground for action against ThuranX, but in Arcayne's case this is not the first time I have seen him making dubious claims of misconduct against other users. I think it would help it he started showing a little less enthusiasm for resort to the umpire, and a little more respect for basic policies like WP:CONSENSUS. Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gato, did you actually read that diff? I in no way accuse thuran of incivility however ask that, as a good practice, when in an content dispute that he make the argument about the content in question, not the editor. This is genreal purpose advice that I feel should be offered as a first like in any Dispute. Note that I also very clearly say, " I have no intention of blocking anybody for this content dispute, which is what it is. ." You have either failed to read my entire post, or taken it completley out of context. I am confused as to why you find this a warning about incivility (a word I do not even use in the post). I even summarize my post in a nice conclusion "As I said on my talk page, both sides are most often acting in good faith with the intent of providing the most reliable, accurate and relevant material. However, each side does thid differently due to personality differences and different understanding (or lack of understanding) of wikipedias policies and guidelines. Thanks!". Again, what is wrong with this post? Chrislk02 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a second opinion. I gave you one. The diffs you posted as "rather extreme" examples of incivility were, at most, mild violations of WP:AGF, but users are not expected to extend AGF limitlessly, and these two users clearly have a history.

Furthermore I don't believe there is a legitimate case here. ThuranX expressed the view that you are not an impartial admin, you are entitled to disagree, but to continue to insist on his talk page that you are "only trying to help" - and then dragging him to AN/I when he refuses to accept your reassurances - only lends strength to his argument. And what exactly did you bring this to AN/I for anyway? Where does it say in policy that one is forbidden to express a distrust of an administrator? ThuranX has a right to his view, and though you may feel miffed by it, that is no reason to drag him to AN/I. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreicate the second opinion. Please note I came to ANI to have my behavior evaluated. If you had followed the case and the diffs I provided above, THuranX was going to bring this to ANI anyways. In an effort to show good faith on my behalf i requested that MY behavior be evaluated. Afterwards both thuran and arcayne came in guns a blazing. The intent of this thread was to evaluate this comment. While I felt that the comment was not inappropriate, and several other editors did not either, thuran kept insisting that I had made the comment in bad faith. Both THuran and I were frustrated about this which is why I requested a second opinion of MY behavior. Chrislk02 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit that when I posted on this matter last night I missed the "go away, you fascist" edit summary which I think was unacceptable. However, I think that when he told you he did not view you as an impartial admin, it would probably have been best for you to just state your dissent and move on. He was obviously feeling victimized at that point and further discussion was only likely to inflame the situation.

No-one's behaviour has been ideal in this situation but ThuranX has apologized for his overreaction, so hopefully we can close this discussion now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gato: That policy was written back in 2004, but its origins are in the dawn of time. (To any whom it may concern: Joke) arimareiji (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring this to ANI anyways, I was saying that would be the next step if he continued to help Arcayne in harassing me. That said, It seems consensus here is I overreacted to Chrislk. In rereading it, I can see how others read it differently than I do. I apologize to Chris. However, I do feel that he kept on pushing and pushing, when he could have easily gotten other Admins involved separately, instead of ramping things up before R Baley showed. I've already apologized to R Baley. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong, Gatoclass. I went to Chrislk's page only when the discussion turned ugly, and not on my part (recall that whole, comment on the edits and not the editor thing?). Indeed, my question to Chris was whether I was acting out of order, and warranting the personal attacks levied against me. And they weren't doubtful; if I had issued the same against you, Gato, there isn't a way in hell you wouldn't feel attacked as well. And I will retiterate that at no time was I seeking punitive action against ThuranX; I just wanted the attacks to stop.

I won't speak to the content issue, as folk here have specifically noted that they don't want to address them. While I do see a lot of protectionist ownership happening in the articles in question ('wait, you want to add real world stuff to the article? How dare you!'), I guess I should allow consensus to be wrong, despite the fact that it violates essentially every other policy that we use, you know, verifiability, reliability, original research, crystal ball, etc. But if you are okay with that and personal attacks (

Okay, now every one's arguing, i think we all need to take a deep breath, take a short break from editing to cool off and think rationally, and try to avoid contact except for this noticeboard, further incivil comments (at least try to avoid swearing, that only fans the flames higher) will only make it worse. P.S. i'm moving this discussion down so it won't be archived by the bot since it's obviously not done yet. Elbutler (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the bot cares where the thread is on the page. It archives threads based on whether or not a comment has been posted to it for the last 24 hours. But whatever, I digress.--Atlan (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com / User:Robert Sieger

Re-adding this here as it was archived too soon, and without conclusion - Alison 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed_conditional_unban_of_User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, Durova 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Misplaced Pages and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support on general principles, if not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.

Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm| 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. Durova 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Misplaced Pages risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more appropriate to bring up at WP:VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect for Chergles's input I've created a new essay about lifting community bans. Misplaced Pages:Standard offer contains the standards I've practiced for over two years. Shortcut WP:SO. Durova 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Robert emailed me to say that he's dealing with a family issue right now and won't really be able to participate (on or off-wiki) in discussions here for the moment - Alison 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I've gone back over this guy's record - old blocks, old RFCs, etc - and it's quite clear he's a lunatic bigot. We have enough of these on Misplaced Pages without letting another one from the past back into the fold. Troubles article have plenty of nutters editing them without another one being throw in. I don't care if he's been a good little boy and avoided socking for six pathetic months - ooh, well done, would you like some chocolate cake now? Leopards spots change do not. What do you think he wants to come back for? To carry on wikignoming on movie bio articles? I really don't think so. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this in my plague archives: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Do we really think that any...person...capable of writing this revolting bile should be allowed near Misplaced Pages? Do we really? Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Keeping him from Misplaced Pages isn't actually feasible, but genuine reform may be. He has refrained from socking for half a year. Okay, let's give him a try. He'll be on the short leash and there isn't likely to be any opposition to a renewed ban if problems return. There's little to lose by giving banned users an incentive to turn over a new leaf, as long as the parameters are fair and reasonable to both sides. Not too lenient, but not impossible either. Durova 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban per Eliz81's substantive conditions although I would go along with the suggestions that a new name is used. At a guess, I think I must have unwittingly welcomed almost a dozen of RMS's sock accounts during routine work at Recent Changes. You can add quite a few welcomes later, after I became aware of the history involved and where I had a gut feeling from editing patterns that it was RMS, but there was no legitimate reason not to assume good faith. I've knocked off a couple of socks along the way :). The events that led to his banning happened before I was active on Misplaced Pages, so I wasn't involved, but they clearly and unambigiously fall into the category of "things-up-with-which-Misplaced Pages-cannot-put" if the system is to work; perhaps if I had been involved then, I probably would be reluctant to support an unban now. But the question seems to me to be: has the situation, or more accurately, has RMS moved on from 2006 and would unbanning him compromise the encyclopaedia? He has kept to his agreement not to sock. From the few interactions I have had with RMS - although granted those were with sock accounts - and from reading his edits over the course of late 2007 and early 2008, my opinion is that he has moved a long way from the RMS of 2006. And, perhaps this isn't really relevant, but the fact that he is agreeing to go through this process earns a few points from me, if only on grounds of "intestinal fortitude". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without going into too much detail, Robert had some personal issues back in 2006 that would certainly have caused problems, especially those outbursts that Moreschi noted above. That's all been resolved now and is in the past, and he's unlikely to go back to that behaviour. That's all I can say, really - Alison 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And you believe him when he says this? "Oh, sorry, I couldn't help all the xenophobia and racism, I was a bit stressed at the time"? Do we have any proof of this? These conditions are incredibly generous. I could maybe support if the topic ban from Troubles articles was lifetime, but 6 months? You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that belief is an issue here; it's actions subsequent to any unbanning that are going to be the issue, and any edits on Troubles-related articles are inevitably going to scrutinized. Of course, anything along the lines of the events that got him banned are going to result in a reban, simple as that. If he makes edits that, if made by any other editor without any baggage, would be considered legitimate and constructive, then they should be treated on their merits as such; however, if there is a pattern of edits where he "plays the player, not the ball", where there is good reason to believe he is editing against another editor or editors rather than on the point, they aren't going to escape notice. There are enough neutral editors involved in the Troubles articles nowadays that someone is going to call him on them; even in six months, a year or two years from now, because of the history of the Trouble-related articles, it's highly unlikely that there won't be more than enough neutral editors who could easily - and quickly - come to a reasonable conclusion. Hey, even bleeding-heart liberals like me sometimes take comfort in knowing there's a Big Stick around the place somewhere :). People might be willing to let his past stay in the past and if things go to plan, the past can be forgotten, but he will still be subject to the rules on neutrality and personal attacks that all the rest of us have to work with. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While I have some of the same reservations and Moreschi, if durova, alison, and eliz all think rms has gotten past the rediculous behavior; I would support a short leased unbann (following eliz's conditions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. If the people above are willing to supervise, and the user will follow the restrictions, then good luck to him. (And them.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. support unban Willing to see how this goes. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Weak Support, with concerns - I note in that RfC above that his interests in bigotry range far and wide from Irish topics; I think that point 10 needs at least 6 and 6, not 3 and 3, and needs to be expanded to cover any political conflict in which two or more common populations are involved - Ireland, Serbia, Slovaks/Slovenes, Ukrainians, and so on. To be blunt, I'd like to see it mroe stepped = 3 months of theater and film, and 3 months of general culture and sciences and so on, with the step 10 material to kick in AFTERwards - so that it goes from generally exclusive to generally inclusive over time. I realize this complicates it, but this isn't an easy situation. If hes' truly interested in editing the project, it shouldn't be too hard to abide by, and if he's interested in combat, then it'll be over fast either way. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A old matter of civility...

Can someone have a look at this case please?--Michael X the White (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to bring this back up from archive? It was on this board for at least two days, during which time it was pretty clear that it's a content dispute, and since this page is not part of the dispute resolution process, it doesn't belong here. What you are terming personal attacks are, on the whole, not. What you call "censorship", on the whole, isn't. What you call "deleting another user's comments" is the legitimate removal of a comment which was posted once, and then posted again verbatim 4 minutes later. It's a content dispute, so take it to dispute resolution, please. _Gb 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I agree that "malakia" is a rude and offensive term, and was definitely a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, has he repeated similar behaviour since? It seems the matter was well-discussed at the time, and it's far too late for additional action now, as it would be punitive as opposed to preventative if the actions have not recurred. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nostradamus

See . We're getting battered by IP/Anon vandalism; any help would be much appreciated. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Future requests ought be made at WP:RFPP. –xeno (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I didn't know about WP:RFPP. I've learned something new, which is a good thing. Thanks much for your time and quick action. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, the Edit-Warrior Prince. :) Baseball Bugs 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Ed Fitzgerald, whitespace and other manual formatting against the MOS

Ed has been asked repeatedly by many users to stop doing this. He even said he would consider stopping this. Yet, he continues to use "! -- >" page code to enforce his personal style. This isn't a big bad horrible thing, but it is against MOS, he's shown a willingness to revert war over it, he has been politely asked, and a little escalation by an admin to the wrist lash with a wet noodle request to actually stop is a logical next step. Miami33139 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the MOS has anything to say about it, the extra blank lines create an inch-wide gutter of wasted space, at least on my screen. I've discussed this with Ed before and he says it is because he is using MSIE and wants to avoid having too little space in certain places such as above and below divs such as navboxes and the table of contents (hell, I wish I had that problem). — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarheelz123

Tarheelz123 (talk · contribs) - Adding unreferenced and poorly sourced material to WP:BLP articles, history of numerous warnings for other disruptive behavior on talk page. Requesting another administrator look into this and evaluate. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, this user continues to refuse to use any edit summaries at all, despite being told to do so on several occasions: , , . Although lack of edit summaries is not itself a blockable offense, it is nonetheless disruptive, particularly with controversial and ill-advised edits. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Godvia

• Godvia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An indefinite block is probably in order for User:Godvia. Warnings are not stopping this bad faith editor. Evidence is here: , , , , . This would seem to be pretty open-and-close to me, as the user is way out of line despite repeated warnings. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Nothing here to defend. – iridescent 22:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not really resolved because we have angry users now. The user initially started out with a calmly written comment on a talk page. Later it degenerated. We should work with others so as not to create a hostile situation. It is easy to blame the blocked user. Let's see if we can handle it better in the future. Companies and stores have to deal with the situation all the time...disatisfied customers who sometimes eventually yell and swear. Some companies and stores handle the situation better, especially in the early stages. I'm not blaming anyone. I am merely suggesting that we should work for a calm situation whenever possible. Chergles (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Have you read the account in question's contributions? – iridescent 23:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is marked as an indef block for vandalism, but the behavior of the user was sufficiently strange it's not clear how to classify it. The account made its start on 30 January with a puzzling and discomforting dispute about the race of the actress Meagan Good, which can still be seen at Talk:Meagan Good#Heritage? (Really). User:Godvia started throwing around the term 'racist'. The editor then progressed to obscene personal attacks, four of which are listed by Iridescent at the top of this report. I'm not going to question an indef block for this kind of editing record. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have serious questions about the user's behavior but have started a dialogue, sort of acting like a mini-counselor. The better we work together, the better it is. There's no sense in having the user feel like Misplaced Pages said to him "F.U., you are banned." Chergles (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist edit warring on BLP violations

Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit warring across multiple articles to insert more or less identical poorly sourced / unsourced claims that a Palestinian-American professor, Rashid Khalidi, printed a "fabricated" or "bogus" quotation in a New York Times editorial. This has continued for several days despite numerous warnings, talk page discussion, discussion at WP:BLP/N#Henry Siegman - "anti-Israeli" criticism and reversions from several different editors. I have found five articles so far:

• Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here: leading to indefinite article protection.
• Henry Siegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:
• Moshe Ya'alon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit warring here:
• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A single edit by Historicist in what looks like an edit war by multiple parties but it is hard to tease out.
• Arnaud de Borchgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). One edit, no edit warring.

The edits have been reverted and/or opposed on the talk pages by Nbauman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), GrizzledOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), myself, and Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the first four of whom removed or refactored the material on BLP grounds, and the last suggesting administrative intervention on the Khalidi talk page. I can see at least a couple editors who added or restored Historicist's material, but Historicist seems to be by far the main editor involved.

This continues a month's long pattern by Historicist of adding poorly sourced derogatory content to the encyclopedia, then edit warring it in against consensus. The presence of administrators has in the past not been enough to stop the edit wars or to keep the talk page discussion fair or civil - there was full page protection at least twice. The earlier trouble dates back to the period when Khalidi was a political football over the John McCain "pals around with terrorists" smear of Obama. I bring this report with some reluctance because in the past these reports have turned into forums for making ridiculous accusations against me for my role in keeping the peace.Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Many of the edits you provide as diffs are old and some of them aren't reversions. If you think there's edit warring you should report it to the appropriate board. Instead you are stringing together edits to make it look like edit warring and casting aspersions on his motivations, this strikes me as being disruptive and tendentious. As I recall, in one of the cases you cite Historicist signed on for mediation and you refused and obstructed for months. Without commenting on the merits of the content he's trying to add, it's not like he's making it up out of whole cloth and without any citations. I find your attempts to treat every content dispute as a battle that requires administrator intervention unfortunate. Personally I find that you are aggresive with warning templates and abusive in your accusations of edit warring and other accusations where there is none. Certainly Historicist could act with more prudence, but he's not the only one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the matter at hand - you are an involved party here, having defended historicist and participated in edit wars and accusations on Historicist's side, and I'm tired of dignifying these tit-for-tat complaints with a serious response. Historicist's diffs speak for themselves and show edit warring BLP violations against consensus. Four editors reverted on BLP grounds, and the sourcing for this derogatory material is unquestionably weak. The problem is that as in past incidents he does not stop unless he is stopped. This has gone on for months and it has now flared up twice the last three weeks, resulting in long term full protection of the article both times. Neither policy, nor warnings, nor pleas to follow BRD, nor failing to obtain consensus, have prevented him from simply reverting again and again, until the article in question gets protected. There is nothing to mediate here. It is a behavior problem. This is the correct forum for such things. Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon mentions part of the problem, but not all of it. In the same obviously inappropriate paragraph that Historicist added (and both ChildofMidnight and he then reverted into place), Historicist also attributed to Efraim Karsh a comment about Khalidi's "blind nationalist belief," that it "reduces his academic work to the level of mere 'political polemics.'" In fact Karsh said nothing of the sort, commenting only on a specific quote of Khalidi's that it "may have some merit at the level of political polemics." Historicist's addition is, in other words, a blatant misrepresentation of source material, intentional or otherwise, on top of the other issues. In fact I do not see how ChildofMidnight should be editing this article either, however, as his interventions have been almost entirely to replace not just poorly sourced but mis-sourced material, while attacking editors on the page but refusing to engage or discuss the content. His replacement of this paragraph without any explanation in talk is just one of several examples over the last months. In most articles I would be more willing to deal with this, but considering it is a BLP I think that administrative action is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are both setting a new standard for false accusations, personal attacks and incivility. Are we to believe that if there were a legitimate instance of edit warring you wouldn't have reported it immediately? Making false accusations is itself an offense, so save us the fake dramatics. You've brought up concerns over the content, and now you need to work through the discussion and dispute resolution remedies to decide what can and should be included if anything. Did you try rewording or was the edit simply reverted in its entirety? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight seems to have some weird problem keeping his cool about this page, and for some reason has been shielding Historicist via edit wars, personal attacks, assumptions and accusations of bad faith, etc. Most of this seems to come from thin air and/or a complete misunderstanding of BLP. BLP violations and POV pushes do not have to be rephrased or agreed on - they are deleted on sight. Yet we have worked with the problem editors for months to try to make peace, without any improvement in their behavior. I did not include him in the initial report because until now most of this was a little stale and his role in the latest flare-up was relatively slight, but this report seems to have triggered this bizarre reaction again. A review of his record on the page shows that he has been seriously disruptive and quite at odds with policy and editing process - he probably ought to stay away from the page as well. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Content issue

The most obvious issue here is ongoing edit warring that resists all attempts to stop. However, lest this get into a discussion of content and the applicability of BLP, please note that the only reliable source offered to date is an editor's note in a New York Times editorial noting that the widely repeated quote (which did not originate with Khalidi) could not be verified and does not appear in the source it is generally attributed to,. The source does not say that anybody "fabricated" anything. The material disputed on BLP grounds includes accusations that are synthesis, opinion, or original research, or sourced to editorials appearing on pro-Israel attack websites / organizations Middle East Forum and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA, which has a notorious history here - see CAMERA#Misplaced Pages Campaign).Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite the explanation of WP:BLP guidelines, I had to revert his changes as well. He seems rabidly insistent that his derogatory and poorly sourced opinions be included, despite consensus against him. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Rabidly insistent"? How about this comment where you say "Historicist's butchery of the English language was just so painful, that I had to go and vent my frustration somewhere." That sounds like a personal attack to me. I think everyone involved could do a better job of following the appropriate dispute resolution protocols and civility guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the use of this remark to get at Khalid Rashidi and Henry Siegman is questionable. Both the Camera and the Commentary piece flaunt the 'bogus' claim to a purpose, to smear the former's scholarship and the latter's competence. For the record, the phrase translated as 'sear into their consciousness' did not arise with Moshe Ya'alon, but was IDF jargon, used in contexts for harsh military, as opposed to political, measures against any Palestinians involved in any form of revolt against the Occupation, during the intifadas. Both the Ricki Hollander, Alex Safian, and Jason Maoz's pieces from activist sites make out that this is a total fabrication, one drawn 'ad nauseam by Arab news services, neo-Nazi websites and leftist bloggers', and the innuendo is obvious. Yet Hollander and Safian's own construal is questionable, and like Maoz they ignore the fact that a distinguished Israeli scholar like Yoram Peri uses it in his highly regarded book,Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy,US Institute of Peace Press, 2006. Peri is on the other side of the political fence from both Khalidi and Siegman and yet uses much the same language of Peri's remark, which created an uproar in Israel when it, and his remarks before the rabbinate some weeks earlier, were published. I suggest in the meantime that Historicist dig out what is now an idiom in Hebrew, and provide wiki editors with the full Hebrew text, so that at least those fluent in that language can examine the source and its translations, and allow us to judge for ourselves. Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - My choice of adjectives is not the issue here. The edits by which Wikidemon has asked for administrator intervention IS. If you wish to accuse me of harassment, derogatory statements or such, please do so within the context of this issue, or do so separately. Looking through Rashid Khalidi history, you appear to have a record of supporting Historicist's edits. As I see it, you are not an unbiased party. Pot kettle black?GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional civility issues

• I've seen enough from User:Historicist here and elsewhere to know that the user hasn't really adopted what you might call "expected norms" of Misplaced Pages editing. I am of the opinion that a short block could be appropriate, especially if the edit warring continues. I would keep a watch on the situation and impose it myself if needed, but I've been attacked by the user in the past as being biased on a number of fronts, so he wouldn't view me as a neutral assessor in this case. And I probably wouldn't be, since the user has been rather uncivil to me in our past encounters: he said I was "disturbingly aggressive" (apparently for asking him on his talk page to avoid personal attacks) and then said I have a "bizarrely twisted mind that renders (me) of questionable use as an editor of Misplaced Pages". Interesting. But that wasn't the best doozy. Later, he said I was guilty of "Holocaust minimization, lies, ... defense of pedophilia, insensitive jokes about the Holocauset (sic), obsessive attacks of people who ctiticize (me), and ... threats. Yikes. As I said, someone in a more neutral position should really have a word with User:Historicist to help him understand WP's expected good editing and civility practices. Good Ol’factory 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say your comments show clear signs of a bias against Historicist and I don't see how bringing up old gripes does much to help the situation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's purpose was not to help heal anyone or any situation. It's purpose was to put the user's specific behaviour in this case in the context of a broader pattern of incivility and problematic editing. If that disturbs you, look away. But any admin who is going to address this will benefit from knowing the whole history of problems with the user, and this was intended to assist him or her in that. Good Ol’factory 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that what you offer is a one-sided portrayal rather than a fair assessment of all sides involved. In this very thread there are examples of problematic edits from others, but you've ignored them. This is a content dispute, and while it's certainly appropriate to remind Historicist and everyone else to use dispute resolution protocls rather than editing back and forth over content, I don't see anything to be gained from your negative characterizations and assessment of one party with whom you've had difficulties in the past. If he's expected to show restraint so should you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was one-sided—the personal attacks were leveled against me. The target of the attack usually can't help but be "one side" of the issue, and the target is not a neutral party. That's why it's not me who is pursuing the issue as a type of "mediator", as I stated above. Any admin who is neutral and is further interested in pursuing the issue could (and I expect would) examine the entire thread of our discussion to see what my comments were, so your concern that I am being "one sided" is a red herring. If you yourself would care to examine the discussion, I think you'd probably conclude that I had "showed restraint", as you put it, whereas he did not. (Or, just ask the user—he could simply tell you the "other side" of the story.) The entire point is that the user's behaviour has, in the past, gone well beyond mere "content disputes" into personal attacks, which they very well could end up again. Let's try not to have such a spider's-eye-view of the matter. I would prefer that editors try to address the underlying problems and not just deal with every issue as a discrete content dispute with no connection whatever to previous or future actions. Good Ol’factory 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A little reality check

• User:Good Olfactory appears to engage in rapid-fire requests to delete categories, many are useful, but when I happened upon him he was attempting to eliminate two Holocaust related categfories and do so in the language of Holocause minimization, his claim was that "merely" suriviving the war in Europe as a hunted Jew in hiding was not Misplaced Pages worthy unless the Jew in quesiton had been in a death camp, his casual dismissal of the mass murder of millions of European Jews outside of the death camps is the definition of Holocaust minimization. I have cooperated with Good Olafactory on other articles. But Holocaust minimization is vile. I am troubled that he is still defending his remarks and behavior.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• User:Wikidemon patrols the Rashid Khalidi page. It took me three months of many-times-per-day editing argument on the Rashid Khalidi talk page to enter the straigntforward infoormation that Khalidi was a PLO official in the 1970's and 80's. This despite the fact that the info I was struggling to enter was sourced to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times Pacifica Radio the New York Times several well-known reporters who interviewed Khalidi in Lebanon as a PLO official and academics who have written about the periof. Wikidemon and accomplices argued for three months that all of this evidence was invalid. The arguments Wikidemon used them are the same kind of personal attacks on me that he is using now.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that unruly POV pushers always accuse the accuser? That's one of the tiresome things about dealing with the Palestinian/Israeli partisans, they're so jumpy. My record is clean here and that morass is not really my little corner of Misplaced Pages. Historicist keeps trying to source disparagement of Khalidi (and possibly other opponents of Israel) to political attack blogs, think tanks, letters to the editor, and opinion pieces by partisans and pundits. The text he tries to insert in the article does not even follow from those non-reliable sources. For example, the Republican presidential campaign talking point he was pushing for months, that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO but lied about it (and hence, his supposed friend Barack Obama, as Sarah Palin put it, palls around with terrorists) did not have good sourcing, was flat-out contradicted by some sources, is denied by the subject of the article, and may in fact be simply untrue. It's pointless to argue content here though. Now he's been trying to add to five articles material implying that Khalidi fabricated a quote, which is clearly untrue. These ongoing BLP violations, however blatant, are a content issue that we could easily deal with on the article page. The months-old behavior problem, which shows no sign of acknowledgement or abating, is not proposing the material. Anyone is free to propose content for the encyclopedia. It's the drama when he does not get his way - gross incivilities, wikigaming, and accusations against those who disagree on the content, then when asked to stop, blowing smoke by accusing others of the same thing. Historicist has been the source of most of the edit problems on the page, with occasional fly-bys from less frequent editors. Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is whether crtiticism is allowed

• The material at immediate issue consists of:
• 1) A fabricated quotation, published by Khalidi no fewer than four times. It was not only removed, the removing editors implied that the quote was not fabricated. Note that the correction ran 22 days after the fake quote. In that time the Times contacted Khalidi (departmental scuttlebut) and Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote, and failed. If Khalidi couldn't rind it, and the Tiems couldn't find it, its a fake. The quotation was first published by journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, without a citation. The citation to a particular Ya'alon interview was first published by Khalidi. That is, he fabricated the citation to a source twhere the quote did not appear. In a junior professor, this sort of fraudulent scholarship lieds to denial of tenure.
• 2) an academic article about a second instance of Khalidi publishing a quotation from a Christian cleric with a fabricated attiibution to a Zionist, and also making a verfiably false claim about a book by Theodore Herzl. That is, I was adding to the Khalidi page three well documented instances with good sources in which Khalidi published false information about what a Zionist had actually said.
• 3) an assertion by a distinguished historian Efraim Karsh making a widely shared criticism of Khalidi as writing books more as a propagandist for the Palestinian cause than as an objective scholar. Similar statements appear on the Misplaced Pages pages of many of the pro-Israeli historians whose work contests Khalidi's claims. I point out here that Khalidi self-describes as an advocate fo the Palestinian cause and actually worked for the PLO as a young man as an official propagandist. Many historians view Khalidi's work as part of a centuries old tradition of nationalist historians promoting their national cause. It is not a category to be scorned; most of us regard Herodotus as a nationalist historian, he gives about as balanced an account of the Greek cause and the Persian Empire as Khalidi does of the Middle East. When historians write as partisans, it is appropriate to say so. I admire some of Khalidi's work, I use some of it, but I recognize it as an entirely one-sided account of reality, polemic in the best sense of the word.
• My purpose in adding the material critical of Khalidi was to begin a section that might, with time, develop into an appropriately-sized section on academic criticisms of this highly controversial academic.
• The real issue here, as I see it, is whether well-soruced material critical of Rashid Khalidi will be allowed onto his page, or whether anyone trying to add such material will be required to run the gauntlet of a months-long battle on the talk page and subjected to false accusations and personal attacks.Historicist (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were rejected because you provided poor sources, inflammatory/libellous language and made personal inferences on the facts. Just as you are doing here. Just taking what you said of Khalidi's quote issue...

• "fabricated quotation" - There's a world of difference between "unverified" and "fabricated". Perhaps you could provide a source where Khalidi specifies his source for the quote, and the original interview transcripts (I assume they're in Hebrew), so that editors can view it more impartially? Perhaps a neutral 3rd party who has done so?Failing that, the NYT wording of "unverified" has to be accepted.
• "In that time the Times..."

1. "... in that time..." - you imply that the NYT investigated the quote for 3 weeks (actually, you said so specifically, elsewhere). There is no source documenting when the NYT first questioned the source. If one is to accept your argument, then CAMERA has been researching the issue for the better part of 6 years? And it took them that long to figure it out? Is this the subject of a feature film?

2. "contacted Khalidi" - this isn't mentioned anywhere in the NYT article.

3. "Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote" - he did? Your source? Where does it say that?

4. "fraudulent scholarship" - this sort of statement is potentially libellous and has to stay out of BLPs. I don't think anyone rejected the possibility that an error was made. But an error is quite different from fraud. Your use of inflammatory language is not justified. If he has committed academic fraud, then surely you can find neutral 3rd party sources which have covered the issue of the alleged fraud?

This is an example of how you failed to support the allegations you brought up. Inflammatory language, poor extremist sources and a failure to address any concerns which the other editors brought up. It is not, as you claim, a vendetta to slander Ya'alon. You could help by finding a source where Siegman specifies his source of the quote, and the original Hebrew transcripts. It'd be original research, but it would at least help cast some light on the issue.GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can we please not argue content here? The content is poorly sourced, as most of the editors on the various pages concur - and Historicist's argument above is as leaky as a sieve. Per a whole bunch of policies it is the responsibility of the editor proposing content to provide adequate sourcing, and obtain consensus for disputed edits. That is not going to happen unless there is a new development because the sources are just not there. The reason this is an AN/I issue isn't specifically that Historicist keeps trying the more prudent editors' patience with months of these weak proposals, but that he causes unending trouble when they are rejected. By revert warring poorly sourced material into the article again and again, he leaves the well-behaved editors few options. I will revert him once, or maybe twice, but he will take every one of these edits up to 3RR, badmouth those who disagree with him, and if he didn't get the last revert he will start again another day. Dispute resolution, discussion, etc., have not seemed to work here. If he does not stop the only reasonable outcomes I can see all involve administrative intervention.Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not the right place, but someone will see this and know where that may be

The "move page" command when used over a redirect is not creating a redirect properly from the "from" page to the "to" page - this has occurred on over 100 page moves and each needs fixing manually. 1) How do we go back to the way it used to be? 2) How can we notify page movers of the need to manually cleanup after themselves? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why it didn't work with you, my test worked fine. I did notice there's a little box that asks whether you want to leave a redirect behind, which is new. Perhaps users are unchecking it, confusing it with the "watch this page" box? Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have occurred 'cuz of this. lifebaka++ 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks, lifebaka; others have reported the problem at WP:VPT and it seems that whatever the cause it's been tagged for resolution. I'll tag this as resolved; anyone interested in furthering the discussion of this is invited to do so at WP:VPT. Thanks again... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a block

There is an anonymous IP user, 79.144.98.98, who keeps vandalizing the page of Luis Miguel by changing the total sales figure from 50 million into 90 million without providing a source for it , , . I have tried twice to make him stop by warning him at his talk page, but it seems like he has no intentions of stopping to vandalize the page. I'd appreciate if someone could apply a block to this account. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Report it to WP:AIV next time for faster results. I can't tell what's going on but they look like they are continuing to screw around at Mis Romances Tour but it seems to have stopped at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by AndyManchester (talk)

I am trying to improve the Syncsta article by expanding it, and AndyManchester keeps reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism. Can you please keep an eye on him?
He's already on a level 4 warning for vandalizing Syncsta and on a level 2 warning for vandalizing my talk page. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:AIV be more appropriate? However, per policy here, I have notified him of this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Having done a bit more review, this is just a content dispute. Instead of accusing each other of vandalism, actually have a discussion on the talk page. Note that expansion alone isn't the end goal. There are some policy limitations and people can have different views, legitimately. I've eliminated a decent chunk of text and have opened a discussion there. I would suggest both of you start using it or don't be surprised if both of you get blocked for edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Decentralizing the Arbitration Committee

This probably is not the right place for this but for anyone interested, I have proposed we decentralize the Arbitration Committee. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have come to tell you that this is so epic.... Synergy 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's going to be controversial. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fun Fun Fun^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clever. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I've just read it, and still cannot work out whether you are arguing abolition, restructure, or whatever. If you are proposing substantial structural changes here, I think you need substantial structural reasons, and I don't see it. --Rodhullandemu 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I want it to be decentralized. My proposal explains how conflicts can be dealt with. For anything else the Arbitration Committee does (like CheckUser) we can discuss an alternative. I honestly don't know what alternatives people want. I am waiting for them to bring them up for discussion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But ArbCom is a group of community-appointed individuals situate in disparate locations, and so by one point of view, are decentralised. If you are suggesting replacing that with community consensus, you haven't made it clear; neither have you given reasons for doing so. And ArbCom doesn't do CheckUser per se, although there may be an overlap between arbiters and checkusers. If you don't know what alternatives people want, I'd say you need to make a case for change, and so far, you haven't. --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom gives CheckUser permission. Consensus will work, and I have given reasons. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue anything else on the proposal talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Shall I marked it as failed now, or should we let the drama and arguments run for a while first? Guy (Help!) 09:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Happened upon this. Seems I saw a link to some RfC on Arbitration policy at top of contributions page yesterday (not part of my watch list) but it disappeared. Anyone know what it was? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It just popped up again, in case I whetted anyone's interest! Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_enforcement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of valid wikilinks to Pygmy Marmoset

Copy and Paste from Help desk :

Ok, an dynamic ip address:

• 129.120.193.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

has for the last couple of days removing wikilinks to Pygmy Marmoset. Not sure why, maybe they are trying to orphan the article. They take 5 minutes to remove the wikilinks, and then disappear. After a few hours, or a day they come back and do it all over again. I went and read WP:AIV, but they say there that IPs have to be active. Where exactly should I report something like this? BeckyAnne(talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - try the administrators' incidents noticeboard if it continues. Bencherlite 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged all four talk pages with a shared ip notice - maybe once they see their college has been "identified" they will cease and desist, but I will keep a watch on them also and if they receive three more warnings, report them to AIV for vandalism. It's not just the Pygmy article though - there are 7 more articles common in between those four accounts, so it might be helpful to put them on your watchlist so we can more easily see the vandalism occuring from this location. ArcAngel (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They almost never edit the Pygmy article it is always articles that wikilink to the it. BeckyAnne(talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it was done by 76.78.147.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which according to whois, is part of the same college. BeckyAnne(talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation of long-time wikipedia editor Keith Simon (wiki editor SimonATL)

I have been editing on wikipedia for several years as SimonATL. My name actual name is Keith Simon. A couple years ago, someone created an new wikipedia account, "Keith Simon" which has only recently been brought to my attention. The creator of this account has used it to vandalize articles even while pointing a falsely accusing finger at me.

Background.

This is a long story, but this comes down to a situation that started several years ago with an article that I created on wikipedia on the Theodore Roosevelt Association (TRA) using my wikipedia account, SimonATL. Around the same time, I started an article on Tweed Roosevelt. I am a member of the TRA and also have written extensively on Theodore Roosevelt and his large extended family. You can check my history on wikipedia as editor SimonATL to see for yourself.

There were some disagreements about factual statements in the article. At the same time, there were also some disagreements among the leadership of the TRA involving the organization's leadership and a past interim director, Edward Renehan.

Anyway, wikipedia editors such as TEDHEAD and another one TRAVENGER, people who sided with Mr. Renehan (whether or not it was Mr. Renehan is debatable, he claimed it was not him) made various changes in the article on the TRA and also on an article on a member of the TRA's executive board, Tweed Roosevelt. I have no way of knowing who has been involved in this impersonation of me and I don't care.

Bottom line, taking the opposite side of the debate, I made some changes in the article on the TRA and also on Mr. Tweed Roosevelt.

This past weekend, when I reviewed the "Tweed Roosevelt" account, I realized that someone a couple years ago - (around Oct 2007) created wikipedia account, "Keith Simon." I know it was not me and since it was not me, I obviously can't sign into Misplaced Pages using that account. If you look at the contributions of that account, you will see that it made a vandalization change to the article on Tweed Roosevelt on 17:04, 24 January 2009 (edit) (undo) which obviously vandalization. There is simply no logical way that the "real" Keith Simon, me - would have vandalized an article that I started years ago and which I have had to go into and pull out other people's vandalizations.

Questions. 1. How does the "real" Keith Simon, me - get control of that ID? 2. Can the account be deleted so that I could RE-create it, myself.

I spoke with Mr. Tweed Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt's great-grandson, this morning, whom I know thru that organization, the "Theodore Roosevelt Association" to explain that it was not I who had been vandalizing the article. That vandalization had been pointed out to him by several wikipedians who personally know him.

So what am I to do? To verify my identity, I can fax you my drivers license and my military (retired) ID.

Imagine how you would feel if someone created a Mark Ryan wikipedia ID and then began vandalizing articles under that assumed name!

Rather than just block this account, I'd rather just have the account deleted and that I be immediately notified so that I could create a "Keith Simon" account under my own control.

I appreciate anything that can be done to remedy this.

Thanks

SimonATL (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith Simon Major US Marine Corps Reserve (Ret) Senior JDE System Engineer - CNC Roseburg Forest Products, Dillard, OR

• Email this to WP:OTRS. They can probably handle the ID issues better than we can. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very odd. User:Keith Simon and User:SimonATL both edited the article on Theodore Roosevelt Association, in October of 2007, see

Special:Contributions/Keith Simon.

This seems to be a very unusual set of events. While User:Keith Simon hasn't done anything wrong simply in creating an account with that name, to use it to edit articles which are within the known area of interest of a real (or, just conceivably, another real) Keith Simon looks very like bad faith and deliberate deceipt. I should suggest that User:Keith Simon needs to be invited to explain himself (or herself), and that failing a satisfactory explanation the account should be blocked for a long period. Having said that, I don't believe it's all right (indeed, it may be defamatory) for SimonATL to hint above at possible deception by a named individual, and I would ask him to strike out that name. Xn4 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the peculiar edits of "User:Keith Simon" to both the Theodore Roosevelt Association and Tweed Roosevelt; it's enlightening to hear the story behind them. The Tweed Roosevelt article is the target of frequent vandalism by IPs and what appear to be socks; I would not be surprised to learn that some of them were the user in question. In any case, I think a block as an impersonator is justified, as the User:Keith Simon account has been used for fewer than a dozen edits, and most of those are controversial or vandalistic, which could damage the reputation of the real Keith Simon especially within the TRA. -Nunh-huh 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

05:39, 3 February 2009 EVula deleted "User:Keith Simon" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup). That's good enough for now, I'd think. I'd have some reservations about SimonATL registering that name again. It would make it look like he was the vandal. --Abd (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the OP doesn't want to do it, I'll create one as a doppelganger. — neuro 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If that account has been making edits, doesn't deletion of that account violate WP:GFDL? AnyPerson (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Edits made by the editor now appear as "Renamed vandal 83" see . I only saw one vandalism edit, the latest, I'd have thought that blocking the account would have been enough. The edits that were close to SimonATL's edit didn't seem to be vandalism. I'd have preferred to keep the Keith Simon account, block it, and place a note that explained why. There was no hazard to SimonATL, so I'm wondering why the drastic move of deletion was done. One edit doesn't justify calling an editor a "vandal." Were there others. If the real "Keith Simon" (not SimonATL whom we may assume has the same name) shows up and wants to, the block could then be templated for review. But at least contribs works now.

User:68.231.164.27 stalking User:Hrafn

68.231.164.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be undoing all of User:Hrafn's edits en masse. A short term block would be helpful, while this is sorted out. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

...and page protected due to abuse. Tan | 39 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Kafziel

Kafziel has had his usertalk semi-protected since October. As he is an administrator, and one who actively utilizes the admin tools, I don't see how this is acceptable. WP:PPol specifically states that usertalk pages are not normally sprotected.

Bringing this up with him, the only responses were that since I'm fairly inactive I'm not one to talk, that I should bring it up with arbcom if I still feel there's an issue, and that he's in the middle of a fairly large trolling right now and can't.

I still don't understand what the issue is with unprotecting it; it's not like a little trolling is going to hurt anyone, and any troll worth his salt is already autoconfirmed. And of course he's not going to get any requests to unprotect from new users, considering they may not have any means of actually contacting him.

Does anyone else care to weigh in, or point out that I'm just being a pain in the ass, or anything? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The middle option. Tan | 39 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

May I? .. I didn't find any problem in registering and getting in 10 edits. (or whatever the autoconfirmed requirements are). I have seen a lot of admins subjected to a lot vandalism, threats, trolls and such - and I can understand limiting it to registered and confirmed users. Just IMHO — Ched (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC) (I don't have to provide references here do I?) ... just kidding. (copyedit)— Ched (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If there hasn't been a specific issue raised about communicating with Kafziel, I say just leave the situation be. Kafziel's a good guy. I think he can manage protection settings on his user talk page just fine (looks from the history that he has been protecting and unprotecting at his discretion). My .02, but I suspect others may have stronger views on WP:PP and admin user talk pages. -- Samir 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think protection since October when you do a lot of blocking is excessive. Personally, I think if you are going to use the tools, you should be open to getting responses. Otherwise, it just isn't a fair exchange. I've had some nasty vandalism on my page and I'd never think to protect it (or would probably go through the bureaucratic hoops of asking someone else to do it for me). If you don't want to deal with that stuff, give up the mop or don't do stuff that leads to those characters. It just comes with the territory in my view. However, unless there is someone complaining who is specifically hurt by his protection (i.e. an IP he is disputing who cannot talk to him), I'd say let it go. I've seen admins use full protection, another delete and selectively undelete their page to remove conversations and warnings they didn't like, and another unilaterally delete articles and blocked people under WP:IAR, all reported here over the years. The community doesn't find this type of conduct enough of a concern, so move on and let it go. He's going to block people, prevent them from contacting him, and that's the way it is. Yes, it's all probably in large violation of policy but remember that policy reflect consensus, not the other way around. Someone will go and just change the policy soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I watchlist the talk pages of every user and IP address I deal with, and I keep them watchlisted for months. Hundreds and hundreds of them. I'm very responsive to discussion, often willing to spend several hours going back and forth if need be. I tend to deal pretty fairly with new and unregistered users, and all anyone ever needs to do is let me know so-and-so would like to talk but can't, and I will unlock my page. Or they can email me—believe me, they all know how—and I usually reply on their talk pages within minutes. Nobody has a problem contacting me after a block, one way or another.

That said, I'm sure I'll be able to remove protection again soon. Just not today. Many thanks to those who understand. Kafziel 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of the protection log, if every time he has protected his page it as due to a spree of vandalism - then I see no problem, except for the fact that the first time he did it himself. Since, in general, user talk pages aren't protected, I believe that COI plays a major role here. However, once it's been established that there's a problem - he is likely to be the first to know when it needs to be re-protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is easily solved, as has been mentioned by several different people several different times on several different threads on this noticeboard over the years. When I semi-protect my user talk page to prevent disruption by an annoyed vandal, I transclude User:Barneca/Protection notice at the top, and watchlist User talk:Barneca/Unprotected. Vandals usually won’t bother, as they won't be annoying me, and if they do they’re easily ignored. IP’s or new accounts with a real need to communicate have a way to contact me. --barneca (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Thanks! Kafziel 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New User Creating Extra Accounts

While doing a little Recent Changes patroling, I noticed a new user creating a new account, almost back to back. My vandalism radar went off, I want to think that it is an innocent account creation, but I will leave that to you all to decide. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 3, 2009 @ 06:23

Two accounts I can live with. Users creating a dozen accounts in a few minutes really set my radar off. Besides, his first article (The Possimpible (How I Met Your Mother)), while needing a lot of help, at least looks like someone going to be an asset here. There's a part of me that says to notify him, but I really don't think that would help (WP:BITE concerns anyone?)-- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You could always welcome and inquire without biting, or appearing to be biting. I'll trust you to formulate that one. (Can be a bit tricky, but is definitely do-able with the proper amount of tact applied :-) Edit Centric (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy against a user having 2 accounts. In fact, there is technically no policy against using 100 accounts, although anyone who actually does is probably using them in one of the ways specified as being forbidden per WP:SOCK. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We should consider re-writing the policy because some administrators act as though 2 accounts is reason for indefinite block. The policy could clarify when it is permitted or ban it. Chergles (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:SOCKPUPPET does this quite helpfully. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Should probably just be left alone until anything untoward happens. –xeno (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio, requesting block

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but for some reason I can't find exactly where to report this ... New editor Montaj13 continues to cut and paste content from other sites despite repeated warnings (check his/her talk page for some incidents and diffs). I'm thinking a block is the only way to get the message across? Thanks! — TAnthony 06:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Noclador

I'm too busy and do not have the inclination to get in these constant edit wars that this user seems to have become enthralled with this month. Some Admin please look at the multiple citations I included in the article. This user seems adamant to constantly remove cited references and erase terms from the article that do not fit his particular POV. This is but a few lines of text, I believe including more information is better than accidentally deleting cultural and lingual information. Please see Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Icsunonove (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It already appears that Three revert rule has been trespassed on with this edit war, lemme look further. In the meantime, I'm counseling BOTH of these editors to please cease the edit war that has been taking place, and take time to discuss the changes on the article's talk page when the opportunity arises. Please try to apply Bold, Revert, Discuss. Edit Centric (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen, I totally agree, and I'd appreciate an Admin to please step in. Noclador has become extreme this past month and it is becoming absurd. I posted one link with the same text twice, and then he lambasts me as being incompetent. No mention that he actually described my mistake wrong.  :) To me it is unacceptable to remove cited references; these are the foundation of Misplaced Pages content. Anyway, I'll probably be gone for another week or two now, but for goodness sake stop this ultra-POV erasure of information. Icsunonove (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating. Icsunonove - I'm seeing by the edit history that you have just violated Misplaced Pages policy on Three Revert Rule. Please wait a while before making any more changes. It's not at all proper to bring another user to AN/I for edit warring, and then go continue the edit war, and violate a standing policy in the process. Edit Centric (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I broke the 3RR rule myself. That said, this complaint is not about reverting edits, they have been doing this for a month now if you look at the article history. :) My complaint is this user going in and erasing cited references over and over again. This is vandalism. I have no intention to edit war, I'd just like an Admin to not allow such behavior that cleanses articles of relevant content. Also, I'm not sure I exactly did 3RR, because I was putting back the sentence and modifying it (taking out one reference with duplicate text). thanks, Icsunonove (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm actually at 2RR so far. :) I don't need to edit anymore if simply an Admin stops this user from wiping out sentences and references. I sincerely wish these arguments could simply be issues that are resolved, but it seems in particular this user has made this a rather large part of his life. He can not discuss things calmly, it is as it is some personal war now. Anyway, whatever... @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have one of the admins check me on this, but it does appear that 3RR has been breached. Also, Icsunonove, it's customary to let the other editor know that you've initiated an AN/I discussion about them, so that they have a chance to respond. I've taken the liberty of accomplishing that, so no worries this time. Edit Centric (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Noclador must certainly be at 3RR or more. ^_^ Seriously though, apologies again, I am not accustomed to making such reports. Thanks for leaving the notice. It is just getting very old to come here for an hour, add some language-usage references, and have them wiped out left and right -- with a bunch of insults along the way. I'd just hope for some community watch over these pages, because it is becoming just a constant war this past month. He is deleting my references and sentences simply because he screams he doesn't like or believe the language usage. How can we even contribute to articles or discuss things in such an environment? I mean, just coming back to edit on Misplaced Pages after a few days off is always the same story with this guy -- constantly and relentlessly raging. @_@ To me, one quick way to resolve this issue is simple -- this user should stop blanking valid edits and cited references. An even longer-term solution would be for this user to seriously chill out and start discussing with editors that disagree with him in a civilized manner. For the best of me, I can't understand how someone can be so driven by waging war on an internet encyclopedia! :) Icsunonove (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my motives on the talkpage: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Adesc_Aut long before Icsunonove arrived. Icsunonove has a long history of edit waring and insulting other users , , , . His modus operandi is insinuations, insults and snide remarks, coupled with lies to anger and hurt other editors, but on a level below actual slander: examples from the last hour: , , , , .
As usual he does contribute nothing to articles - he limits himself to disrupt the work of editors, who would like to work on articles about South Tyrol, by forcing them into endless discussion about the naming of locations. When then editors get angry through his condescending treatment of them, his insults and insinuations - he switches his style and plays the victim and is all concerned about the other users behavior - while smearing the editors in questions with lies to disparage their standing in the wikipedia community... just see above.
The disturbing part is that for the last year or so he successfully drove away over a dozen contributers (if an admin wants their name, I can email them under the condition that their names be kept confidential)
The term Adesc Aut Icsunonove wants to add to the article is a simple translation of the provinces Italian Name Alto Adige and as shown in my multiple posts on the talkpage is not used. Furthermore I spoke this morning with both, the head of the Istitut Ladin "Micurà de Rü"(the Ladin Institut, that is tasked by the government to protect the Ladin language) and the president of the Union Generela di Ladins dla Dolomites (the cultural association governing the protection of the Ladins culture) and they stated that Adesc Aut is "un nome storpiato italiano" (a deformed Italian name) and that it is a falsification to claim that Adesc Aut is used by the Ladins. They are both ready to write this in an email to ORTS.
Alas, this report is another of Icsunonove myriad attempts to drive me away from the articles about South Tyrol, which I have expanded a lot over the last weeks: i.e. , , . The annoying part is that every step I take in expanding the articles about South Tyrol I have to fight through with Icsunonove, who - despite being totally clueless about South Tyrols 1500 year German history - insists to preserve his view of the Italian history of the area, This view is factually and historically wrong. Therefore he can't and doesn't bring valid sources - and misinterprets valid sources. He claims otherwise above, but Icsunonove is in fact bad faith disruptive editor, who has driven away dozens of editors that worked on articles regarding South Tyrol, while contributing nothing to expand and enlarge articles. It is strenuous to continually have to defend valid corrections and improvements, because of one editor, who continues to insult and disrupt constructive work. --noclador (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, here he goes again. Why don't you address the here and now, without always trying to generate these grand conspiracies against everyone? I came on here for a few short minutes to add some citations, you then instantly wipe out my edits and valid references, as part of the greater edit war you were already participating in. But, yes, you are always the victim on here, and everyone else is evil, right? Why do I have to hear all these ridiculous accusations that you make after I simply try and add some citations? Who is indeed editing in bad faith? Who is disruptive and driving away editors? No one can even make an edit that is counter to your opinion without getting an ear full or having their edits reverted. This is fact. This topic had finally relaxed some for a period of two years, until you have decided to make it your personal mission in life to bring back the hell for us all, eh? Last time you accused me of being a fascist and getting rid of South Tyrol because I was fixing wikilinks. @_@ You are just giving the impression that you are extremely paranoid. So, I've tried to drive you away from the articles? Oh-kayyy. I've tried multiple times to engage you and Gun Powder Ma to stop this stupid war, yet you have pushed this to a point of an obsession. All you come off as being is extremely, and constantly angry. Listen, we'll try this yet again Noclador. I added references that show usage of the word Adesc Aut. One of the references was a government PDF from the town of Ortisei. They use that term, geez, deal with it. It is not reasonable to simply wipe out other's edits; these edits simply add to the article. You do know that you appear unable to take any POV other than a pure German one, don't you? No, but of course, everyone else is clueless and incompetent except you, right? No one can edit and expand these articles except you. We got it. Yes, all these edit wars here these past months is because of one editor, me, driving you to this extreme behavior. Gotcha. I sure have some power over you, given I rarely have time to edit on here. @_@ Well I'm the big bad editor now, except later when it is Supparluca, or then it is Piccolo, oh maybe later it will be Ian, or anyone else that dares edit the pages as you do not see fit. Whatever Noclador, you have to seriously, seriously chill out. You talk here about "1500 year German history"... that is fine, but it is unacceptable for you to try and erase and belittle other peoples' history. Man, you even post incident reports that you primarily created. At one point, in one day, you setup half-a-dozen incident reports about me, that you had the Admins laughing at you. Then you accuse others of driving away editors? Your mode of operation now appears simply to stalk these pages daily and drive everyone away from these articles, so you can be the sole owner of these pages. That is unacceptable. You are going to have to learn to share, both here on Misplaced Pages, and in real life with regard to this province. I personally drove away over a dozen contributers! LOL You do not know how desperate you sound making such amazing claims... Icsunonove (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that we've heard from both parties in this, I'll say a few things here, then let an admin chime in. (I'm surprised one hasn't already!) First, both of you need to stop the edit warring, and the finger pointing and recriminations here. If there is a grievance, please cite specific diffs so that they can be vetted. Also, these past few jabs back and forth just threw WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE right out the window. As I'm not in the habit of telling people what to do, I'll therefore ask both of you, with an implied tone of forcefullness, to please dial it down a few clicks. Edit Centric (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, actually. Edit Centric, the DIFF I included at the beginning of this post is why I made this incident report. The terms were removed from the article (I assume) because the original citations had dropped off, and this editor stated they were included through original research (he was wrong). In the middle of his ongoing edit war, I came on to the article to add back the terms, while making sure we included multiple active references this time around (per Misplaced Pages policy). These edits were then immediately wiped out because I'm "clueless" and "incompetent", per the talk page and above. Admins chiming in on this would be quite helpful. Every single time anyone edits these pages in a way that doesn't pass muster with this particular editor, this doesn't mean those editors should be subjected to his attempts to soil their reputations or insult their knowledge. Who indeed is trying to push who off of Misplaced Pages? I, and others, can't come here and make a single edit to these pages, without him coming after us... He needs to stop this, and in general, and permanently -- chill out. Icsunonove (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Icsunonove, and if you want ta make controversial changes to articles, try to prove the contents by references. As far as I know, the term "Adesc Aut" is not used by Ladin institutions and is explicitely rejected by the leaders of Museum de Gherdeina in Urtijei, of Micurà de Rü, and the Union Generela. If Icsunonove had asked them, he would know better. But obviously he doesn't want to know better. I could also write "Oberetsch" in my personal German webpage, and you could cite it, but it would be of no value for Misplaced Pages, as there are useful and useless sources.

Icunonove is a special case. Obviously he knows how far he can go without being blocked, but I know his way of communicating, and IMO it's awful. I mean Icsunonove (alias Taalo), NOT Noclador. -- PhJ (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Icsunonove has been recently warned by User:Neurolysis for insulting other admins IP (21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)). In the same discussion he has also been found of using addiotionally to his account an anonymous (192.45.72.26) with which he deleted and replaced the name "South Tyrol" in various articles. Generally, the history of the user's contributions shows him quite extraordinarily engaged in debates and discussions on talk pages (ca. 56%) as opposed to his his edits in the main (30%). These 30% are, as a closer look reveals confined almost to the subject of South Tyrol, and here quite often to the change of names of Ladin and German places.

In the specific case, I find little value in Icsunonove's 'sources': Two of them were acutually the same texts only at different URLs, , while a third actually refered to a camping site. This is quite clearly not the kind of material which has place in the introduction (keyword: notability), and therefore I find User:Noclador's reverts understandable, without going to the lengthy and sometimes unsuccessful process of notifying admins (it should be mentioned in this context that the one admin, who has been in the past concerned about the subject, User:Gryffindor had been blamed in the past by Icsunonove for having biased views (see link above for insult warning by User:Neurolysis). The quality of the references wasn't such that it was really necessary. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is high time admins do intervene to stop Icsunonove, who has done nothing but disrupt work on South Tyrol articles from the moment he came to wikipedia: first as IP 71.106.163.225, than user:Taalo and later as Icsunonove... If you look at his very first day on wikipedia (October 1st, 2006) you already see the typical behaviour: i.e. insulting other editors: , , , ; claims of German POV , , , edit warring with the aim to put Italian before German names , , , erasing German links , , removing the name South Tyrol , , , putting into the article factually wrong statements with inflammatory comments , removing things he didn't like , , with insulting comments , putting his POV into articles ... this being his first day: than he created the user:Taalo and proceeded in the same vain leading to two AN/I reports: one for edit warring another one for insulting other editors... in between being Taalo and Icsunonove he appeared under various IP's: , , , , , , , , , with the usual mix of deleting South Tyrol, attacking other users and again randomly insulting entire people and trying to devalue sources he doesn't like with factualy wrong assertions and my favorite edit censuring an editor for adding Adesc Aut (!). He also has used IP by TRW Space and Defense Sector from the 192.45. range (i.e. , ) with the usual name calling, calling for anyone that does not agree with him to be banned, insulting and so on: a little extract as there are to many to collect them all: , , , , ,
Furthermore there is socketpuppetry: user:Viewtool, user:Account101, user:Wikifun-usa, user:Nospu, user:Infinity88, user:Jamesbozen, user:Rossifumi-gp and user:Mud-miner were all incarnations of Icsunonove with which he tried to manipulate votes regarding the naming of locals in South Tyrol ceckuser results at bottom of this page
So we have: socketpuppetry, POV pushing, insulting (a extract from the last months: ) and all taken together - isn't it time to finally block him for his disruptive behavior? Anyone familiar with Icsunonove knows he fits perfectly into the pattern of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. --noclador (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Icsunonove's overall disruptive behaviour becomes also evident at Eisack where he moved the page three times in clear violation of the outcome of a discussion and vote in April 2007 (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco or Isarco River):

1. August 2007
2. September 2007
3. January 2009

Given the long intervals, there is little doubt that his is a long-time agenda. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I have been noticed this discussion (since I've been mentioned). I've not seen Icsunonove around a lot, but from what I've seen, he has demonstrated persistent bad faith. I've not seen the same from Noclador, but you both need to tone down your arguments a little. :) — neuro 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages

I have received an email from the person behind the User:Manhattan Samurai account. This person is also believed to be the same person behind the User:BillDeanCarter account - which, as far as I am aware, is an account in good standing, but which hasn't been used since Feb 2008. The Manhattan Samurai account, however, has been troublesome and was recently blocked. The only personal information in the email is the name of the person, and the email address which I am not repeating, the rest of the information is clearly intended for this board so I repeat that here:

You might want to save this email. Consider me the Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages now. A high-profile prank has begun. I have figured out how to change my IP address and now many biographies are swapping stories between themselves and fictional families are rising up across the Wiki landscape.

If you want to know, the last straw for me was fucking with my featured article "List of works by William Monahan". Slowly and methodically I will have my revenge. Find a way to terminate Bali Ultimate's account and reverse the damage he has done and I will hand over the names of the accounts that I'm now using

I don't doubt that this person will do as he says, but such vandalism occurs everyday and is dealt with by the systems we have in place. I don't see that there is much for us to do with this information, but felt it was appropriate that I pass it on immediately. SilkTork * 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give him what he wants. Sorry Bali. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages ey? Clearly we are dealing with a criminal mastermind deluded 12 year old here Spartaz 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to reblock with email disabled. Any objections? Stifle (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Never mind, already done. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  If you're looking for socks, you might as well start here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) sent out around 50 emails in the past two days, to a wide variety of users (looks at first glance like one email per recipient). Zdefector (talk · contribs) is looking a bit sockish, as mentioned above, and is a  Confirmed match for Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs), though I'm not seeing a direct connection between those three and the MS account. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I received an e-mail from this user on Sunday, one that seemed at face value to be a good faith request for me to pass on his desire to see the Manhattan Samurai account unblocked. His reasons amounted to his "sincere" desire to reform and quietly work on potential featured articles. I was mulling over whether to pass the request on, intending to look into the editor's history a little more closely first, when I saw this. Either the editor is simply trolling, attempting to disrupt the project as much as possible, or is so highly-strung that he genuinely changed his mind from wanting to reform to wanting to vandalise in the space of a few hours. One other thing: he explicitly asked me not to reveal his name on-Wiki. If he made a similar request to the OP, vandal or no, it may have been inappropriate to reveal it here. On the other hand, this might have been a ploy to stop my revealing the name of one of his accounts. Either way, despite my belief that many problem users are redeemable in some way, I suggest that should the account ever be unblocked (highly unlikely), it is done so only if the editor is placed under strict mentorship, with several thousand strings attached. Steve 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has revealed the name of the email account here. To see where people have previously made a connection between the Manhattan Samurai account and other Misplaced Pages accounts, do a Google search for "Manhattan Samurai". That such a claim has been made on WikipediaReview doesn't mean it is true - it is simply another piece of information in this tortured case. Given the "playful" deception that the user behind Manhattan Samurai has previously used, it is equally likely that the user is NOT behind the other account but - for fun - wishes to make us believe he is. Who knows? SilkTork * 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he sent me an email saying he was User:BillDeanCarter, which mostly made me wary of belief. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(To SilkTork) What I meant was in reference to revealing the previous account name, he said: "Please be sensitive about revealing that my real name is because I wanted to abandon that account so that my real life information was kept secret." Editing histories seem to indicate that this at least is the truth, but whether this is something we do for people who subsequently turn out to be vandals is something I'll leave for more experienced vandal-fighters to deal with. All the best, Steve 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be uncivil, i knew that MS was trouble the moment i met him (his "wiki-conspiracy"). It seems we've found another Bambifan101. Elbutler (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By calling himself the "lex luthor of wikipedia", does he mean that he's going to repeatedly come up with numerous elaborate and convoluted schemes which always have fatal flaws which the good guys/gals always exploit easily, resulting in the scheme failing and him going to jail?--Jac16888 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much, like Superman, Wikipedians can't be blackmailed easily. Lets just whack every sockpuppet account that pops like a whack-a-mole, after sooner or later he'll come to sense and realize he shoudn't waste his life on "getting revenge on Misplaced Pages", but if he does waste his life, he/she is a deluded child. Elbutler (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he realize that Lex Luthor is just a pain in the ass who never actually wins? He should think of himself as the Washington Generals of Misplaced Pages. Dayewalker (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, as if those drawn here aren't into pain? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor! Lex Luthor fired nuclear missiles into the San Andreas Fault in an attempt to plunge the entire West Coast of America into the sea! At the moment this guy is somewhere inbetween Mister Mxyzptlk and Toyman. Stilh, he made me laugh tho, so I say we comply with his request. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Bibbo Bibbowski of Misplaced Pages" or "The Kandy Man of Misplaced Pages" don't have the same ring to them, though. – iridescent 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread gives him the drama he craves. His apparent point at wikipedia all along has been to play games, insert fictional memes here and there involving inside jokes between him and his pals. I don't know which are his socks or even if he has many, but there is always lots of sock-type behavior around him (if you look at almost any article he's edited heavily, there's always a series of SPA's that make 50 or so edits, then dissapear when a brand new SPA comes along). However, i've been deeling with abuse from Zdefector (talk · contribs), Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs). This sockmaster is at least a confederate of MS, yet no blocks have been handed out over the confirmed socking?

All three now blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• So, articles are the new real estate? rootology (C)(T) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Domain_name#Official_assignment, think of en.Misplaced Pages topics as something alikened and all the kerfluffle becomes much easier to understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I got an email from MS too. I blocked him from sending email from his account. Just deny him and he'll go away. Chrislk02 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be a good situation in which is would be appropriate to revert/undo all edits made by confirmed socks. Especially based on the threats of providing false information. This would further support to deny the attention this 12 year old craves as well as ensure that content has not been compromise. Chrislk02 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I received an email from him, too, but the one I got seems to have good intentions behind it. What would you guys suggest I did? — neuro 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He has obviousley stated his bad intentions. I say delete the email and ignore him. His account has also been blocked from sending email (and all sock accounts should be similarly blocked as well IMO). Chrislk02 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't checked my wiki email in a few days. Got the same one, also claiming User:BillDeanCarter as a sock, as well as User:Smith Jones and User:Deathdestroyer. //roux   17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we need to take theses sock, "confesssions" carefuly and ensure that they are socks and not good faith editors that MS has a grudge against or wants to get blocked for the hell of it. Chrislk02 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It will come down to behavior. I'd bet the farm that Billdean, deathdestroyer and MS are the same. Smith jones while an odd character (he deliberately uses mispellings to create double meanings as well as spoonerisms and prose that is generally so impenetrable that it can't be by accident) i have no opinion on. But MS would absolutely love to cast suspicion on "innocent" accounts. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SJ was one of MS' more ardent supporters/friends, which casts some suspicion. Should we be opening a specific SPI thing on this or are Checkusers handling behind the scenes? //roux   19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Luna Santin did run a CU, looks like, from the post above; not sure if another one would be appropriate to try and connect with the other claimed editors. I suspect MS is just trying to take some innocent victims down with him at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• By 'Lex Luthor' I thought he was stating that he we made him go bald and he hates us for it. HalfShadow 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• this is a personal dreisappointment to me. manhatan samurai was a good friend and while he idd have some issues that he oftne caused him to tangle with adminsitrators and other wikipedians he contributed to some very effectual articles such as Alan Cabal, gareth penn, ralph bakshi, and is Google making us stupid. however, i concede that eventualy the conmmunity has to have put up with enough bullcrud from this user and while it pains me to see a good editor go down for something so childish and quizotic, i agree that tis probably for the best. hopefuly User:Manhatan Samurai will take this opportnunity to withdraw, rex-amine his proiroties, and if he really wants to continue his contributions reutrn secretivly under a new name and edit constructively without lapsing back into hsi old behaviors and amake a good faith effor tto follow community policies and bylaws. as someone who considers him a friend, i hope that he will abandon his curent strategorizing and behave with more dignity in the future when he returns. Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• i just noticed tha t some other users are comparing me to Manhattan Samurai as if i am sockpuppet of him. Let it be known thus far declared; i worked with Manhattan Samurai colaboritvely to save an article Alan Cabal which it hought was being deleted unfairly. we followed all the rules' when we lost the initial WP:AFD, we took it to deletion review, then got the assistance of an adminstrator to userficate the page, then improved it through extesnive resarch to the point where it was valid to reintroduce it to the mainpage. as a srueslt of this collaboration, the spirit of Misplaced Pages i might add, i decided to contineu working with Manhattan samurai and develop working relationships with him to improve aritlces for which he had a shared interest.
• That is the extent of our involvement; i am neither his meatpuppet nor his sockpupet and if any good faith suspicions remain in existence among my fellow wikipedian i Welcome a CheckUser or any other sockpuppet investigative tools since i believe in operating on a high standard and I invite any good faith users to scrutinize my behavior and correct any mistakes which i have made itn the past. Smith Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot messages

There must be an opt-out list for users "who do not wish to hear from bots". Actually, extend that to "not to receive automated messages of any kind". Every month I get a batch/flood of tens of "WARNING!"s I could care less about. This only serves to interrupt me. It is very annoying.

Do I really need a copyright warning for File:25px-Silvercircle.png or File:Silverhalfpip.png? How about File:SL Navy Insigna Type 1.JPG? I uploaded a lot of images (in the past) with a PD license. Simple images I created like File:SL Navy Insigna Type 1.JPG which are not copyrightable at all. These warnings and monitoring is seemingly created automatically without any user input "warn all uploads tagged with {{Pd}} that do not contain a URL without applying common sense of any kind".

Now I am getting a shower of warnings over such ancient uploads of mine. It doesn't seem like it will stop.

-- Cat 12:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some bots will respect {{bots}}/{{nobots}} tags - see the documentation on these pages for details. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The PD template is deprecated. Perhaps making use of it is what is triggering the bot spam? Tarc (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The images linked above were not tagged by a bot, but by Skier Dude (talk · contribs). It would seem there was human input, however lacking in common sense it may have been. - auburnpilot talk 14:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Skier Dude edits remarkably quickly. Look at his edits of January 31. There can't be time for much human input to what he's doing, if any. Is he running an unauthorized bot? rspεεr (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

His userpage clearly states he operates a bot. Tiptoety 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Rspeer means on his main account. — neuro 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with bot edits to my userspace that do not involve automated messages. Bots fix templates, images and etc... BUt when you get 20 or 30 messages per month - that is annoying. This isn't a matter over one users conduct but a complaint over the general practice. -- Cat 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a bona fide bot would be able to add each user's "bad images" to a list and limit itself to one edit per talk page per day instead of crap-flooding like this Dude does. "Human" image-deletion notifiers might not have the facility to keep track of such things unless it is built into AutoTwinkProofHug or whatever they are using, but they should at least use a shorter, less condescending template for recipients who already know how the system works. — CharlotteWebb 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder threats on article

These three edits include a murder threat at Lingle, Wyoming. I've notified the local Goshen County Sheriff's office by email, but I don't have phone access: could someone in the USA please notify them by telephone by 18:30 UTC (11:30 Mountain Time), 307-532-4026? Here is their website. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have called them and made the report. The sheriff said they had two deputies in the area (which I took to mean they were familiar with the names listed, and it is a very small town) and they are trying to track them down. When I hung up with the sheriff, they had 28 minutes before 11:30 Mountain, so hopefully that's enough time, in the unlikely event that this threat has substance. But better safe than sorry. Useight (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP that made the edit is registered to Wyoming Community College Commission but is also apparently used by many K-12 schools.

Comment:    This large address space is shared by many Wyoming 
Comment:    K12 schools and 7 Wyoming community colleges. When I receive complaints 
Comment:    about any hosts in this range  I have to forward them to the local 
Comment:    network administrators  because I have no means to directly administer 
Comment:    these school networks.

The domain admin name and phone number is available in the whois report. —Travis 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MacedonianLights

MacedonianLights (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of Historian19 (talk · contribs), in that their contributions mirror those of Historian19's most recent sock, IslandShader (talk · contribs), such as this and this , both of which feature a lengthly paragraph on Maltese-Americans and Britney Spears as well as Historian19's trademark swapping and resizing of images. Could someone please take a look? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Endorse WP:DUCK block. — neuro 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing

Lear 21 (talk · contribs) has been pushing for the inclusion of the European Union in the various "List of Countries by ____" articles for some time now. A wide discussion over a year ago (a discussion he participated in) resulted in a consensus that has held steady to the present. Recently, he has edit-warred on List of countries by population and List of countries and outlying territories by total area in contravention of seemingly apparent consensus against his position. He has also canvassed inappropriately (example) to gain support for his position on the latter article. Most recently, he has announced his intention to edit-war on a daily basis to ensure his position is upheld. He has also claimed that I and other editors are a cabal of chauvinist ideologues that is a threat to an encyclopedia...dedicated to inform{ing} humanity. This all smacks of someone on a crusade to "educate" the rest of us, and demonstrates a clear intention to disregard any consensus that disagrees with his own view. This type of disruption is damaging to the encyclopedia and a waste of all of our time. Is it perhaps time for a topic ban? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, I am not seeking to get Lear blocked for any of this; I'm sure he is a very helpful contributor in other areas. I think an editing restriction would be a much more effective means to rectify the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered an RfC on the subject? After one year, established consensus can change. Either way the RfC should either reaffirm the consensus or establish a new one.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban (as a participant in the dispute), and I don't think a block is necessary. Consensus can change, certainly, but the point is more that Lear clearly doesn't intend to accept any consensus that doesn't go his way - he tells us to "be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years" in one of Parsecboy's diffs - so RFC would be a bit useless.

I've found it difficult to AAGF in Lear since he told me I was here to spread hate and ignorance early last month, and the recent discussions (if they can be called that) rather reinforce that view. I, too, was reminded of WP:TRUTH when reading these posts - he uses the word "reality" instead, but the concept is the same. Pfainuk talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious block by William M. Connolley

William has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs) after a complaint on AN3 by a content opponent (Collectonian (talk · contribs)). Collectonian offers four edits in evidence, but there's no question of DreamGuy violating 3RR; if anything, Collectonian himself is closer to doing that. DreamGuy's edits are less than recent, and are spread out over three days. So I presume William's block reason, not explained on DreamGuy's page except in the form of "We don't all have Ed's admirable patience", is edit warring and not 3RR. However. DreamGuy is the one who is following policy in his editing of the article. What he does is remove, repeatedly, an absurdly over-long plot summary, leaving a concise summary in place. Please see Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, subsection "Plot summaries", which he has repeatedly referred to. I will not review Dreamguy's unblock request, since I know him and have supported him on other occasions.. But could other people take a look at this block, please? WP:NOT is serious business. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Without commenting on the specifics of this case, the idea that "being right" justifies edit warring is simply wrong. There are very few exceptions to 3RR and editor warring in general (BLP, copyright infringement) and "too much plot summary" is not one of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, William seems to think being right (or rather, being wrong) justifies edit warring by Collectonian. Both users, if any, should have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Please back up your false claim that I was edit warring with two reverts after someone posted about the situation at WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no violation of 3RR - there were four edits over the course of six days. The highest he got in a single day was two. There was no discussion on the talk page from DreamGuy, but he does seem to have tried talking with one of the editors. DreamGuy has a point about the plot summary and WP:NOT. It seems his original edits were to trim down the plot section; perhaps a bit too much, but in accordance with policy. The most recent total removal was probably a bit over the top, but I still don't think it was enough to block without any chance to explain the edits. I'm prepared to unblock, however I'll wait for a few more comments first. Hersfold 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor is he "right" in this issue. The plot summary is not "absurdly long" it was only 100 words over the guidelines, and there IS a talk page discussion which resulted in it being cut down below the guideline recommendations (discussions which he ignored). He is not shortening overly long plot summaries, he is ripping them out. Please explain how I am closer to doing 3RR before making such accusations. I reverted him twice, after he was reverted 3 times by another editor. As noted in my report, which clearly stated this is beyond 24 hours, DreamGuy has an extremely lengthy history of edit warring as is evidenced by his block log and his ArbCom injunction from last year. He is not following policy in editing the article nor in his warring over it. He is violating policy, and making some pointed disruptions in various places. As I also noted in the edit warring report follow up, others have attempted to discuss his inappropriate plot removals with him, and he is either ignoring them completely or giving replies that are uncivil and falsely claiming that he is just following WP:NOT. He told one editor, who tried to correct his claim, "it's pretty ridiculous for you to show up acting like you know everything and assuming that I must be a newbie ("welcome to Misplaced Pages") when I've edited this site several years before you ever got here and am the one actually following policies. The only 'assistance' you can give me is to do what you are supposed to be doing." He's also doing a lot some rather NPOV editing to various biography articles, claiming that he is correcting their neutrality because, in his opinion, multiple personalities are not real so he is removing them from articles where people are said to have them. I do hope more admins will look at his actions of late because they are very concerning, as are his false statements on his unblock request claiming that I "took no effort to solve any dispute" - he warned to stop reverted and instead said "don't template the regulars" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow... so simple disagreement means you're going to ignore clear policy, label it edit warring, bring up a history of people making similar accusations from the past, and expect to get me blocked over it? That's not even close to a reasonable attempt at solving conflict. On top of that, multiple editors with more experience here are clear in selling out that your interpretation of WP:NOT is completely in error, so continuing to insist otherwise isn't helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no simple disagreement. You are pointedly attempting to claim that WP:NOT is a justification for your ripping out plot summaries from a range of articles on no other view but YOUR interpretation, which is not backed up by other guidelines. WP:NOT does not say that plots can only be X number of sentences, its says "concise" which is defined by various MoS for the articles you are ripping apart. Your removal of the Near Dark plot summary was ridiculous. It was not excessive to the point of needing complete removal, if was only barely over the guidelines, and there is clear editor consensus on the talk page against its removal. Why not read further down in WP:NOT about not being disruptive to make a point, which is all you are doing. Your interpretation is the one in complete error as shown by the overwhelming consensus among multiple projects, FAs, FLs, and GAs. You are the one not being helpful by attacking anyone who dares to correct you under some claim that you are just enforcing policy and that you've been here longer and somehow know better. And yeah, considering your block log, your history IS relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that you aren't willing to listen to the people here and elsewhere who pointed out that you were wrong. Good luck on getting WP:NOT changed to support your rather unique interpretation. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No real justification to block. Wouldn't be the first time either for Connolley. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, that was out of line - please keep comments here relevant to this situation. Not that there are likely to be too many more comments, since it seems he's been unblocked. Hersfold 20:57, 3 February 2009

Well, the admin in question does have a questionable editing history, so it would have certainly been highly relevant to the question of whether his block was proper or not. I think personally that he ought to be told in no uncertain terms that he can't use his admin status to try to further his history of personal conflict. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Past history of making bad blocks without justification is a strong enough justification to desysop someone, let alone undoing the bad block. It isn't out of line but 100% completely relevant. You may like Connolley, but you can't alter what his history with the tools says. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done work like this--some of our articles have ridiculously long plot summaries that make the article difficult to read,and put off anyone wanting to obtain a concise summary of the plot. Having said that there's no excuse for edit warring. In what way is this a bad block? --TS 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A user was blocked for a 3RR violation on an article he appears to have only edited once in 48 hours. The block was reversed, so it doesn't particularly matter anyway. - auburnpilot talk 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a user was blocked for the reasons I specified, it would be good if you took the trouble to read what I wrote. You might also find V's recent contribution history interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're talking about this block:

19:36, 3 February 2009 William M. Connolley blocked DreamGuy (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring on Near Dark)

this shows the relevant editing history. In particular I note that DreamGuy did not go to the talk page at any point. --TS 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, he was indeed edit warring on Near Dark, although not past 3RR. He had 4RR over a 48 hour period around the 31st, then another one yesterday and at no time did he take his concerns to the talk page. I wouldn't call his edits vandalism, but he's interpreting WP:NOT as a license to delete, rather than improve. Dayewalker (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvements can be achieved through deletion. In this case, deletions were definitely needed. Seeing as how Jimbo has come out strongly against excessive plot summaries, fancruft type entries, and the rests, I think it is obvious that we should lean towards those who try to correct this and chastise those who tend to want to put it back in, especially seeing as how those who want plot summaries and the rest tend to use forums, have friends who reinforce them, etc, to game the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I disagree with every single thing you've said. Dayewalker (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is so beyond insulting to dozens of editors who do none of the kind, but are following the actual guidelines and consensus regarding plot summaries. I find it slightly amusing as well, considering most editors consider me a deletionist and anti-plot and regularly attack me for going against excessive plot. Excessive does not mean NONE at all, nor does it mean you rip out an existing summary for a completely useless one without discussion, tagging, etc. Please actually point to a single change at WP:NOT that negates all of the existing plot summary length guidelines, rescinds the featured article status of all articles with plot summaries, and with Jimbo saying specifically "I want everyone to go out and remove every plot summary from every article right now." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Admn attention needed

I am accused repetly by Jalapenos do exist (talk on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict of disruptive editing and editing out of concensus. Also he/she waring with other users just now. Please help us put an end to this nonsence by asking Jalapenos do exist (talk to calm down. Brunte (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To make your case stronger you might want to avoid providing diffs that contradict your contentions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:FadulJoseArabe

This was brought up earlier but no action was taken. This FadulJoseArabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock up of Fadulj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Compare contributions with those in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Fadulj. I filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj four days ago, but that too has no response. Thanks, Grsz_Review 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the username does sound obvious enough. ~ Troy (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't jugde anything by username, a checkuser should be needed in this case --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of personal judgement and bias in Misplaced Pages Article Dorje Shugden Controversy is acively blocked by an editor

Hi there I had a repeated incident with user:Atisha's cook where he judged the person of a linked website as an "anti-Shugden activist". There is no 3rd party record which approves such a claim nor does this person states that he belongs to such a category. I think the claim is aimed to denounce the website owner. For the sake of keeping neutrality I removed that personal claim of the editor, however he always inserted it again. See History in Dorje_Shugden_controversy. I warned also the editor to report this to the admin-board but he ignored, and inserted his pov again. --Kt66 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Honeymane

This User is acting like an Admin by reverting my edits on the Breast article witchout discussion it. I did write only true facts. can explain further later if anybody would look deeper. --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you mean this edit, it seems pedantic and silly. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well some spell correcting could be needed but reverting the whole work is overdoing it. It’s a clear fact btw--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And you have reliable sources to back up your claim? Regardless, reverting another editor's edits is not "acting like an admin". AnyPerson (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards