Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 10 September 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

User:BatteryIncluded behaviour on Dark dune spots page

User:BatteryIncluded has proposed a merge of article Martian spiders under Dark dune spots (see Talk:Dark_dune_spots#Merger_proposal). I was practically the only editor who came out, and while thinking that covering the two subjects under a same article could have been a good idea, I opposed the merge under that name because the nom showed no scientific consensus of Martian spiders being the same thing of Dark dune spots, or a subset/subfeature of these features -see discussion. Incidents were as following, in order of concern:

1. Closed proposal and merged article, claiming consensus for his own motion even if no consensus was achieved : Discussion on talk page was ongoing however more or less normally, while he arbitrarely decided that discussion was closed with full support for his motion and proceeded with the merge, declaring that I agreed with his merge even if no such consensus was achieved on the subject and only two editors (the nom and me) were involved in the discussion.

1. Deleted comments by User:Cyclopia on talk page : After discovering that, I promptly removed the closed discussion template , asked for explanation and clarified my actions . As a result he deleted my previous comments insisting that "discussion was archived", in violation of WP:TPO.

1. A very minor incident was nom !voting on his own proposal reiterating arguments of nom. I found this misleading and confusing for other editors potentially interested in discussion, giving superficial impression of more support than really it is on nom proposal. I tried to reformat (without deleting or modifying any content) his comment to clarify discussion, but he reverted ; I didn't further revert but clarified my position. Discussion on this with nom can be found here.

In short, my personal impression has been that BatteryIncluded has basically ignored discussion and WP:CONSENSUS: while we all know of WP:BOLD, a merge between two established and well sourced articles is a risky and complex (and in this case controversial) action that would have warranted more discussion. He also misrepresented my views, claiming they supported his motion when it unambiguously was not so. He single-handedly declared a discussion closed while it was not, and, most concerningly, he decided to delete my comments while I asked for clarification and reasons. There is also a strong WP:SYNTHESIS problem on content, but probably this is not the right place to discuss. I ask admins to review the situation and advice/decide how to proceed. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the only 'main editor' of both 'Dark dune spots' and 'Martian Spiders', which I found and developed both from one-liner stubs to full size, so I know the science reports, and since they shared the exact same references (which i provided) for both, I proposed a merge -not a rename- back in August 11. Cyclopia showed up several days later -in the negative- only after I voted against him on a survey to rename the article Planetary habitability, in a move that resembles stalking and vindictive behavior from his part, mostly because it is painfully obvious that he has not read and/or understand the referenced material and continually changed the point of his opposition: At the beguining of the discussion he denied there were scientific references suggesting that they are related phenomena: "If there is good scientific consensus on a phenomenon that describes them both where they can be merged, all good, but the current sources do not seem to indicate that."

When i pointed at the references, he produced a second excuse to not merge: What is unquestionable is that some scientists are treating them as possibly a manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon. This means that 1. Apparently there is no scientific consensus on that."

When I indicated to him that several publications stating the same hypothesis, is 'scientific consensus', he changed his objection for third time: he wanted to see a "review paper stating a general consensus that DDS and spiders are the same thing" , which of course, nobody would write as they are two separate components of the same geological system.

When I said that even one research paper stating their relationship would be enough for the merge, (WP:Truth) he objected again: No, as an author of peer-reviewed papers, I can guarantee you that one peer-reviewed paper is by all means not enough to warrant anything in most or all cases. You can find peer reviewed papers in support of practically everything: appearing in an academic journal does not mean it is the truth. , and also: "You linked a lot of articles which seem all to converge on the possibility of a relationship, but still very vaguely, nor there is any indication that these articles do represent the majority viewpoint."

It was at this point that I realized it was all about his POV and that he was not reading the papers I presented to him, or discussing the science in them, he has been making up objections as he went along, effectively disrupting a simple merge process that has a vast supporting material from high quality references to grant it. Cyclopia has been only expressing his POV, not the science in the articles. It was at this point that I decided to quote to him Misplaced Pages:Truth and remark that his POV can't compete against the references cited and proceeded with the merge (migrating data) as he has not been reasonable in making an effort to either read/understand or produce supporting material for his POV.

Then he invented yet another excuse to oppose the merge saying that he approved it but must be done only done under a different title. Again, my proposal was about a merge, not a rename, that can be done later if granted.

Regarding the article's name, sources indicate that Dark dune spots are small CO₂ geiser-like systems which are fed gas by the spiders' sub-surface channel network. How is the volcano WP article named: Volcano or "Conduit" How is the geyser article named? Geiser or "column"? They are not synonyms but components of the same system, and like the Dark dune spots, those articles are named as Volcano and Geiser -respectively, not by their underground channels.

Anyway, Cycolpia did agreed to the merger and asked me to choose the page name, he wrote: "That said, I think that a merge is a very good idea because there are indeed enough sources to justify treating the features in the same article. What I disagree with is merging within either of DDS or spiders. I would merge under an umbrella term: you look more entitled than me to suggest the right one. --Cyclopia" So I did the merger and chose the name most used in the scientific literature cited: Dark dune spots, as the fundamental objective in naming articles is to choose unambiguous titles that readers will most easily recognize, and because articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.(wp:COMMONNAME) My revert he mentions is because he tried to to undo the merge, despite he agreed to it and is now archived and redirected.

Having said that, I don't mind a move (rename) as "Dark dune spots and spider features on Mars" or "Spider and dark dune features on Mars" per (wp:COMMONNAME), and I object to the false name he invented and he is pushing for: 'Planum Australe albedo' features because 1) most readers do not know what albedo is or that Planum Australe is on Mars, 2) because his empirical take is not the name used in ANY news release or scientific publication on this geological formation. Lastly, I don't think there was a "controversy" in that discussion as he claims (maybe a 'debate') as the scientific literature I am referring to, and quoting in the article (& discussion) has been published and bears more weight than his POV. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, I am not here to debate the merge itself. I am here to debate your behaviour in managing the merge: declaring closed a discussion that was not and deleting my comments on a talk page. If you want to debate the merge, do it on the article talk page. As for me "making up objections", my objection has always been one and only, you know perfectly well. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references", is not a valid reason. (WP:MM) The history of Cyclopia's excuses (unreasonable interferences) is archived for anybody's review. The only reason this landed on ANI is because Cyclopia is unable/unwilling to understand the references cited; in a nutshell: Spiders are under-ice channels that conduct dust and gas to the surface, upon eruption, the expelled dust and gravel accumulates on the surface creating a dark dune spot. I don't care if he won't read the references or if he is not a believer of the science models, as almost 40 high-quality scientific research papers (all with inline citations) disagree with his POV. The article has plenty very relevant references supporting the statements in the article, and that is that. As I write this, he is again in the DDS talk page challenging the verifiability of statements (e.g. spiders are gas channels that feed the geiser-like vent), when it has inline citations right next to it!

Cyclopia does not only deny the science, he does not read it before denying it! This is harrassment pure and simple, and it has to stop. I am asking now to please ban Cyclopia from editing the page Dark dune spots (and its talk page) or whatever other name it may been given in the future. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not engaged in acts of policy violation on the Dark dune spots talk page; you instead violated WP:TPO eliminating my own comments and misrepresenting my opinions. My edits to the Dark dune spots page were all minor and none of them challenged your editing. So your rationale for a page ban is really unclear. As for the content of the article and the science, please talk about that on the article talk page, not here. Here I am asking for opinion on your behaviour, not on the article content, which warrants an entirely different discussion on itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed to answer this accusation: Trying to stop a merge on the basis of "I don't believe/understand the references" is not a valid reason. I want everyone to notice that I believe and understand the references, absolutely. The references explicitly propose speculative hypothesis. See Talk:Dark dune spots#Requested move for details. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed this one too: he tried to undo the merge. Have you a diff confirming that? I never tried to undo the merge, I only objected to it. What I undid was keeping the discussion as archived and closed: it was (and it is) not. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first a disclaimer -- I'm not an admin. Second, it was clearly improper for BatteryIncluded to declare consensus when there was only one support and one oppose. Third, the only people involved in this dispute so far are the two of you. One-vs-one disputes are usually intractable, especially when the parties get annoyed at each other. The only way to get anywhere in the long run is either to find a way to deal with each other, or to bring some third party to the table. Admins are not going to decide the content issue here. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I understand that it is a one-vs-one dispute, but there has been repeated disruptive behaviour and, especially when I saw my comments (which were on-topic and polite) deleted from the talk page, I felt entitled to ask for admin's advice on the situation. As for the content dispute, I am trying to untangle it on the appropriate talk page (despite the other editor trying to bring it here, which is not the correct place AFAIK). --Cyclopia (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at this this deletion by Cyclopia:, on the exact same basis I could claim then that he indulged in 'bad behavior' when he deleted my entry in the form of merge header and footer. I repeat: Cyclopia could not impede the merge simply on the basis of his ignorance of the subject and/or that he does not believe the scientific models are worth of being used as references (POV). Please notice that now he has reverted to his excuse #1: He declares above that I used 'synthesis' to reach the conclusion that this phenomenon is geyser-like, with spiders being the channels that upon eruption produce the black spots. Again, if he does not have the training required to understand the subject, he should not try to get involved with only his POV. Simply he does not understand/aknowledge the science articles cited and therefore his oposition to the merge was always unreasonable. I do not expect the administrator to go read the 40 research papers cited, so I will quote two easy ones verifying the geyser-like model: (just look at the image!), and this one: "These observations are consistent with a geyser-like model for spider formation. Also consistent with such venting is the observation of dark fan-shaped deposits apparently emanating from spider centers." . I don't care if Cyclopia does not believe the scientific references, because: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.(WP:TRUTH)

Now, for respect to the administrators, I won't go over all 40 scientific references, which believe me, have a consensus on this model, except where indicate in the WP article. Of greatest importance is to understand Cyclopia's refusal to aknowledge these references have no intelectual or WP legal weight on whether the merge was justified or not. I have not done "synthesis" on the geyser model as I showed above, and I gave him ample time to express his negative views, which turned out to be unreferenced and insubstancial to reasonably impede the merging. I have absolutely no reservation with the faithfull representation of the geophysical phenomena presented in the WP article as they all are supported by scientific references, and if "behavior" is an issue in this ANI page, there is a lot to be said about Cyclopia's demonstrated ignorance on the subject, his refusal to aknowledge the role of the scientific articles perfectly placed as inline citations, and his disruptive and inflamatory behavior in the Dark dune spots page. I did not do the merge 'just because', but relied on the scientific references cited weighed agains his POV. Again: his excuse that he doesn't "believe" the references cited, was never a valid reason to have impeded the merge or even having prolonged the circular discussion any longer. Finally, I already demonstrated that he agreed to the merge and even conceded to me the choice for the article name, which I did according to the scientific literature: Dark dune spots. I still request that Cyclopia is banned from editing this article and its talk page as his disruptive interference seems to be vindictive (see my fist post).

I hope I am clear, and am willing to take questions from the administrators. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

Please, both of you - stop attacking each other and assume good faith.

This is going to take time to review. I am familiar with planetary science in fair depth (I know some of the authors of the sources for this article), and even so, you've put forwards a body of reference material which is intimidating to have to review independently in this.

I'll look in to it, but you have to stop provoking each other. ANI is not a club to win content disputes. You have an uninvolved administrators' attention now, who is familiar with the subject area, and you'll get a review. But if you keep swinging ANI around like a club you're going to swing it right into your own noses. Try to remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we expect you to be adult and collegial in your discussions here, assume good faith, be civil and polite to each other, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you. I am personally sure that the other editor is in good faith, despite our disagreements and my concerns with his behaviour. Thanks for taking the time and patience for reviewing this. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the reason I have been inactive in that page. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, as our mediator I want to tell you that I thought of a solution -actually a significant improvement- to the naming. Cyclopia and I agree that the Dark dune spots and spiders are thought by scientists to be related formations. Therefore I am proposing not to name the article after either structure but after the system they are thought to constitute: they are reported to (possibly) be components of a system similar to a geyser, so I am proposing Geysers on Mars or Jets on Mars (i like best the first one as it denotes at first view its geological nature). I have been studying the related literature for one year and after reading additional references today, I realized that this is indeed THE central theory of these two formations' dynamics; I could produce at least one dozen cientific citations refering to the system as geyser, jets, eruption event, outflow, etc. If you check the WP article (and even check the references), all of the models are based on a geyser-like system, and each one proposes a different mechanism powering the system. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let BatteryIncluded know that I answered on this proposal on the relevant talk page. The AN/I has not to deal with the content dispute itself but with editors' behaviour; my feeling is that this should not be discussed here. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No. This is in ANI because of your empirical denial and POV even the face of the cited scientific references, in your weak attempt to prevent a merge. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop that, both of you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

At Sea Shepherd Conservation Society there is trouble with an anonymous user who disagrees with what has been a long-standing consensus: while there are notable accusations of "eco-terrorism" against the organisation, it is not NPOV to claim that it is eco-terrorist. In particular, the IP disagrees with the argument that due to the analogy Sea Shepherd/Eco-terrorism ≈ Psychoanalysis/Pseudoscience Category:Eco-terrorism (which would be misread as saying that Sea Shepherd is eco-terrorist, even though it might be applied on the basis that Sea Shepherd is important to the eco-terrorism debate in the same way that psychoanalysis is important to the pseudoscience debate).

I am not sure whether the long-standing consensus still exists, since two other editors (Mdlawmba and to some extent Cptnono) agree with the IP. But there is clearly no consensus to apply the category, either, and the IP is trying to push this change through. Since 11 August the category has been applied to the article 12 times by the anonymous editor and once by Mdlawmba. It has been removed 6 times by Tranquillity Base, 4 times by me, twice by Cptnono, and once by Craftyminion.

The anonymous editor (previously always as User:68.41.80.161, but today when for the first time doing a 3rd revert in 24 hours as User:69.213.86.67) has been leaving bogus warnings on editors' talk pages. For example when I removed the category and left a long explanation on the talk page, I got a warning not to "remove content" without explanation. The most recent incidents of this kind (both today) were a bogus vandalism warning against Tranquillity Base and a warning I received for an admittedly borderline comment on the Sea Shepherd talk page. The editor is aggressively whitewashing their two IP talk pages and even censored a comment of mine with the misleading edit summary "Removed comments about myself. Discuss the issues, not me plz." (I can understand that the anonymous editor doesn't want to be reminded of their edit warring to misrepresent a key source of the article, but surely it would have been enough to remove the last relative clause rather than the full paragraph.)

I would appreciate it if an experienced admin or two could watchlist this article. Hans Adler 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the second IP for disruptively editing the User talk:68.41.80.161 page. However pardon my confusion on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article, but if notable sources have called it an eco-terrorist group, then why not call a spade a spade? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We are advised to tread lightly using such terms.  Skomorokh  20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since it's transparently the same user and the IP in question seems to be a static one, I disagree with the reason for the block. (Not with the block itself, though.)

Regarding your question (which is off-topic here, has been discussed on the article talk page and perhaps should be discussed at WP:NPOV/N as well): It's not NPOV to call a spade a spade based on cherry picked sources that do so, if other, equally good sources call it a club or a diamond. Perhaps you didn't understand my analogy, but the most important experts on "pseudoscience" generally call psychoanalysis a pseudoscience, and yet Arbcom found in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE that we can't call it one. This is now policy in WP:PSCI. Both terms have similar demarcation problems. "Eco-terrorism" also has additional problems, since the term has transparently been coined to make "violence" against property sound more dangerous than it is and thus make extreme action against harmless idiots more acceptable to the general population. Since this is part of a general trend to make the definition of "terrorism" more and more inclusive it's hard to tell whether "eco-terrorism" is terrorism. Also note that our best source for the connection, an FBI person's report to the US Congress, does not say that they are eco-terrorist but only appears to imply it. I am sure that this is no accident, since the same 2002 source also implied that eco-terrorism is terrorism and it would have been strange that Paul Watson wasn't put on the No Fly List if both statements were true. Hans Adler 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Were that strictly the case, then I suspect that Category:Eco-terrorism would be an empty category. However I wonder what gets Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front added to the category, while Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is excluded. Certainly all three have been described as "terrorists" by Western governments. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories are intended as search tools, not as vehicles for making assertions, although they are frequently misused that way. The question is basically whether a reader of the article might be interested in locating other articles that have been associated with eco-terrorism. Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question is easily answered by a quick look at the three articles. Sea Shepherd is a legal non-profit organisation incorporated in Washington. Earth Liberation Front is an illegal organisation; being suspected of membership in it seems to be a sure way to see the inside of a prison. "Animal Liberation Front" is a label used for a certain type of criminal activities. I am not sure where your confusion comes from. It seems the drama we are having here on Misplaced Pages is mostly related to a sympathetic programme about Sea Shepherd that currently runs on US television. Is there a similar programme glorifying the Earth Liberation Front or perhaps even Al Quaida? Hans Adler 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree 100% with your final two sentences. It would seem to me that an organization could be legitimately added to Category:Eco-terrorism if any WP:RS reported that a government had declared the group to be "terrorist," regardless of if that government were the United States (Earth Liberation Front, Earth First!), United Kingdom (Justice Department), or Iceland and Japan (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society). — Kralizec! (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. We only tag an organisation with a disparaging label when it is NPOV to do so. This is because a category inclusion can't be qualified with "according to the Japanese government" or "we don't mean they are eco-terrorists, just that they are sometimes mentioned in that context". So long as it isn't NPOV to call the previous US president a war criminal, it's not NPOV to call Sea Shepherd eco-terrorist. Hans Adler 11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to stick with uncontroversial categories. If there was wide acceptence that what they did was terror (or a self catagorisation), but if we go based on what one or two people say, then we could just as equally put Japan or Iceland in the category based on Paul Watson's claims. To be honest the entire term smacks of meaningless news speak designed to dehumanise and trivialise a debate (and sell copies, of course), and while we should cover the term (it is wide spred) I'm not sure how much value we should be giving it. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been forced to link PETA to the "terrorist" word in the lead, with in-text attribution, even though they're a charitable organization with an all-star cast of members such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson. But if even one lone American senator or FBI official uses that word in connection with a group Wikipedians tend not to like—even though no other country in the world uses the term so lightly—then immediately the claim has to be added to the lead or the article to certain categories. I ended up having to write it into the lead myself at PETA, as I recall, just to make sure it was properly written and sourced, because people were constantly adding it. The attraction of these "boo-hurrah" terms (e.g. terrorist, pseudoscience), as philosophers calls them, represents one of the ongoing failures of how we apply NPOV. SlimVirgin 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, if a consensus of reliable independent sources call a spade a space, we want to be reflecting that in our coverage and not whitewashing things.

The organization has damaged property, sunk ships (and has sinking kill markers on their own vessel), and threatened lives (their own, and those of some of the whalers), though they seem to be trying hard not to get anyone actually injured or killed. They're trying both to change public opinion with PR campaigns (the TV shows) and direct action (they've used explosive mines against whaling vessels in the further-ago past).

I don't want to conflate them with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but "Environmental terrorist" is the current commonly used english word for those who take direct action in the name of environmental causes. It's applied to organizations which many of us support to some degree (PETA, and Sea Shepherd), some we find extremist (ALF, ELF). But it's the category in use in the real world.

I want my free-range whales to be harpoon free, too, but they match the definition of the word, and they blow things up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We are currently working on the question whether there is such a consensus of reliable independent sources. It may surprise you, but it's not even totally clear that there are more than perhaps one or two reliable and sufficiently independent sources that openly call them terrorist or eco-terrorist. And before we can talk of a consensus we would need to consider sources of comparable quality that disagree, or possibly other evidence that points in the other direction. Hans Adler 08:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. A quick scan of the field will reveal several countries that openly call them terrorist and a handful more that call thier actions those of a terrorist without calling them a terrorist directly. As noted elsewhere, a quick google search will show anyone the connection between SSCS and the term eco-terrorist. A careful scan will reveal who actually considers them as such. A review of dictionary definitions of eco-terrorism mixed with the violent history of sinking ships and a little common sense will tell you that they fit the dictionary definition perfectly. All that is missing is the question, should such a category exist? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler's argument is a non-starter. Sea Shepherd is called an eco-terrorist group by numerous reliable sources because, like other groups such as ALF and ELF, they utilize violence (i.e- physically attacking whalers and whaling ships at sea) in the furtherance of a political ideology (i.e- a total worldwide ban on whaling). It is also important to note that in this context, direct action != terrorist; Greenpeace, for example, is a famous for their direct-action initiatives at sea. However, they openly disavow violence, and have notably distanced themselves from Sea Shepherd and condemned their use of violence, probably because Sea Shepherd was formed from Greenpeace members who were disgruntled that they were not permitted to physically attack whalers and their boats. Last I checked the article was well-sourced with these comparisons. What happened? Bullzeye 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh brought up WP:TERRORIST earlier as if to say that the word "terrorist" is forbidden on Misplaced Pages (forgive me for putting words into someone's mouth... keyboard... whatever). But in fact that style guideline suggests how to use such a term in an article. Basically, if you have plenty of sources showing its use and you use the term in context then it's fine. We don't have to avoid the term to preserve NPOV; you might even say that avoiding the term is itself a violation of WP:NPOV because we're whitewashing the article by not including a negative popular opinion. -- Atama頭 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That has been my exact argument on the talk page of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for weeks but beause there are more people interested in defending SSCS so I always got "out-voted" (or flat out reverted). Some have even gone so far as to go to the Eco-terrorism talk page and assert that its a POV violation to call Eco-terrorism a form of terrorism because they don't want eco-terrorists looking bad, removing all references to terrorism from the article in the process. I'm not making that up, go look. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to pursue dispute resolution to get more outside help. And keep in mind that you might eventually not get your way if you can't reach a consensus on it, but it doesn't hurt to try as long as you stay civil and don't edit-war in the process. -- Atama頭 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Direct action" can easily be as much a POV term as "terrorist" when used to support a political ideology. I understand the desire to avoid contentious POV terms, but it seems bizarrely at odds with policy and common sense to call ALF and ELF "eco-terrorists" but refuse to call Sea Shadow the same when their entire founding ideology (supported by about a dozen reliable sources) revolves around the employment of violence to further a political goal (a ban on whaling). By their own admission, if Greenpeace had supported actual violence (as opposed to direct action) against whalers they'd still be members. What can we do to address this POV issue? Bullzeye 06:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sedna10387

I'm getting tired of dealing with Sedna10387 (talk · contribs), who seems intent, despite all the good advice he's got from other editors, on introducing into WP inappropriate articles about various aspects and institutions of his hometown. His most recent creation is Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings, which I've nominated at AfD; but previous articles of his have been speedied, AfD'd, speedied after recreation, and deleted as copyvio. There's also the problem that he uploads numerous nonfree logos to place in his articles, which then have to be tagged for deletion after the articles themselves are deleted. I think the kid is editing in good faith; but he seems unwilling to comply with WP policies and procedures, and I think the time has come for a block until he agrees to so comply and shows an understanding of what he's agreeing to. (If anyone thinks he hasn't been sufficiently warned or that other editors have not made an effort to educate him, trawl through the history of his talk page, most of the messages on which he's blanked at various times.) Deor (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And, once again, he's moved Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings back into his user space in an attempt to short-circuit the deletion discussion. (He did this before with Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge.) He seems to think that if he can only store everything in his user space until no one's looking, he can slip it back into article space without addressing any of the material's deficiencies. I've undone the move (not sure whether that was the right thing to do, but I'm rapidly losing what little patience I had left). Deor (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD notice says, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Moving the article into userspace is de facto blanking the article. It needs to be evaluated on its merits, not userfied and restored to article space when the danger is past. I think moving it back was right.

My message to him is among those which has been blanked in the past; I informed him of some copyright concerns, including with images here. His only response was to remove the {{npd}} tag from the images, File:2nd building.jpg & File:Frank and mary's.JPG, with his IP. (No guesswork or outing there; see . That & contribs make this a gimme.) This does seem to reflect a history of hoping problems will go away without addressing them directly. Not sure if a block is necessary (it may be, but I haven't looked extensively at recent edits), but if this kind of tag removal to preserve content out of process continues, it certainly will be. I believe he's working in good faith, but communication is essential. --Moonriddengirl 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that there is more than one city in America called "Pittsboro", so even if the article were notable (as opposed to being an advertising tool of the chamber of commerce), its title would need to specify which Pittsboro it's referring to. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

←I've left him a fairly detailed note about how to interact with the community. Hopefully, he will be responsive. --Moonriddengirl 13:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not looking good, no response as of yet tho the editor has had some fun updating their userpage. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He's left me a note at my talk page. There may be hope. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., DJ Pusspuss,and an editor who shall remain nameless

I was hoping to prevent anyone from being blocked, not to hasten a blocking and provoke spurious accusations of sockpuppets under every bed, but it's par for the course. NuclearWarfare seems to have removed Craftyminion's comments now, as well as this one, which seems over the top. I would restore it myself, but I don't want to wade into this mess any further. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an accident there; didn't actually mean to remove that comment, only the three below it. I have restored the comment by Simon Speed; anyone is free to reverse my re-addition of that comment. NW (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Note that I have re-blocked Crafty indefinitely. While I stand by many of the points I made here in this thread, I am forced to admit that this editor had an agenda, and was poised to follow it relentlessly. Tan | 39 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to read up more on the blocking but I'm concerned about the larger picture here, we have a potential CoI and our pseudonymity policy seems to be preventing coming to grips with it. That seems not good. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with Lar. As it is currently written, the outing policy protects all parties, the guilty and the innocent, the helpful and the not so helpful, equally. In the interest of encouraging contributions, that is probably the best way to leave the policy. However, I think we could beef up our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines to better protect the community. Possibly something along the lines of "If you wish to defend a subject you have a conflict of interest to in a Wiki-debate, you waive the protection from outing of the nature of the interest (biography subjects, company relationships, etc), as a matter of fairness to the other participants in the debate." MBisanz 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think policy SHOULD make some better allowance (than it does now) for the idea that there are things you could do, that if you do them, you waive your anonymity. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an interesting proposal, and there are obvious deficiencies with our current norms that have been highlighted in this case. Offering lenience in certain instances of outing could very readily be open to abuse by the ill-intended, but existing norms seem also to offer too much protection to miscreants. I encourage you to further this discussion after putting some more thought towards it, MBisanz.  Skomorokh  23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mantanmoreland flap of a couple of years ago is a case in point of what can happen when COI issues get shoved under the rug out of insistence on maintaining an absolute policy against "outing". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if here is the right place to ask, but why is it an issue if someone edits an article on his or herself? Don't the subjects of articles usually know more about themselves and sources about themselves than we do about them? I suppose the subject of an article is less likely to be neutral, but I would find it odd if an article existed on me (I can say with all confidence and honesty that I am not significant enough of a person at this time to have an article on myself, maybe down the road if things go as planned...) and I would not even be allowed to add neutral and objective information or more importantly to challenge potentially libelous information. Anyway, again, if this question should be moved somewhere else, okay, but it was just one thing I am not getting here. Thanks and Happy Labor Day! --A Nobody 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how we rely on third party sourcing for reliability, it would seem silly to not rely on third party editors to ensure neutrality and reliability. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people writing about themselves may have a tendency to inflate their own importance or distort aspects of their lives in ways that are not readily apparent to outside eyes. Note, for example, that if Xxx Xxxxxx is allowed to write two autobiographies about different persona, then we can hardly object when Yyy Yyyyyy edits his entry to remove reliably sourced information that he was once convicted of lewd offenses with young boys. It also happens that editors with strong conflicts of interest get into behavioral problems over "their" articles, and there are allegations of that here (improper archiving, misrepresenting discussions, and so on). Best practice is to declare the conflict and rely on the views of outside editors. Thatcher 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:COI violation will also be a violation of some other policy, such as WP:NPOV. I view WP:COI as a guideline that helps conflicted editors stay out of trouble. When they get into trouble, it's a good idea to reference the other policies that they are violating. We can enforce our policies without outing people. Outing is a bad idea because it can be used maliciously or abusively. Jehochman 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation but it is still not dealing with the right now, right here issue - how are we managing *this* COI - even a quick look suggests at least one other article that needs care examination for NPOV and COI issues. Are we going to carry on with this completely pointless "this editor" nonsense or are we going to get on with business and deal with the problems? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to go through articles affected by the COI one article at a time. There is no solution that I know of that would remove all of an editor's edits all at once, and I don't think anybody would want such a solution. There is a wish among some editors, it appears to me, to declare some other editors totally beyond the pale, banned, blocked, and blown up, in order to avoid a repeat. I don't think such a declaration will happen here, but I don't think here there's any chance of a repeat, for some editors. BTW, do we have any precedent of what to do if an editor writes three autobiographies? Smallbones (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is completely pointless at this stage to pretend that we are not discussing Benjiboi and I have started a conflict of interest discussion over at COI to co-ordinate article checking. Their first edits were promotional/COI so there is potention that we have three years worth of edits that have COI/promotional material hidden within and overlooked because they were a respected and trusted member of this community. Pretending this identity is not out there is a complete denial of reality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the hysteria seems to have died down a bit, can Craftyminion's indef block might be reduced now, back to the 48 hours it was originally? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Crafty hasn't requested an unblock, I don't see the need to go down that road. If/when he requests an unblock, then it would be up for discussion. MBisanz 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that no has blocked Cameron Scott for saying the same thing -- and I'm not suggesting that they do -- it looks like one editor has been singled out for special treatment. The block for disruption may have been warranted, but the indef block was overly harsh then and even more so now. Why expect an editor to plead for an unblock to correct a mistake may in the heat of the moment, which has now cooled? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of indef block made by AWOL admin

Craftyminion (talk · contribs) was initially blocked for 48 hours for "persistent violation of WP:OUTING and POINTy editing". Before the initial block has lapsed, the block was extended to indef, presumably based on Craftyminion's lack of contrition since the message posted to their talk page was "Sorry, but if you repeatedly state your intent to continue the disruption, the only solution is an indefinite block". The "outing" relates to an editor whose identity is now being openly discussed both on- and off-wiki, so the blocking rationale seems to no longer apply. The blocking admin, Tantalus39, has declared that they are on a wiki-break until 2010. Can someone please look at reducing this block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Has the user in question requested an unblock since the extension? Just for the full picture Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't, and indeed this was already asked by DC on ANI, and denied for the same reason. Forumshopping, anyone? → ROUX ₪ 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping indeed. — neuro 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't this ANI? I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2Cand_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless. You know what is being talked about. — neuro 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it might be helpful to separate this issue from the other one, which appears to be somewhat of a hot potato. I would simply approach the blocking admin but he is on a wiki-break of several months. I believe the indef block to be understandable based on the circumstances at that time, but overly harsh now that the circumstances have changed. Therefore, I'm asking for a block review. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that the editor was disruptive, and the block should still stand. Just my two pence. — neuro 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're not going to unblock them, then? Oh wait, you're not an admin, are you? Perhaps Roux will do it? Oh... Well, I'll take your comments for what they are worth then. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the user's edits and with comments like "You silly boy. They are actually right over at WR, aren't they? You really are just a shaved ape.", I see no reason to reduce the length of the block. If the user would like to post a well-written unblock request, we can go from there, but I see no reason to act before then. TNXMan 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am unaware of a rule that requires editors to be admins before posting on ANI. Regarding Craftyminion, I'm not sure how edits such as this would result in anything other than an indefinite block; if an editor is blocked for something, and then pledges to continue that something once unblocked, then the extended block is preventative. As a reviewing editor noted here, an agreement to stop the disruptive editing would probably go a long way to a successful unblock request. We don't have an unblock request at all, at the moment, so any action is premature.(ec) UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes comments by non-admins are helpful, but in cases where an action is requested that can only be carried out by an admin, I find that more often than not they merely add to the noise level. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you 100% on that. Admins and non-admins have equal weight in these discussions; while any actions carried out require an admin to "flip the switch", admins opinions are NOT more valuable than non-admins here. These discussions are open to anyone who has a constructive comment to make. Admins are not granted special status except in the actual execution of their tools. This is a discussion, and all discussions are open to all users at all times. --Jayron32 18:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree 1000% - non admin input is crucial to determine what the consensus is in a given situation, and admins should act on consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Delicious carbuncle, it's unfortunate that your comments here seem to fuel drama rather than reduce it. I don't think your comments are justified, but rather, are in response to the fact that others don't agree with your views in other more specific matters. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments are based on long time observation of ANI, not on any one specific incident or viewpoint. I fail to see how my opinion that fewer and more well-thought out comments can possibly be considered to be fuelling drama. Petty little squabbles like these seem to be all about winning something or making some kind of brownie points. They aren't necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was alone in my interpretation of your comments. What I am trying to say is this: if you were more tactful in your postings, the issue that arose here (and on your talk page) would not exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, you are right. Perhaps I was annoyed by the ridiculous accusation of "forum-shopping" and my words were poorly chosen. I will offer an apology. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't really disagree. I wasn't suggesting closing the discussion to non-admins. I stand by my observation that the comments made by non-admins in regard to issues which they are necessarily less familiar than admins are often unhelpful. I know that I'm not the only person who would prefer to see requests to admins handled by admins without the obligatory comments and bad jokes by those non-admins who seem to frequent ANI. I believe if certain editors were less quick to weigh in with their opinions, the drama here would be reduced markedly, and I think the occasional reminder of that is helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Tnxman307 and Ultraexactzz. A reasonable unblock request by the user would be openly considered; but as his last statements basically commit to continuing his disruption I think that an indefinite block is entirely appropriate at this time, and see no reason to lift it. ~ mazca 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, consider this resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the outing concerns have been addressed since the block, the user was behaving poorly at the time of the block; and after their initial 48 hour block, expressed clear intent to continue disrupting. Given that clear intent, and the lack of a clear believable statement from the blocked user that would give admins a reason to believe that his prior committment to be a disruption no longer apply, I don't think unblocking at this time would be wise. --Jayron32 18:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

An apology to the non-admins who frequent ANI

Arrrgh! Durova 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Official flag of the ex-admin corps.
• Official flag of the current-admin corps.
• Official flag of the wannabe-admin corps.

My earlier comments were tactless and perhaps bordered on incivility. I hope no one's feeling were too badly hurt. Although I think that ANI would be much less drama-filled if non-admins thought twice about how helpful their actions might be before deciding to post a bad pun, or prematurely archiving or closing a discussion, or biting a newcomer, I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools. I offer this sincere apology to all who commented here, but especially to Roux, Neurolysis, and Ncmvocalist. I'd also like to apologise specifically to Baseball Bugs, NeutralHomer, and any other members of the ANI regulars who may have thought my comments were directed at them. I'm sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything directed at me, but I don't always read everything here. You'll need to point it out, so that I can feel properly infuriated. Baseball Bugs carrots 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools." Jeez, you really need to get out more. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find that the less time I spend sober, the less heavy seems the burden. -GTBacchus 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy. Durova 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Avast! Or something. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• avast!? </me grins and leaves> — Ched *  ?  21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Avast. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ummmm...Arg?Abce2|TalkSign 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They do say, my hearties, that dead men tell no tales. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid, witch-hunts, Misplaced Pages review and general moral panic

I have been baited and harassed here before so have learned that taking a break was often smarter than other options. Despite assertions that would suggest otherwise people are not supposed to be harassed here. Call it what you will, I feel that is exactly what is going on here. For all who have sent me emails, I very much appreciate the kind words and support.
Starting on the heels of the first ever community-wide RfC on "Paid editing", WP:Paid was started up 20 June 2009 and you'll note from day one stated clearly Note: This page is not normative policy, but is intended to be a summary of existing policy related to paid editing. A small group of editors who felt that some form of policy should be enacted, or had been enacted from the WP:Jimbo statement on the matter, kept working to instill the concept that paid editing in various forms was a blockable offense, forbidden, against policy, guidelines, immoral, etc etc. but were essentially halted n their tracks from enacting these changes because ... there was a lack of policies, guidelines and community consensus to make the changes they sought. Naturally they accused me of being a paid editor and continuously hinted and harassed over the point and like a true thorn I refused to confirm nor deny that I was a paid editor. Well, that just seemed to work the nerves but lost in those very discussions was my point that any proposed anything had to take into account that unless paid editors reveal they are paid editors, we likely wouldn't know ergo our page should reflect the real issues is the content and user conduct. From everything I've read on the matter, we don't block or ban someone for being paid, we do so for other reasons because their cases are brought to attention for violating other policies.

On 14 August 2009 a rather pointy proposal to force disclosure of paid editors was put forward but didn't succeed nor did several veiled threats of dispute resolution which other editors besides myself agreed likely would not resolve any differences of opinion. Offline I was sent am email that hinted how uncomfortable material about me (ostensibly proving I was a paid editor) could appear and cases like mine - assuming I was a paid editor - received the wrath of the community. I responded here; no proof - likely because there is none - was ever presented. A week or so later, a ANI report was filed on 24 August and when that didn't seem to get me stopped, a RfC on me on 26 August. Certainly I may lack objectivity on this but it seems to have been done solely to harass or subdue me (see Point 5). It was pretty clear that given wider community input the response was a generalized focus on the content not the contributor.

About one week later (5 September) a Misplaced Pages Review posting asserting my identity and COI was posted. No, I haven't read a word of any of it so I'll leave it to those who wish to do so to see what actually is there. Hours later banned user User:Peter Damian, who I've rarely dealt with, nommed one of the two articles DJ Pusspuss for AfD. The next day Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. was also nommed. So first I offer mea culpa - several years ago I wrote two newby malformed articles utilizing a completely promotional tone. As far as I know every statement was factual and I had no reason to believe otherwise, I still don't. The DJ article likely should be removed for now because the independent radio interviews are simply not available. They would just inch it over the notability threshold, frankly there may be enough other sources to do it but I'm not in the mood to try to re-research it and re-write it with all the hostility. The Sister article is another matter, it seems vindictive to me to nom it as there is a multitude of sources. Hopefully the AfD will work out on that one. Injected onto each AfD, and likely parroted from Misplaced Pages Review, was piles of bad faith and original research. I agree this wasn't helped by my refusal to confirm or deny my identity; sorry but given the adversarial conduct, online and offline harassment I'm at odds to know who exactly I can trust and to what degree. I keep my private information ... private as a general rule and have never gone out of my way to correct people when they assume my name, gender or sexuality - I just don't feel it helps to get into it no matter what someone believes, friend or foe. I've been accused of being quite a few of the subjects or employed by some companies I've written about. Frankly even when it's meant to be quite personal I've tried to not take it as such. Instead I see those charges as a call to improve the articles as they are likely glowing where they should be showing instead.

As for WP:Paid? You'll notice that it's been now switched to their preferred version. A doomed policy proposal unfortunately no matter how well-intended the efforts. I think I can recover the damage there but think that other perspectives on this whole affair is warranted. Be mad at me for poor judgment but please don't compromise consensus building and what was a good guideline page in process by assuming that Misplaced Pages:The Truth as told to us by Misplaced Pages Review should enable some very poor behaviours. Do I have proof that these events are more than coincidence? Not as of yet, but I'll let others decide what seems to add up to what; hopefully those eager to extend me bad faith will reconsider. Through this all I've been a bit surprised at some editors and really quite proud of others. Hopefully the project will be a bit better for all of this - I can't say I'm delighted with how things have happened but I do welcome more eyes on the whole situation. I think a good outcome would be that we have a paid proposed guideline and a paid proposed policy, not sure if those whose efforts I've detailed above would be open to that but at least both pages could be in common sense places. Sorry for the long ramble, I hope it makes a bit of sense of things or at least where I'm coming from. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, it's everyone else - you didn't create promotional articles about yourself, you didn't vote keep in AFDs about yourself, you didn't add photos of yourself to articles - it wikipedia review, other editors. This is just an attempt to poison the well and make yourself hard done-by, I've looked into the history of those articles and you have systematically tried to shut down debate or any suggestion there is a conflict of interest. You should be ashamed to come here and try and suggest that anyone that has happened is not the direct result of your attempts to promote yourself, warp articles that you are connected to and then being caught out. At best, you are disingenuous, at worst you are a liar - it's a bit early to be saying "trust me".

So if you want truth, let's get some straight answers

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors

2) are you working as a paid editor (a question that has been asked by a number of editors and avoided over at WP:PAID - a debate I have had no part in)?

You want some trust, you need to show some reasons why you should be trusted because as far as I can see, in-between a lot of very good contributions (and some very very poor one where you puff out pisspoor articles with terrible sources to keep them on-wiki), you have been working for your own interests for a long time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring further baiting and character assassinations ... I will point out your "smoking gun" diff there doesn't show I "systematically shut down" anything. I archived a thread that was stale several months. I didn't see it helping anything but if you want to beat a dead horse in several forums I won't stop you. -- Banjeboi 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have participated in the drafting of WP:PAID and I don't recall a lot of consensus building by Benjiboi. Rather, I kept seeing him revert edits by other editors and acting as if he owned the policy. He was so adament about not not allowing any limits on paid editing that it led to inevitable questions about his own involvement in it. Rather than deny or explain, he became offended and refused to discuss it. That seems to be the way he's responded to the COI issues as well.   Will Beback  talk  16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For those missing the reading between the lines, this is one of the three editors who has systematically tried to ban/block me off WP:PAID and the one who sent me the veiled threat to my email. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The note I sent to Benjiboi on August 12 was not a threat, veiled or otherwise. I wrote that some things are better handled off-Wiki and asked him if he had in fact engaged in paid editing. I wrote "If you do not wish to disclose then I can't force you. ... When it comes to disclosures, I think we've both been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know that many undisclosed conflicts have been revealed, and it hasn't gone well for those who've acted deceptively." Benjiboi never responded, even after being prompted on his talk page. Finally, I asked him the same question on his talk page. The complete thread is here: User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_54#Paid_editing. Before this week I had no knowledge of the allegation of COI biography writing, nor of any other specific problem with Benjiboi's editing other than his ownership of WP:PAID. I've had no involvement in investigating the COI bio issue and haven't communicated with anyone about it, on or off Wiki.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then. I didn't really finish reading the diatribe posted above, but I think I got the general point. You're asserting that there's some sort of cabal of people who are deleting (or trying to delete) your contributions because of your opposition to their view of WP:PAID. I don't know jack about what's been going on over there, so I defer judgement to someone who particularly cares. But from my view from the outside, there is no conspiracy. Damian or whoever instigated this business might have beef against you for all I know. But I think perfectly well-intentioned editors have simply followed the trail to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes. The result is that you have evaded WP:COI issues, likely used socks to protect your articles and canvass for support, and followed up with a persecution complex. Complaining of unfounded attacks from Misplaced Pages Review seems rather suspect considering you allege you haven't actually read what's posted there (how would you know what spurious attacks were funneled from there, then?) I'm not sure how in the wrong other parties are in this, but you, Benji, sure as hell aren't coming out smelling like a rose, and with good reason. So next time just apologize and take steps to rectify the situation, don't try and shift blame. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m very surprised that User:Benjiboi has decided to return to Misplaced Pages after being warned of the consequences of multiple COI edits. User:Cool Hand Luke quietly suggested that Benjiboi drop the use of his account if he didn’t want to address what appeared to be flagrant conflicts of interest in editing ( following CHL’s question on conflicts of interest ).

The flagrant conflicts of interest are writing 2+ apparent autobiographies

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) (a persona)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. (a persona) and

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (a small group bio)

and other closely related articles ( see, e.g. bottom of page)

It’s of course fairly difficult to discuss an editor who writes 2+ autobiographies without getting close to outing. Benjiboi says that he was outed by Wikireview on Sept. 5. It looks to me that he was apparently outed by his supporters and fellow community members on Sept. 5. (and following at the same AfD)

The same material also appeared much earlier at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss

I don’t think that it’s necessary to discuss this as “outing” – it’s clear that the “3 people” involved are quite close, know each other very well, and work together. All we need to talk about is the obvious COI.

It‘s clear that Benjiboi has been engaging in COI edits right from the beginning, when he was essentially an SPA.

Everything he has been doing recently has become controversial and disruptive. For example, see this discussion of his plagiarism

Also see the edit war he was involved in today starting at He spent considerable time above arguing about WP:PAID, where I have edited a bit, and I take his remarks as being aimed at me. Please notice that nobody else has mentioned this topic in this thread until he did. My complaint about Benjiboi has only been that he constantly reverted every edit I made at WP:PAID. It is summarized here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Benjiboi#Sorry_if_this_wasn.27t_clear

When he put forth the bizarre position that Paid editors did not have a conflict of interest editing a proposed policy on paid editing. User:Will Beback and User:TeaDrinker asked point blank whether he had a COI by being a paid editor. Benjiboi refused to even accept the relevance of the question. Just today, he finally admitted that he is a paid editor.

So what to do about an editor who blatantly disregards WP:COI and other Misplaced Pages rules like WP:POV and WP:RS and is disruptive with every edit? I think he has offered ANI a choice by returning to edit Misplaced Pages – either you accept his editing as OK, or you block or ban him.

I don’t think the larger community will accept his editing as being OK. This topic will come up again with every controversial edit that he makes.

Can he be blocked? Well, you folks know the rules better than I do, but certainly other editors must have been blocked for offenses less serious than writing 2+ apparent autobiographies and !voting at the AfDs of those apparent autobiographies. Smallbones (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a vandal

One of my edits has been reverted and called vandalism by User:Deserted Cities. The diff is here. Furthermore, he marked the edit as minor, perhaps hoping to escape notice? Even further...um...more, I think he might be stalking me after an exchange I had with a different editor on the talk page of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", a page that Deserted Cities undid me on this morning. I got to "The Ox" by hitting "Random Article" and copyedited to the best of my ability, something I do here and the same way I got to "Weeps", and this guy whom I'd never met before comes shooting in and reverting with a vandal accusation. What does a Wikipedian in my position do now? I'm notifying the other party. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this comment and this comment (both on the talk for WMGGW), you show a clear lack of regard for consensus in regards to capitalization of band names. So to me, ignoring consensus constitutes vandalism, which is what you did on the Ox. It was marked as minor automatically because I used twinkle, not because I did it on purpose. Deserted Cities 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See me on my talk page if you want to discuss consensus and the like. This page is for the vandal accusation and the suspicion of stalking. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They go hand-in-hand. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. There is a time to defy consensus, whatever consensus is. I'll admit I don't have a very clear idea of that aspect of the Misplaced Pages experiment. If a clot of zealots squat on an article and come out of the woodwork and revert whenever some editor tries to edit it and shout him down when he tries to reason with them, is that consensus? When a gang of hobbyists decide that their pet thing merits some special consideration in defiance of long-standing convention and common sense and gruffly warn all comers to do it their way, is that consensus? I'm not saying that that's what's happened here, but I have run into things like that. When our friend John from WMGGW mentioned the Beatles group, I did go look at the project page for the guideline concerning capitalization. I couldn't find it. I have checked project pages before for such details, notably the botany and biology pages for conventions concerning nomenclature and reference names. John said that consensus was currently in favor of capitalizing the "the". I looked under "Guidelines", a reasonable attempt, I think, but nada. I tried the talk page with the hope of joining the discussion—no dice. Please show me where it says that on the project page.

There is a time to defy consensus. Ignore all rules. Anyone can edit. Nobody owns an article. Be fucking nice, damn it. You seem to have strayed from some of the core principles of Misplaced Pages. Be cool. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the pot is calling the kettle black. Deserted Cities 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that. I have done nothing to you. You, on the other hand, have reverted two legitimate edits of mine, called me a vandal, and started following me. And now you refuse to communicate. Show me where it says about the capitalization. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A) You told me to cool off, but it appears from your comments that you need(ed) to cool off. B) Here's one discussion on the matter here. Deserted Cities 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm a vandal if I don't find an inconclusive discussion buried in archive 21 of a talk page merely hinted at by a rude editor and adhere to your interpretation of that discussion? Douglas Adams would have loved this. I repeat that this is not the place for this discussion. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)Well what exactly do you want then? Blood? Deserted Cities 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "vandalism" should only be used for edits that are intended to cause damage. Edits made in the belief that they improve an article should never be called vandalism, regardless of how misguided they are. As you can see, misusing the word makes people very upset. Looie496 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the second comment I linked too, he says he'll continue to make similar changes, even though he's going against long-standing consensus; what would you call that? Also, I'm sure people don't like being called "groupies" or part of a "cabal" as Milkbreath referred to us. Deserted Cities 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the revert was right; but calling someone a vandal who is editing in good faith, albeit incorrectly, is any number of things, from incivility to newbie biting to just unnecessary. --jpgordon 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line - yer both wrong, Milkbreath and Deserted Cities. Milkbreath, welcome to the Misplaced Pages project; if you wish to change long-standing consensus, be prepared to take it to a talk page and pitch a damn good argument. Realize that the status quo probably exists for a reason - that shouldn't deter you from trying to change a consensus you think is wrong, but charging in and changing it yourself - however commendable from a WP:BOLD aspect that may be - is not the best idea, and trying it after you were reverted is an even worse idea. Contact me on my talk page if you have questions or need some help. Deserted Cities, thank you for your vigilance in fighting vandalism and the like - but this was not vandalism, and calling it such never works out for anyone. I've seen the above situation dozens of times. Just take the tip, continue your good work, and we can all move on. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved tag removed, see thread at my talk page. I withdraw the offer for help; any other editor/admin can help him out if so inclined. Tan | 39 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me start again. I've been falsely accused of vandalism in the edit summary of a revert of a legitimate edit, and I suspect I'm being followed. What do I do about those two things? --Milkbreath (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For the first, you assume good faith about the other contributor even if you feel he hasn't assumed good faith about you, explain to him at his talk page what you were doing and remind him civilly that good faith edits are not to be described as vandalism. If he or she persists, you consider seeking additional feedback, possibly through one of the fora described in dispute resolution. The recommended location, if you can't ignore the behavior that offends you, is WP:WQA. The policy Misplaced Pages:Harassment says, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." This would suggest to me that you are not being harassed, as this contributor is restoring material evidently according to consensus, even through the vandalism label was inappropriate. If you feel differently, you consult dispute resolution. Administrator assistance is according to Misplaced Pages:Harrassment#Dealing with harassment for serious cases. Even if the "vandalism" tag is inappropriate, a couple of articles does not constitute that. For general questions about processes on Misplaced Pages, you may get a more speedy response at the help desk, which is engineered for that. --Moonriddengirl 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:DHawker

DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver. S/he recently racked up a third block for edit-warring on the article. A few days into the block, DHawker is using 219.90.234.177 (talk) to evade the block and continue arguing the same tendentious point that s/he was blocked for (). This is not the first time; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker, where DHawker was let off with a warning for using IPs to circumvent 3RR. I'd like to request administrative review; I am obviously involved, but I feel action is warranted. MastCell  23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the possibility that someone else could mimic this editor's arguments to get them blocked for a relatively long time, I've just blocked the IP address used for a week. Feel free to drop me a note if anything else develops. If this editor really is having issues abiding by a block, I expect other issues will crop up soon enough. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is trying to keep DHawker silenced, and in reality they are both back and forth with their reverting of each other. DHawker is not an aggressive editor and isn't vandalizing anything. He makes a lot of valid arguments and its for that reason he is being silenced. Feels like friggen kindergarten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the block evasion was the posting of a single comment that mastcell simply deleted (Which is also against our policies, blocked or not). Please review the discussion for which he has been blocked for and see for yourself how threatening DHawker is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly welcome additional input at Talk:Colloidal silver. The above "dialog" is actually par for the course there. I seem to be in the minority with my view that blocks are blocks, and not optional suggestions to be circumvented at will, so more eyes might be useful. MastCell  17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be confused about what Floydian is saying, but it was my understanding that the removal of edits made by someone evading a block is generally approved by policy, not against policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That edit is certainly consistent with DHawker's style. The IP GeoLocates to Adelaide, as does this one, where the user acknowleges a (presumably accidentally - I think that was before my tenure at that page) logged out edit. Should I file a SPI? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, and find out that this user is just someone who feels that this article is treated unfairly (As are many of the fringe theory articles, which are often stonewalled by a group of experienced editors that attack anyone with a different point of view, and then ban them as soon as the possibility arises). What a warm welcoming message we send out at wikipedia now. "You don't agree with our view, then shut up or get out!"

Despite the accusations against him of being an account dedicated to edit warring, he has fairly discussed his edits on the talk page of the article. He has provided completely valid research and several references to backup his revisions, and the reverts by other users have all fallen back on a single reference which they use to undo all revisions that shine some light on the reality. The revisions have often ignored the point and picked out an insignificant error in order to justify the revision (For example, see this rediculous revision and the following revision which I made because Aunt Entropy's revision was completely uncalled for). This is not a vandalous user, and should not be treated as such. Period. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker is a single purpose editor and has a record of editwarring to promote a fringe view. Now he/she appears to be guilty of block evasion. I'd say the user needs either a long term block or preferably a ban from editing alternative medicine topics and should be encouraged to edit/improve other non-fringe articles. Vsmith (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring to try to force the citation of the non-PubMed journal Scientific Research and Essay (journal website) and now block evasion, all in order to push a fringe point of view, are not suggestive of a constructive editor. I'd certainly support a topic ban. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the ban also. This sort of editing is not even borderline. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering this is not the first time, I'm moving towards an indef block, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker - same behavior and the same article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pubmed isn't what makes a journal reliable or not, the way the research is conducted determines reliability, so just pushing that on it makes it clear where your bias lay. This is of course, as opposed to the study that bought a product off the internet, tested it, and then concluded that the results from that apply to every instance of colloidal silver (ooooh. Reliable, pubmed says so). I'm sorry, but when it comes to fringe theories, editors are dicks. Especially since, being concluded as a fringe theory, all the admins jump straight to the "if you see it as anything but fringe, you are just promoting it" argument. At best, a ban from the article is warranted. DHawker is not causing issues on the talk page, and his input is valid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@2/0: No need to file an SPI report. Note that DHawker signed the edit. I suppose it is possible that someone went to Adelaide, Australia and posted in exactly DHawker's style, pushing one of DHawker's talking points, solely to get DHawker in trouble on Misplaced Pages... but William of Ockham would roll over in his grave at that explanation.

@Floydian: This isn't the place to argue sources, but virtually every meaningful and remotely valid medical journal is indexed on MEDLINE. People generally don't want to publish good stuff in non-indexed journals, because other researchers won't find it and won't cite their work or build on it. MEDLINE indexing is not a guarantee of quality - a lot of crappy journals are indexed - but the absence of MEDLINE indexing suggests strongly that we shouldn't assign too much weight to the source.

@Everyone: I would be fine with a ban for DHawker from the article; I can put up with the repetitious agenda-driven talk page abuse as par for the course on these sorts of articles, so if the edit-warring were taken off the table, that would be sufficient from my perspective. MastCell  03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by block-evading editor removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask for some closure on this? MastCell  00:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

In light of the fact that he engaged in sockpuppetry post-block, and other disruptive conduct including edit-warring prior to the block, I make the following proposals (please make clear which you support/oppose - note that #1 #2 #3 and #4 are alternatives; should there be equal preference, the more restrictive restriction will be enacted):

1. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing pages relating to Colloidal silver, broadly construed.
2. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver-related articles. This topic ban does not include talk pages and related discussions.
3. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver and its talk page.
4. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing the Colloidal silver article. This page ban does not include the talk page.
5. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s current block is increased to two weeks for attempting to evade his original block.
6. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to editing with a single account. Should DHawker edit with any other account, he will be considered banned from Misplaced Pages for 6 months for the first incident, 1 year for the second incident, and indefinitely thereafter.

I hope that covers it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)changed a bit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one: DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver, but not its talk page

In all reality, he has not edited anything but colloidal silver (With one or two edits to Argyria). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added your proposal above to avoid confusion - please fix your comment accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the fact that he has been very civil and his reverts are often not the same material being reverted, but different aspects in the article. Yes, occasionally it can escalate into a 3 revert match... Rarely 4... Certainly not 20 like many see before making it here. The point is, these sort of things should be worked out between editors to keep things civil. DHawker has been civil, if not cooperative often with mastcell. I see no reason why any sort of intervention is required, and so I vote the status quo first:

• Support 6, 5 (This he did do). Running down from there it would be 4, 2, 3, 1. I oppose those four choices though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your assertion that DHawker has been "very civil", and with your excuses for his constant edit-warring. I'm also not clear on why I, or anyone, should be expected to go out of our way to work with someone who shows such consistent disregard for this site's most basic behavioral policies. But I will leave this for uninvolved input, since I think both of our positions are fairly clear. MastCell  18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse123 still causing the same problems

I reported Djjesse123 (talk · contribs) here last week for multiple improper image uploads (uploading copyrighted DVD covers with no licence, no source, no permission and no fair use rationale). The editor has been warned multiple times for this, and also for continually adding unsourced information (about unverified future films) to various articles, especially the Steven Seagal article. Today, in spite of multiple previous warnings to stop, he has uploaded File:Blood and Bone.jpg without any of the necessary licenses, sources or fair use rationales, and has also added more unsourced information to articles (and been warned once again). The editor has been completely silent and refuses to respond to queries, warnings and pleas on his talk page to engage in discussion. He/she continues to engage in the same behavior they have been warned about multiple times. Warnings and attempts to engage in discussion are obviously useless and this account should be blocked as they are not contributing positively or engaging in discussion. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: He also uses the IP 24.26.78.133 (talk · contribs) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Djjesse (talk · contribs) is a probable sock also. --NeilN 04:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Is this mic on? *tap tap*... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the general expressions of concern here, and I have indefinitely blocked him pending some conversation. Of course, a sock investigation might turn that indef block into an infinite block, but he can't continue to ignore policies and warnings and just persist with the same behavior. --Moonriddengirl 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on his favorite articles and if the suspected sock or new ones start doing the same stuff I'll file SPI. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing by user Alexikoua

Above mentioned user User:Alexikoua is canvassing regarding the voting on this issue: Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_6#Template:Northern_Epirus

Here are the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Factuarius&diff=prev&oldid=312330642 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Megistias&diff=prev&oldid=312345802

--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, is Alexikoua accusing a long standing Admin of being a sock in the first diff there? Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Notified both J Milburn and Alexikoua. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua accuses not only admins of many things, but many other users of wiki of many other things.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• This canvassing is also going on off-wiki. See this thread, but be aware that it may be deleted shortly (seems it is the second thread, the first one having been deleted). A checkuser would probably be useful. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note the post "Me and I group of friends have tried to secure the article but they we need your contribution", suggesting that there is already an element of meatpuppetry going on... J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

About this off-wiki ] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

• This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago ], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
• What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
• The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exactly the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, (] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he -I_Pakapshem- proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. I really regret, since situation is a bit out of control, but reasonably thinking, why should I add such kind of information off wiki? Sorry for the capitals and really sorry for involving J Milburn (the sentence proves that I'm not refering to him) but I really feel sad when being involved in that kind of activity which does not represent me and what I beliefs.

My contribution history proves that I'm not involved on the kind of activity which makes me sickAlexikoua (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, actually, another one bad-faith report by user:I_Pakapshem, (] he already has a record of fruitless report in past). It sounds erroneous that someone accuses 'canvassing' while the same time launching irc activity in order to pick up supporters. What's really wierd is that the results of his initiative were sometimes controversial for him (], Someone in 'irc:wikipedia' had a great desire for propaganda today. +an 'Incan name' reference seems to be also a result of these attempts).

His contibution, which is, for the first time he appeared in wiki untill now, limited to specific nationalist topics, just full of reverts and empty argument:

• after breaking a block record: 6 times in 43 days (June 9-July 21), due to endless wp:3rr, wp:npa, wp:civility isues, seems that this was not enough, he continued to show a dangerous pattern of continual battleground behavior ] until he received a 1 revert limit.
• characteristically, when last blocked, and being insistent that the block was totally 'unfair', his talk page was locked too, ].
• Why such a user should be trusted? It's more than obvious that this pattern of activity is still in full motion. I wouldn't be surprused if it was he that made up this childish bait job, according to his knowledge of Greek as well as his endless efforts to promote a nationalistic agenda ] according to his contribution history.Alexikoua (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• We have 3 contributors who said delete and may be possible socks, and 6 contributors who said keep are 90% socks/meats. Let's focus on that. And we have a possible canvassing case.
• There was later found also this . I tried to translate it by using a greeklish to greek converter and then google translate. The main meaning is obvious, but a detailed translation is needed. This seems to be a message previous to this . I personally do not want to blame anyone for anything, but this sudden influx of ip editors at approximately the same time, is suspicious.--Alarichus (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Until now, all 5/6 new or ip contributors who voted "keep", have been to found to be located in the same area except one. All of them are located in Greece. I cannot give any information about the last one(guidelines) but you can guess I believe. Regarding the 3 ip or new users who said "delete", one of them is located in Kosovo and one in Macedonia. --Alarichus (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Alarichus:This thread says, in an extreme propagandistic style:

'Can I not write the text in Greek letters? Some Albanians in wikipedia want to delete part of Greek Epirus, but we have to keep it. Until now some guys I know helped us. When we manage to gather in great numbers I will tell you what to do. (noone knows who's watching).'

Hope this one will be soon checked. Since the baid style mentality is more than obvious. I_Pakashem's ghost activity seems to be his only solution lately.Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• That probably explains the arrival of 5-6 ip users from Greece with no previous contributions(I'll do some more checks, and hopefully I'll find more). I did some investigation regarding this . It seems that no user mentioned the TfD, in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help and no user with the username I Pakapshem joined the channels between -10:00, 00:00, until 19:46 when this message was posted. That enhances the possibilities of finding the one who caused all these issues. However, again let's not blame anyone for anything yet. I'll see if I can find more on this. Unfortunately I cannot check the irc logs to get more detailed info. But what I could find is good enough. --Alarichus (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• So although Pakapshem did not join irc, in the dates mentioned, someone thought he did and caused this. The question is WHO?.

I prefer writing good articles, than playing hide and seek in ANI, so hopefully we'll get to the end of this soon. There are 4 possibilities. I will elaborate on them later. --Alarichus (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever tried to check with a similar nick? Since he has a past record I dont believe he is too innocent in that kind of activity. All posibilites may be possible, joined with similar nick or irrelevant nick. Who knows what he discusses in private conversations right? (any i.p. check in irc possible?). Even a diferrent channel in freenode sounds likely since he was of great need for 'delete' votes. His level of activity is obvious in attepting to wp:gaming the system in every opportunity. Did he became suddenly innocent recently? I dont think so.

The off-wiki childish camvassing attempt, which is obviously a rediculous bait style is for sure for lauphing. Hope that irc-topix ghost will be checked and revealed soon.Alexikoua (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am a telecommunications student, and know how to search for such things. I am 100% sure he did not join with any nick, or canvass in irc. Most logs are public so you can check for yourself. Alexikoua, according to the evidence so far you are the only one who may have done it(canvassing, meatpuppeting), maybe with some involvement from Factuarius. Chris G and I, told you yesterday that those 2 messages you sent may be easily regarded as canvassing. And once I told you that I Pakapshem was the one initially concerned about the template, you started thinking that he would be canvassing on irc for votes. Then lots of ips(most with no edits at all) show up, backing you up. All from Greece. And one saying that I Pakapshem was canvassing in irc, but as I told you, he didnt even join the irc. But you thought that he did, and so did the ip. Then we have this skolixx in topix saying that he had been helped by some friends earlier(dates match with the 5-6 ips from Greece, and especially Athens), asking for more help. And I don't buy the fact his english was "poor", some of his sentences have been deliberately distorted to seem "poor". Afterwards there was found that he wrote also in greek. To me it would seem normal for someone who was warned about canvassing on-wiki, to stop and continue canvassing off-wiki. All hours match against you. There is definitely no involvement from Cplakidas, Aigest, Athenean, Michael IX the White. There is some involvement (regarding on-wiki canvassing) from Megistias, Factuarius. When your case is over, I will check if those 2 ips from Kosovo and Macedonia are related to I Pakapshem. --Alarichus (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that 2 notices cannot be considered canvassing. Usually (if not always), canvassing exceedes two people and is mass notification. Also, there is 0 proof that that "skolixx" is Alexikoua, and we can't accuse him of being just because there is a suspected "case"! Can you please bring forward as evidence in this the way that you found out that forum? --Michael X the White (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The definite point(except on-wiki canvassing) is that the ip contributor said that I Pakapshem had been trying to convince him to vote delete yesterday. But I Pakapshem didn't login with this nickname or another, and no one even mentioned such an issue(!!). So the ip contributor was lying. Alexikoua thought from the beginning of this that I Pakapshem was trying to convince us all to back him up by using irc. So we have a new ip contributor trying to back up the belief of Alexikoua by lying. It's clear that they are definitely connected. Combine that with "skolixx", and you get canvassing and meatpuppeting. On the bright side of this issue, most of you weren't involved. --Alarichus (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suppose he is not such an idiot to join in with his real name. What kind of argument is this Alarichus? You are accusing me as a member of an extremist organization without a single evidence... should I say thank you?Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you. No one said you are member of any organisation. But I cannot oversee the facts. You canvassed , and then an ip lied to back up your belief. And 5 others came simultaneously to "save" the template, and we have the off-wiki canvassing to gather support for the template. --Alarichus (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand well what Alarichus and I Pakapshem are thinking, Alexikoua first went to a chat room asking for help in 7/9, then next day 8/9 after J Milburn already had connected Alexikoua with Skolixx, put his photo in the chat room making him the leader of the most (in)famous racist political group in Greece and then posted an IP vote backing “his lies” in the discussion. To me no person could be so idiot to do that. The vote was just another attempt to victimize Alexikoua for canvassing and meatpuppeting and the person or persons who did that must be ashamed. As for for the rest of us before hurrying to extract easy conclusions we must consider the possibility to be the next victim of such a machination. --Factuarius (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius don't connect me with anyone of you. Seriously. And seriously did you even read what I wrote? You didn't even understand what I said, did you? And what is this political organisation you are referring to all the time? None of the ones involved in this connected you to anything. --Alarichus (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All the time? This was my first post in the discussion. You are not understand anything of what happened. With the start of the voting, someone created a skolixx account in a chat room asking for support. In the very same day someone informed J Milburn for Alexikoua's canvassing giving him the ref about skolixx msg in the chat room. Then, when J Milburn informed the others about Alexikoua's activity as skolixx, they put a foto of the person-signed-skolixx which was the photo of the leader of the most (in)famous racist organization in Greece (see N. Michaloliakos (N. Μιχαλολιάκος) & Chrisi Avgi (Χρυσή Αυγή)). Simple wording: they created a account, they connected it with Alexikoua, then they put the leader's photo "revealing" who "Alexikoua" really is. If Alexikoua didn't -at the last minute- realised it, how he could save himself, if today a message with a link from internet with a Michaloliakos photo and a link to the skolixx messages would posted here? That is what happened, and that is what I mean that what happened now with Alexikoua could happen to ANYONE. Is it now clear? Consider that. --Factuarius (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have really messed it all up, haven't you? And why are you telling me this? I don't really care who Michaloliakos is or anything else. All I know is that Alexikoua was canvassing, he was warned, and then six ips from Greece with no previous contributions, came and backed him and up, and then this post was found. Even if I erase that, still..., don't you think? --Alarichus (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are not. You don't even care to -ever- mention the "Albanian" IP votes, don't you? On the contrary after the last Albanian IP vote posted, you rushed to count the votes ("Upadate:10 delete, 7 keep"), after saying "I can prove nothing, and disprove anything". The next time you will mention here or elsewhere my name for canvassing or meatpuppeting I am going to report you. --Factuarius (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned them. It is not my fault if you cannot see that. And now you are threatening me? This is disappointing... --Alarichus (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No I cannot, because I never canvassing or meatpuppeting and I am going to report you for accusing me on that. --Factuarius (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius actually has made some good points. And allow me to expand further. Why would Alexikoua call IPs for backup when we had already started a discussion supporting that IPs and few-edit users would not be counted in in reaching consensus? Why would anyone do that when IPs and few-edit users are (usually) not counted in such procedures? I do not doubt that some of these IPs really were Greeks that came from that forum and I have found the link given to them by skolixx that leads directly to the Template discussion. But still, why call them in when they are not to be counted? Another question I have is why count "votes" when this is about consensus and not a democracy. I'd also like J Milburn to tell us how he found that adress. I am more than interested.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I have answered below, just read. Actually there were 2 links, one found by J_Milburn, one by me. After talking with a checkuser, there was decided to search for off-wiki patterns which could explain this sudden inlfux of ips. I found 1, and then JMilburn found an earlier post. --Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pakapshem's sick attempt

I'm really pissed off since this continuous reverter made up this sick attempt against me. Actually the topix thread is signed by a user named: worm (in Greek skollix). Who could really sign with such a name? So Pakashem really believes I'm a worm and sings it that way? and I deserve this pic? What else have I to say? His 'zero' encyclopedic contribution in 3 months with continous nationalist advocating and massiv reverting makes me wonder why he is still here, accusing and personal attacking. Suppose his ghost activity in irc is also active in off-wiki too, but not for too longAlexikoua (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That skolixx said: "Some Albanians in wikipedia are trying to delete a piece about greek epirus, but we can reverse this if we gather in great numbers." ( loipon sth wikipedia kati albanoi pane na diagrapsoun ena kommati gia thn ellhnikh hpeiro, alla mporoume na to antistrepsoume an mazeytoume arketoi) Well, if this is not a non-Greek who wrote this, my curiosity is too great to wait to know what kind of a Greek could use the phrase "about Greek Epirus", where Greek is used to make the ditinction, as if the rest of Epirus was not Greek. It is an extremely strange way to describe Northern Epirus and it is the first time I meet it. I really do not think Alexikoua wrote this. I mean, this hardly sounds Greek.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are on the border of incivility. Take it easy. There are even companies which have that name and as I saw even greek nationalists use it for themselves. Seriously, guys I have seen a LOT on non-english wikipedias(de). This kind of behaviour is just worsening the situation. Michael I really cannot understand your argument. If you think a part of another country belongs to you, you do use your own national denonym for it, don't you? --Alarichus (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just relax. --Alarichus (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, it would be useful to make some web-search about this if you're going to involve yourself in this. But it is my mistake that this was not clear. Epirus ia a region spanning both countries. To differentiate the part that is situated in the Hellenic Republic to the one that is in the Republic of Albania, the political (coming from the Autonomous State) and geographical term Northern Epirus. It would be normal (but extremely unlikely) for the term "Greek Epirus" to be used for the part that is in Greece itself, but the part in Albania alone would surely be never referred to as "Greek Epirus". Even if the term was used to describe all of Epirus, greek would still not be used because it is taken for granted. But here we already know that it is used ofr Northern Epirus only.--Michael X the White (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Comment

The accused user(Alexikoua) canvassed on wiki, and may have canvassed off-wiki. Additionally there is battleground mentality, incivility, tag-teaming, meatpuppeting, possible sockpuppeting. Hopefully, there will be an appropriate solution to all this. I will probably avoid any further conversation regarding this issue. End of story.--Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to apologize for my first reaction, but I see nothing more than just cheap, bad faith, unexplained and without evidence accusations, compined with continous exaggerated assumptions and weird support to I_Pakapshem.Alexikoua (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated with the issue, but I found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user and I believe a research is more than justified about him. --Factuarius (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely disgusting that people join Misplaced Pages already knowing a little about the Internet, and already knowing what an encyclopedia article looks like. I propose we ban anyone who doesn't spend at least a year getting their contributions reverted and deleted. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Many users have edited as IPs for some time previously, others have edited on other wikis, on noticeboards, have their own livejournal/myspace/facebook/bebo account....etc. We're not talking about somebody who pops up and immediately starts wikilawyering, throwing allegations around at ANI, and showing total familiarity with the internal Misplaced Pages machinery that probably just indeffed them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: I never wikilawyering (this is the first time I ever wrote here being 8 months in WP) and I would had never interfered in the matter if Alarichus didn't "throw allegations around at ANI (against me), showing total familiarity with the internal Misplaced Pages machinery" although officially a 2-months user. To me it's a logical thought to question his thorough knowledge on the "internal Misplaced Pages machinery" because of the time being around. So it's not me who wikilawyering here. To me what is mattering is J Milburn's opinion about and thus I am stopping the discussion here. --Factuarius (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

McJakeqcool - back again

See here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool for previous report at the end of July. Since then, McJakeqcool has, despite advice from numerous people, continued to make inappropriate edits to list articles (1 of 2 edits)(1 of 5 edits)(1 of over 30 edits)(1 of 12 edits)...and so it goes. Now, having got tired of that, he has gone back to creating stub articles about non notable computer games , something he has previously been asked many times not to do. It is impossible to find sources for these games, and he has been continuously advised not to create stubs but to gather them up into one article which might have some chance of notability. He has announced on his userpage that this is his new project - could someone stop him before he once again generates 20 or so stub articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made mistakes. So has everyone with an advanced career on Misplaced Pages. However, making mistakes is one thing. Ignoring first advice and then practically orders to change one's ways is very much another thing entirely. The best word I can use to describe this user, who I tried to help under my previous name of Otumba, is oblivious. I have seen no satisfactory acknowledgement of the community's concerns. I do not believe the editor is engaging in disruptive activities out of negative feelings. I do truly believe his heart is in the right place, and I do believe he thinks what he is doing is for the good of Misplaced Pages. But, as Elen described, what he is doing is disruptive. A block is probably the best thing. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional: user was blocked for 31 hours a relatively short while ago for disruption. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked as a result of the previous ANI. Someone has whizzed the two stubs, not sure who. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The tone of many of his comments give me pause. This user has been here a along time but seems to have a truly poor grasp of editing articles, among other things. I think an admin or two needs to take a serious look at what is going on with this user.--Crossmr (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the previous ANI discussion (see Elen of the Road's comments above for the link). To put it shortly, Mcjakeqcool has been given kind advice and suggestions, offers of being adopted, and many warnings on constructive ways to improve Misplaced Pages. He has ignored all of this and continues to do his own thing. I'm sure it grows tiring for the people who keep an eye on him. Something more permanent needs to be done about this editor. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted! The 2 articles from my new project, console launch titles are anything but unnotable, they have vastly more infomation then articles from my previous wikiproject and in my opinion and for the long term wikipedia's opinion my last wikiproject was also a sucsess, however I would have thought that even the people who were against my last project would see a white flag with my new articles, THEY ARE COMPLETELY NOTABLE! I sweare oath that my new articles are notable, and I also sweare oath my new wikiproject is and will be a sucsess. Please explain what is not notable, C'MON, MY ARTICLES ARE 5 LINES LONG FOR PETE'S SAKE! Please see reason, I can think of many worse articles then my 2 most resent articles, Atlantis (Intellivision game) perhaps? WHY OH WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO SEPRATE ARTICLES FOR THE SAME GAME? C'mon, there's notbality then there's logic. Need I make any more statements? mcjakeqcool 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They have no references. They make no assertion of notability. You still don't know what a {{stub}} template is or does. You still can't format your signature post to meet the guidelines and actually link to your user page. And, in case you haven't noticed, nearly every one of your last 100 or so edits in article space have been reverted Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (just in case anyone with the tools wants to look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And again . There isn't a speedy category this fits in - shall I PROD it? Lest the user feel unloved, I have posted what I hope and intend to be a helpful entry on Mcjakeqcool's talk page, explaining what the problems with this last article were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked the article and put a {{prod-2}} tag on it. But Elen, your deletion rationale strikes me as quite weak. In PRODding and AfD, we assess the potential of the article, because there is no deadline. We do not delete every unsourced or badly written article; if there is a problem, be bold and fix it. Except in CSD G5 and (arguably) G11 cases, we normally do not consider the author's identity to be a substantial factor in the deletion analysis. I agree that the topic is nonnotable; but it would be more useful, both to PROD patrollers and admins, to explain why exactly the subject is nonnotable when the reason is not blindingly obvious (by which I mean CSD-ably obvious). Just my $0.02. Tim Song (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the deletion reason, it doesn't change what is going on here. There is a user who is disruptive in that he is creating more work for others than he himself is doing (last 100 edits virtually all undone) Many attempts have been made to help him, but he has rejected all of it. Even after a short block he's come back to continue the previous problem behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Song, I would normally have said more, but the fact that someone (still haven't figured who) simply doused the last two a short time after Ironholds PRODded them (you can see his tag notifications on Mcj's talk page) probably made me sloppy. I didn't fix up his bad markup as - in this one case - I think it would be of value to Mcj to come back and do it himself. If you read thru Mcjakeqcool news on his talkpage, he has a wonderful entry on "how to wikify", which shows that he actually doesn't understand at all, and I'm a firm believer that practice makes perfect. I didn't realise there was an article on the designer, else I probably would have contemplating redirecting to that article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I will collaborate with user Elen of the Roads. I am also attempting to collaborate with user Guyinblack25. mcjakeqcool 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Otterathome, User:80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157, and User:Mathieas

So I've acquired some new wikistalkers due to nominating their borderline notable articles for deletion. One keeps reverting me for some strange reason.

• Mathieas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

--Otterathome (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please show the administrators some diffs so they can act on your case? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's pretty obvious. Mathieas only has a handful of edits.--Atlan (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Mathieas notified. Tim Song (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to figure out why on Earth the results of previous AfD's would be removed from an article's talkpage? Makes perfect sense to add them back. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really see any behavior that I would classify as stalking. Just a few reverts on Vincent Caso. Besides, they've only made 16 edits over the past 3 days.--Atlan (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll have a good idea why Otterathome deleted the results of the previous AfD discussions from Talk:Jackson_Davis if you peruse those AfD discussions. There was/is a Wikiquette alert made regarding Otterathome in connection with his activity on related web series articles as well which provides more detail. Mr. Otterathome has also called me a wikistalker, presumably because I've also followed his recent trail of destruction and unexplained article-blankings and redirects in this area. In the case of the 3rd AfD for Jackson Davis by Otterathome, which was made very shortly after the 2nd AfD (also by Otterathome) failed, many neutral editors questioned the singular effort to try to delete the article. In the case of Vincent Caso, it appears Mathieas reverted a redirect created by Otterathome, which had now led to an AfD, and which seems a better course of action that just a unilateral blanking and redirect. Bleech. Drama. I presume this notice is just another escalation of that drama by Otterathome.--Milowent (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Why do you keep saying that Otter deleted discussions when he didn't?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
          • He's referring, I think, to the removal of the results of AfD discussions on Talk:Jackson_Davis here and here not to the deletion discussion themselves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Again, what did he remove? I see three oldaldfull entries before the edit, and one oldafdmulti containing 3 decisions after the edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
              • The oldafdmulti is a newer edit, Malcolmx15 is correct that i was referencing his deletion of any reference to the AfDs on the talk page.--Milowent (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
                • … which, as SarekOfVulcan points out, did not actually happen. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • It did happen, just review the talk page history, it happened twice, Sarek must have looked at subsequent history. Sorry I'm not at ace at doing these linky things, but this is just one little edit issue among the greater drama. --Milowent (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • Shit, i went back and NOW I understand. OK it "did not" happen. --Milowent (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I resent the accusation that I am stalking otterathome. The only reason I know he exists is because he keeps trying to delete articles I check on a regular basis and use for research. I frequently link to wikipedia when writing articles. Otterathome removed the results of an afd discussion, which he initiated. The admin who closed the discussion went to the effort of stating that it should be a substantial amount of time before the article is renominated for deletion, this is due to the fact that otterathome renominated the article within 6 or 7 days of it passing another afd discussion which he started. I believe that the information that the article should not be renominated for a substantial period of time is valuable and useful. Mathieas (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• … which isn't actually relevant to the diffs at hand. Is all this fuss simply because you, Milowent, and Malcolmxl5 don't understand what the {{oldafdmulti}} template does? Please go and read its documentation. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you could actually inform yourself about the situation and then judge, rather than taking a snapshot complaint of an already wikiquette-alerted user and drawing conclusions. Otterathome has been running an aggressive crusade to annihilate that article, going to AfD, deletion review, and then AfD again, all within a month, in total disregard of very recent previous decisions. Now he's trying to hide his campaign in an out of sight, out of mind manner, by making the subtle, but effective change of having previous AfDs hidden in a default-collapsed block, rather than open in plain sight.
    It's a subtle change, but given the history of Otter's overzealous attacks on the page, it speaks volumes.
    Due to Otter's behavior, the closing admin of the latest AfD has very clearly said "Advise that it should be a lengthy time before a 4th AfD is even considered.". And instead of accepting that decision, Otter is now back, trying to hide the only obvious link to that statement. Gives a whole new light to it, doesn't it?
    
    In addition, this complaint is invalid purely on an editing level anyway. Otter made a change. Mathieas reverted it. That is standard operating procedure on Misplaced Pages, and it was Otter's personal decision to start an edit war by reverting the revert rather than following WP:CYCLE and starting a discussion on the talk page (on which the two already were anyway).
    WP:CONS clearly and unambiguously says "Edit wars, such as repeatedly inserting the same text when other editors are rejecting it, lead to page protection and suspension of your ability to edit rather than improvements to the article." Otter changed something. Mathieas rejected the change, and reverted. Otter added it back. Otter is the one in violation of policies here, not Mathieas. In fact, WP:CONS even gives out the following warning: "If the reason for an edit is not clear, editors are more likely to revert it, especially when someone inserts or deletes material." - Otter's reason: "template cleanup". Mathieas's reason: "Useful information: Editors should know that this page should not be nominated for deletion for some time". Once again, the one following WP:CONS is Mathieas, not Otter.
    People reverting stuff on Misplaced Pages is not worth of an incident report. If anything, Otter foregoing a discussion and trying to force his version through is.
    This could've been settled through a simple discussion on the talk page. This is a simple content dispute over which template to use, and it was Otter's decision to say "fuck a discussion, let's screw this guy" and report Mathieas instead.
    
    In the process of only this little exchange, Otter violated the consensus policy, the editing policy, the policy on assuming good faith, and the policy on civility. And as if all of that wasn't enough, his dismissive tone in this report as well as the report itself are both more violations of WP:CIVIL.
    And yet, he is the one filing an incident report. WP:IRONY.
    Mathieas did a Good Faith revert of an edit he took issue with. It's not his fault Otter was not willing to discuss it. Mathieas did nothing wrong.
    ~ Renegade - 80.171.81.1 (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Kiddo, I already had. And as I said, the situation here is apparently in part because the four of you don't understand the {{oldafdmulti}} template. Since you wrote "Now he's trying to hide his campaign in an out of sight, out of mind manner, by making the subtle, but effective change of having previous AfDs hidden in a default-collapsed block, rather than open in plain sight." I can tell that you still haven't read the template documentation, even after I said to do so. If collapsing were the issue, you'd have simply changed the collapse parameter to the template and made no more of an issue of it. But none of you did. You revert warred over the entire template and then forum shopped to WQA, instead. This is quite evidently more about painting your opponent blacker than black, magnifying any little thing you can find into a huge issue, than it is about the collapse box on a template. Try working with Otterathome rather than continually demonizing xem. Is it any wonder that xe now regards you equally as poorly because of your behaviour? Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If you actually had informed yourself as you claim, you'd know that I have nothing to do with the template revert issue, so trying to include me in that group and accusing me of lack of reading up is fruitless. Don't try to invalidate my argument with such a cheap straw man. No matter if Otter's change was ultimately correct or not, Mathieas did a perfectly reasonable, policy-conform revert, and Otterathome was the one turning it into an edit war. If the documentation is as clear-cut as you insist it is, that only serves to strengthen my point - all Otter would have had to do is post on the exact same page he was editing, linking to the documentation, and saying "look, dude, this is the correct template.". He didn't. Instead, he started an edit war, and when that didn't help, he went on to report Mathieas. Don't try to blur the situation with the hypothetical outcome of a discussion among the editors had such a discussion happened. No matter what you're claiming, the question of whether oldafdmulti is the correct template or not is not the issue here. The issue here is "One keeps reverting me for some strange reason.". What was reverted is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not the reverts were policy-conform and in Good Faith. And that they were. So even though Otter's change may ultimately have been the correct one, Mathieas acted within the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, and this entire situation could have been avoided had Otter done the same. As such, no administrative action against Mathieas is required.
        Once more: The complaint is not "they're not letting me use oldafdmulti" the complaint is "they're reverting my changes". And there was nothing wrong with the revert. It even had an elaborate editing summary outlining why he reverted.
        And lastly, Mr. "OMGRTFM" - neither the documentation of oldafdfull nor of oldafdmulti set explicit usage limits on the templates. It's hidden far down on the page in <small> script in the deletion template link template, and buried in a wall of text in the deletion process, in the instructions of what the person closing the AfD should do after it's done. Instructions which were -logically- followed by the closing admin, who placed oldafdfull. If you insist people read the template documentation, at least make sure what you want them to read is actually in there. (Of course, making sure that no admin has precedented exactly the change on debate also helps.)
        As said above: The issue here is a process issue, not a content issue. It doesn't matter which template is correct. The correct template, with whatever modifications necessary, would've ended up on the page eventually after a reasonable discussion, with a tiny link to the deletion process stating to use oldafdmulti. It would have been a non-issue. One post. One line. "Please see here, point 8, where it says to use that template." - instead, Otter initiated an edit war. That's his uncivil behavior, not Mathieas's.
        Mathieas acted in good faith, and the reverted version was precedented by an admin. He behaved perfectly fine. No administrative action necessary.
        ~ Renegade - 80.171.127.126 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. There is no basis for accusing Mathieas of being a wikistalker. Otterathome has continuously nominated pages for deletion in a similar topic, one in which Mathieas obviously has an interest. It is, therefore, not shocking that he would be putting those pages on his watchlist and would therefore be aware when Otter was nominating them for deletion, etc. Otter is clearly not WP:AGF and a full post on his behavior will be posted by myself (and probably commented on by others involved) shortly. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, an issue about User:Otterathome was recently raised over at WQA, but was closed as stale. I commented on the talk page of the user who was involved in marking it as such, and s/he replied suggesting RfC/U or if it was becoming a serious problem, ANI or ArbComm. After reading the limitations of RfC/U and the fact that the problem is continuing to escalate, I believe the issue needs to be addressed here. Below is the copy of the WQA alert, and at the bottom I have added some recent updates.

He has continued on his tendantious editing by nominating another web star, Vincent Caso for deletion (see AfD). He has also tried to impose his views on a quality scale rating assessment for Jessica Lee Rose diff1 diff 2, despite comments explaining how he was mistaken in his assessment of the policy by other users (see what existed on the talk page in this discussion as a whole here. He has also made baseless accusations of two users as "Wikistalkers" (see here for User:Milowent and here and here for User:Mathieas (as well as the section above on this page). These accusations are completely baseless because the edits he is making that are being "followed" by these users are deletion nominations all within the same category (web series), which obviously these two users have an interest in, so it is completely within reason to assume the pages would be on their respective watchlists. Calling them Wikistalkers is uncivil and fails WP:AGF.

Thank you for your time. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Being the original submitter of the WQA, I support this motion. The problem in this particular case is, besides the obvious lack of civility and assumption of good faith on Otter's part, the amount of zeal which with he follows this. He just doesn't stop. It took two AfDs and an DRV to get him off the Jackson Davis article, and, as seen above, he's already lurking on the page again, hiding the previous decision, waiting to make his next move. He ties up editors. Instead of letting people sit down and improve the pages in question in peace, everyone has been spending their time in deletion discussions for over a month now, because he keeps nominating and re-nominating and re-nominating pages in that section of content, trying to discredit anyone who opposes him and disregarding consensus.

  The editors interested in a topic are the ones most likely to take the time and care to improve an article. And instead of tagging problematic articles and letting the community fix them, he fanatically goes for deletion, tying up all interested editors for a week, generating a vicious circle in which he complains about the article being lacking, tying up the editors in the deletion discussion rather than letting them improve pages, and then going to nominate the next page, which no one has touched in a week because everyone was busy with the deletion discussion and the nominated page, tying up the editors there until the AfD is concluded, only to nominate the next page, which no one has touched in two weeks because everyone was busy with the two previous AfDs and nominated pages, etc., etc.

  If he just gave the editors involved a little breathing space, and focused on supporting the improvement of the pages in question, rather than deleting them, there would be much less of an issue. (As pointed out in the WQA, "merge" is a word I have yet to see him use or even acknowledge in an AfD. For him, an AfD seems to be about deletion and deletion only, despite the clear wording of WP:AFD.) The Jackson Davis article is a perfect example - in the single month from Otter's first nomination to the end of his second nomination, the article has improved dramatically. It's possible. Definitely. If one lets the editors do their work. Instead, Otter goes out and tries to annihilate the section. That not only goes directly against the spirit of Misplaced Pages itself, but actually directly against both the editing- as well as the deletion policy, which both favor addition and improvement over overzealous deletion.

  All we want is a fair chance and breathing space to actually improve those pages, rather than constantly having to check our backs to see which pages Otter tries to delete this week. (Most recent one was Mesh Flinders, one of the Creators of LG15, ended yesterday with keep, so I have no doubt the next nomination is in the works.)

  Independent of this being a case where someone just needs to let go and get over it, it is also extremely detrimental of Misplaced Pages's coverage of web series, not just at the moment, but for months and years to come, and, ultimately, also raises the question of how neutral Otter really is on this topic.

  Nominating something once is one thing. Nominating the same pages over and over again, all of the same franchise, reeks of a personal vendetta.

  In addition, there is the case of him downright bossing users around with an faux-admin attitude, as seen in the example already quoted in the WQA - no matter his stance, no matter his right to nominate articles, he is not in the position to appear on a talk page and tell users "I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which.".

  ~ Renegade - 80.171.81.1 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• it can be perfectly possible that in good faith an editor might thing that that coverage of a show is considerably overhyped, and that all the peripheral articles on it ought to be deleted or merged back to the main article. I often defend splits when the shows are notable enough, but it' can be a reasonable disagreement. If someone nominates all the articles at once, we usually reject the multiple nomination because they are likely to be of unequal importance (e.g. the major as well as the minor characters). Doing them in small groups on at a time is a reasonable approach. But looking a the AfDs, it does seem to be here somewhat of an unreasonable crusade. The proper course is to keep watch and hope that sufficient rejections of his view will eventually make an impact. Obvious, further immediate nominations of some of the recently kept articles would indicate a cause for action, because at some point it does get to be disruptive. I don't think we c=have reason to do anything yet, As for watching articles, the way Misplaced Pages works, yes, we all do have to do it. This is not a place t o reasonably expect stability. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't just a show though. He's now nom'd an actor from a different webshow, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Vincent_Caso. From the outside, there does seem to be a pattern suggesting the guy at least needs guidance, maybe more. He'has a real bad habit of skirting the line on WP:CIVIL and likes to flirt with WP:POINT. As an example, in the Nom for Caso, he outright calls User:Mathieas a Wikistalker and straight up says that he Nominated the article for deletion simply because Mathieas Reverted him. Why did Mathieas revert him? ] Otter unilaterally changed the page to a redirect to The Guild with the edit summary "not notable outside of guild". Mathieas reverted("reverting a unilateral deletion see talk") and left a note on the talk page, the first edit to the talk page in fact, and otter re-reverted("Undid revision 312102892 by Mathieas (talk) not a deletion") to the redirected version, Mathieas reverted again ("Seems like it to me"). Otter then nom'd for deletion. Otter STILL has not made any edits to the talk page of the article in question. The unilateral reversion redirection was Otter's first ever edit to the article. He has since added a bio notability template and two fact tags, more than 24 hours after he nominated the article for deletion.

    That's the problem, he's not making any attempt to work with anyone else or to give anyone else a chance to answer his criticisms of the articles he goes after. He seems to pick a subject he doesn't like and then tries by any means necessary to get rid of it. He's very selective about policies as well, only quoting the ones, or the parts of ones, that support his argument. IE: repeatedly asserting WP:NOTAGAIN at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination) when people gave 'it's only been 16 days since the previous nom and 7 since the DRV ended' as a reason for 'keep'. The repeated Assertion being "Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN". He was trying to stand on "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." while ignoring "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." And ended up being the only non-keep in the AFD.

    Maybe he's honestly trying to help, I don't know. But from what I can see he's building up a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation, everywhere he goes. Right down to being banned from editing his own userpage and a previous 3RR block. He does at least sometimes seem to learn from his past losses though...at least enough to skirt the line instead of crossing it. WP:PBAGDSWCBY comes to mind. Doesn't hurt that I just read it today, but up to this point, it seems to fit in Otter's case. Not quite bad enough to get outright banned, but absolutely disruptive. He seems like he's on a crusade, and has absolutely no interest in what anyone else has to say about it. He wants it gone, and anyone that doesn't is an enemy and clearly wrong. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages has become a major issue on Misplaced Pages and this case seems to fit nicely into that discussion. In this particular case, confirmation bias seems to be the driving force for at least some of the users actions. While I am sure most of the Misplaced Pages admins will vigorously defend the "Misplaced Pages process" there comes a time when a user demonstrate a mental state that is not conducive to the effective growth and development of Misplaced Pages. A great deal of subjectivity comes into play when interpreting and applying Misplaced Pages policies and when a user chooses to do so they can manipulate the system to orchestrate systematic attacks on one or a group of specific pages. How should Misplaced Pages respond? Yes it is true that in the Misplaced Pages process you have to fight for something or it will simply dye away. That has both good and bad effects on Misplaced Pages but when done well the results speak for them self. However, in this case we have one user who is clearly being disruptive and is clearly offending many users. If Misplaced Pages wants to have "web series" covered then the admins need to make it clear that this type of behavior is not what is meant by vigorous debate and that the user is simply wasting valuable time by over aggressively trying to use Misplaced Pages polices in a way that unfairly favor their private agenda. When common sense if being violated clearly there is a problem. Now is the time to take clear action towards a resolution to that problem by making it clear that a line has been crossed by this user and it is not appreciated.--Modelmotion (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, no they are not. The community simply isn't that polarized, despite what some out-of-date journalists looking for a good Black-versus-White story to run may think. For the past few years, the "-ists" have been nothing more than excuses to call editors names. Have a quick reminder of Misplaced Pages's answer to Godwin's Law:

        The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make.

        Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No community can stay polarized, because aside from those who thrive on confrontation, people leave communities where they get frustrated (whatever label applies to their actions). Modelmotion is showing some emotion, but he is funneling the frustation of a number of editors have had with Otterathome recently. This doesn't seem like a new development, as I noticed that Otterathome is banned from editing his own userpage due to other squabbles he is gotten into with other editors. Its true, as you comment below, that "other people here" are "part of the problem" in "building up a pattern of confrontation," but they are not the instigators. On the internet, its hard to find any group who will 'turn the other cheek' per Jesus' suggestion. That's why being a high school principal is a thankless job. But thanks for at least reading, Principal UncleG --Milowent (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
          • 'a number of editors' are all the ones defending the same category of articles from deletion, some of which you probably encouraged over from your fansite/blog. And bringing up my user page protection, you must be getting desperate after realising I've done nothing wrong.--Otterathome (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't run LG15Today, though I have posting rights there. Because that site covers news of interest to the Lonelygirl15 community and webseries in general, yes, the wikiwarring has been covered there. But you should have noted that on the 3rd AfD for Jackson Davis, wholly unrelated users started chiming in about your actions. Of course most of the people peeved at you are the ones following your behavior. Not sure what I have to be desparate about, am I incorrect that you can't edit your own userpage because of some other edit war? And I wasn't even looking for this, but because I wanted to verify that your userpage was protected because of a prior incident, I see your were also warned in another edit war in July 2008. I feel no need to convince anyone you've done anything "wrong", people will either see it or not.--Milowent (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
              • It shows you are desperate because you are bringing up completely unrelated stuff from over a year ago. The only 'behaviour' of mine is seen by your lg15 fanbase as you are so pissed off that I nominated your articles for deletion. It's like like trying to take away toys from a classroom of children.--Otterathome (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • But from what I can see he's building up a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation, everywhere he goes. — So, too, are the other people here, however. And that's part of the problem. Mathieas revert warred over a template rather than simply tweaking a parameter. 80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157 talks about a "fanatic" on a "crusade" who "reeks". (80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157's extensive ad hominem arguments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last are more of the same.) And even you are demonizing Otterathome, ascribing unstated motives to xyr actions and making arguments such as, for example, that if someone doesn't edit an article that xe thinks should be deleted, that's somehow a contradiction. Trying to make out that an editor is out to get you all is also "building up a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation", and you are doing it, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I miss WQA. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to create AfD's on the same articles again and again ad nauseum. If the community decides that it stays, well, we all know it stays. TV shows or other similar "culture" are cyclical, and 2 years from now, an AfD may actually be successful. Trying to ram one through, hoping you'll catch people off guard is an abuse of the process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the result of nominating borderline notable actors from the same web-series for deletion. The fans of the series, who are also users here have advertised my nominations on at least one blog and message board, and to help keep the articles I nominated from being deleted. They even got a thank you from one subjects article. Three I nominated have been deleted, and the rest are borderline notable. To put it bluntly, they are pissed off I'm nominating articles related to their favourite web-show for deletion, then using this as a reason to keep anymore articles I nominate. When they understand what WP:AGF is and start abiding to it themselves, then they can start throwing it around. They were told there was no issue at WP:WQA, here's one amusing quote from it "My advice to Otterathome is, if you find it impossible to deal with the kid stuff calmly and patiently, just stay away from it. Nobody reads it except kids anyway, and it keeps them away from more important articles until they mature a bit. Kids have a very skewed view of notability, but getting into holy wars about it is just a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)". Advice, only someone who felt intimidated by this small fanbase would take.

TLDR version: nominating articles related to the same thing that have a small fanbase = pissed off fanbase.--Otterathome (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem there is that there are people who are NOT part of the fanbase in question, myself included(I don't know about you, but just the title 'Lonelygirl'-whatever makes it sound like something I wouldn't like) are saying you're not demonstrating good faith editing. You're not discussing anything, you're not trying to build consensus, you're not trying to improve anything. You're simply trying to cram what you and you alone think is right down everyone else's throats and trying to hide behind selectively quoted policy when someone calls you on it. Maybe they're not notable, maybe they are, I don't know and I don't care. It isn't relevant, because the problem is your METHODS. You're *unilaterally* asserting that certain topics are not-notable, and doing it in a sneaky, stealthy, and manipulative fashion. Take the Caso article, for example. A good-faith editor would put up the notability template and fact tags FIRST, notify some of the interested people and groups that there's a problem with the article, leave a note on the talk page, and then WAIT. If the problems aren't addressed after a REASONABLE period of time, when it's become apparent that the problem is LACK OF SOURCES and not just that the available sources aren't listed in the article, THEN you nom the thing. What you did was unilaterally blank and redirect the article, then edit warred when someone contested it, and then pushed WP:POINT right to the edge by nominating it. And only THEN went back and added the template and tags. Those aren't the actions of someone trying to improve things, they're the actions of someone that does not like the topic and has no interest in consensus or compromise, but only in imposing his own will. *That* is the problem. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, executive summary as I see it: (1) this specific complaint is wrong on the merits; (2) the underlying issue is that Otter is driving a group of editors nuts with an endless one-vs-many crusade, and showing no sign of ever giving up regardless of the lack of support from others. At this point I would be inclined to favor a topic ban. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No support? You mean apart from 3 of the articles that got deleted and one afd that got overturned. Please investigate things yourself before making out of the blue comments.--Otterathome (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been on wikipedia for awhile now, and a good summary of this kind of problem is as follows:

Inclusionists contribute something of value to wikipedia.

Deletionists contribute nothing of value to wikipedia.

Baseball Bugs carrots 18:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And Michelangelo was a useless waste of skin because he took big blocks of perfectly good marble and just threw most of it away. Please, please, please can we not turn every discussion about the scope of Misplaced Pages into some sort of holier-than-thou pissing contest?

Unless you can show me someone who thinks that nothing should be in Misplaced Pages, you haven't really shown me a true 'deletionist'. Meanwhile, we all know that never deleting anything from Misplaced Pages (advertising? pictures of pets? school assignments? love letters?) is the only position a real 'inclusionist' would take. Everyone else agrees that there are some things that should be here and some things that shouldn't — different people choosing to draw that line in different places is no justification for insulting, polarizing namecalling. We have an excellent article on false dilemma; it's worth a read. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He didn't throw it away. Some of it he carved into little Davids and sold them in his museum shop, the House of David. The rest he used as ammunition against the critics who claimed his statue was not notable because it was only reported by blogs. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre, related articles and socks

By coincidence I just noticed this request] at the NPOV board for a close look at this particular article. I had just spent the last few minutes looking at related articles where pov editing is taking place. Wichita massacre is being edited by Birdbath 10 (talk · contribs) and Smithicrnm (talk · contribs). Related articles are being edited by Ptho (talk · contribs) and WVBN8 (talk · contribs) -- all four of these accounts are making similar edits to similar articles, none of them have made more than 5 edits -- they look like throwaway sock accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm off to bed by the way. I know I should notify them, but I've been up since well before the birds and given their edits... Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, have the birds been editing again? I thought I had closed the window. My bad :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Birdbath 10 is blocked as a sock of Johnnyturk888 (talk · contribs); these editors all seem to have similar agendas, the edits made by both Birdbath 10 and Smithicrnm to media blackout were pretty much identical; and the two newer editors are reverting to each others' versions. This looks like some sockpuppetry - anyone hear quacking? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, quack quack -- Darth Mike  06:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked them all, but as they are clearly throwaway accounts I expect the editor back. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another quack.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I got that one. Anyone have the time to get a SPI going here? I don't right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And Reedpk (talk · contribs). Is there any point to an SPI? I've protected some of the articles. Why let the vandal have fun? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser could deal with the flurry at the source. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks blocked, IPs blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP vandal continues after final warning

IP User:72.94.80.43 has repeatedly posted false info on List of DirecTV channels after several warnings to stop. I looked at their history at it also posts often on List of Dish Network channels and List of Verizon FiOS channels as well as some children's channel articles. They always change PBS, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel listings on the lineups so I'm guessing the user is a minor. All of the correct channel lineups can be found at each service's website and they have no source for the lineups changing. Please block them. AIV refused to act thinking they were "good faith edits". Clearly they are NOT, just immature edits by a child. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted the IP to this discussion. Please remember, as a courtesy, to notify users when you report them here.--_{Sky Attacker} 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to put user so you sent it the wrong person. I'll notify them. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually sent it to the talk page for the "article" 72.94.80.43. Haha!--_{Sky Attacker} 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess that can be speedy deleted if it hasn't already. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait---there's a known vandal who does this. What was dude's name again??? It's not MascotGuy, is it? or Bambifan? There was one user who used to get reported a lot by a younger user, til somebody told him to stop..Yeah, I know, this is real helpful--but I do recall there being a vandal who was focused largely on TV stations. If anyone remembers, please jump in.... GJC 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't someone just block the IP? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IP personal attacks & WP:BLP violations

I don't want to personally address this because this IP has turned his attention to attacking editors that have reverted his talk page posts and hope someone else will please revert/remove his personal attack upon me from the IP talk page and also address the overriding issue of his attack posts on actor article talk pages. IP 75.128.20.15 has posted a barely changed rant about actor salaries to Talk:Brad Pitt , then moved to Talk:Angelina Jolie , then on to Talk:Reese Witherspoon . When the IP was warned about such postings, he responded by posting on talk pages, basically accusing myself and another editor of working for these actors to keep their salaries secret. See User talk:ThinkBlue postings and my talk page posting and postings on his own talk page . This died down for a few days, then the IP returned to again post the rant, this time on Talk:Nicolas Cage , at which time I posted a final warning about the posts . Today, he posted this rant on his talk page, which included a link to image shack with a screenshot of my contributions page and his added allegations that I work for various persons as a publicity agent . I am contacting image shack about removing the screenshot, but I would appreciate administrator intervention at this point based on the personal attacks made againt myself and User:ThinkBlue, the many WP:BLP violations which were all addressed by removing the rants and the attempt at outing with the content about me personally on the IP talk page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted the remaining unreverted soapboxing and revoked the editor's editing privileges for a period that is double the length of time that this has been continuing up until now. Checking the contributions history shows nothing but soapboxing and harrassment of other editors, with no actual contributions towards this project's goals, since 2009-08-11. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Forwarded the attempted outing to oversight. Evil saltine (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• See this edit. Quack quack? Tim Song (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw. It didn't seem worth any action. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like an isolated occurence. Though how that IP manages to find this one IP talk page of all pages is beyond me. Tim Song (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eb500

Eb500 (talk · contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Eb500&action=edit&redlink=1 User keeps vandalising religious data from a trusted source in the Albania article, and refuses do discuss the issue despite being reverted by numerous editors and told to discuss in talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&action=history --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this thread. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think he needs a strong warning from an admin.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

4 edits since Sept 1 ... an attempt to explain his side/reference on the article talkpage. I fail to see this as vandalism, let alone repeated vandalism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Eb500 failing to add upon his edits with a reference, I don't see any wrongdoing here neither. Also, from looking at the article talk page it seems that there are other users who disagree with I Pakapshem. I think in this case a Request for Comment is in order - there's no need for admin intervention here. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Look carefully, he is vandalising the data from a sourced survey and is not merely adding new data alongside the survey. Changing the data from a source is vandalising.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear users, please check this page on wikipedia about muslims in Albania:http://en.wikipedia.org/Muslims_by_country , muslims are from 65% to 70%, and check the U.S department of state website:http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90160.htm , the same percentage, the information which is usually written by some users don't have reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb500 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear user, see talk page for explanation of this 65% -70% obselete numbers the US department, SOMETIMES uses mistakingly. See CIA factbook as well. Also see that the numbers posted there are clearly referenced to a survey conducted by three universities and they should not be vandalised. --I Pakapshem (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog)

I'm asking for input from uninvolved administrators on some of my actions. Months ago, there was a bitter edit war at Maltese (dog) between User:Imbris and User:Pietru. Mainly the edit war was a nationalistic pride one. The Maltese dog breed sounds like it's named for Malta but actually there's a lot in the sources that show it may be named for Mljet, an island currently in Croatia. Imbris was largely pushing too hard for the Croatian viewpoint, and Pietru was pushing too hard against it. The article is relatively balanced now, thanks in part to Pietru leaving shortly after a final warning from User:Tanthalas39 and block over reverts at the article . See Pietru's contribs: - apart from a handful of edits, he stopped editing in April.

Recently, User:Notpietru has made a few edits to Maltese (dog). Notpietru is Pietru, though I had to go digging to confirm this -- Notpietru added a note on User:Pietru about his new identity. I redirected Pietru's user and user talk pages and added a note on User:Notpietru about his old identity but he reverted it. Not a big deal, but Pietru had a substantial block record and given that his username denies the link that is true, I thought a note would be prudent.

Much more concerning to me is that Pietru has been leveling accusations against Imbris on Maltese (dog), undeservedly, out of the blue. He added an unnecessary Wikilink for one of the uses of "Malta" in the article, with a very inappropriate, baiting edit summary: . I told him I thought this was unfair and inflammatory (since Imbris hadn't made any substantially new edits for a long time): . Imbris ended up reverting the link, which is appropriate considering that Malta is mentioned many times in the article and there is no need to link it every time; the MOS backs him up, and we all know this because it's one of the old issues from before. Notpietru reverted the revert, calling it "vandalism" . I warned him not to make unfounded accusations of vandalism. . Notpietru has now deleted my warnings, including my note about his old user name, and has insinuated that he thinks I'm bullying him User talk:Mangojuice#Maltese dog.

Notpietru is clearly trying to bait Imbris into responding, and I don't want to see the article degenerate into another war. I am not asking for a block, but I think Notpietru needs to hear this from someone other than me. Mangojuice 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not edited the article since: Imbris' nationalistic slant on editing is evident, just go through their talkpage. I have no interest in "baiting" Imbris, or causing upset over the dog article. Nice to see that there's nothing more important you've got to be dealing with than this, Mango. The project's in safe hands! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why bring up this claim that Imbris has a nationalistic slant on editing? All you are doing is trying to resurrect an old personal conflict. Please just stop it. Mangojuice 16:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend to continue. Please read my comment above (again, comprehension). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think there's little doubt User:Imbris has a "nationalistic slant" on editing, and this is from another Croat. :) In fact, I'd go as far as to say that's something of an understatement in my opinion. Virtually all his edits are tied to conflicts involving Croatian nationalism. I myself am getting worn down just trying to keep-up with his disputes, particularly the five-month edit-war on Hey, Slavs instigated by his edits. To be honest when I noticed edits on Maltese (dog) in his contribs I actually thought he does some real editing. Turns-out that's just another one of his many disputes.

As Imbris shall surely soon point out, I am among the group of users plagued by his attentions (among others User:Ivan Štambuk, User:No such user and myself). However, reducing this to "they're all the same, these are personal grudges" does not appear to be the proper and objective way to view all sides of this dispute. --DIREKTOR 16:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) I got involved to the issue about Maltese (dog) because the unreferenced claims that Malta Island was the acknowledged Country of origin. The Patronage over the breed "belongs" to Italy. (2) Personaly I have not any POV against Malta, and can say that Pietru made fantastic editing on all Malta issues. (3) Mangojuice helped the article greatly, anyone working with him can say he is among the best editors. (4) Even if Mangojuice portrays the issues differently, Pietru and I had not edit-warred on Malta/Mljet, because Pietru agreed that both should be mentioned. At that point in time Pietru WP:OWNED the article, and I had to list numerous sources to prove to him that the Fédération Cynologique Internationale source was reliable by going deep as searching for the sources from Ancient Greek and Roman times. Namely the FCI lists all three locations it the specific order (that is sadly not the order of listing those three places on Wiki), the FCI also gives only the Patronage to Italy. (5) I do not know how my editing on the issue of the Maltese Dog could be characterized as nationalist because of the simple reason that I wanted to include Italy as the country responsible for the breed, and portray the sources honestly and authentically. (6) The only thing I tryed out of the ordinary was to indulge Pietru and list all three names of the dog in the Croatian, Maltese and Italian language (the order of listing was a problem at first). Then it was established that there is no specific name for the breed in the Maltese language, so the issue was put to rest by not including any local names, which is in reality sad because the other two variants are not listed. (7) Also in the article where Malta is linked to its Republic of Malta article, Italy is linked to its Republic of Italy article, I wanted to put the word Croatia (wikilinked) in context of the island Mljet, but that attempt was characterized as POV by some users. (8) I belive that in such sittuations when we all know that Melita on Sicily has least evidence (reliable sources), Malta has some, and Mljet has a majority of sources, that it should be acceptable to list in brackets the country in which that island is placed. Pietru at first was reluctant to list Melita on Sicily and Mljet in the Adriatic near Dalmatia, then he allowed the entry but demanded we do not include as much of the historical section in the article, in order to cover-up. (9) I was "pushing" for inclusion of all reliable sources that shed light on how the breed was developed and perceived at different times in history, but the inclusion of some viable data like the fact that the dog was called botoli in Italy, and Fisting hound, which were descriptions of the dog like the Bichon, the Shock Dog, the Ladies Dog. (10) The article before I came along spoke of cuddling creatures, and glorified the breed by "specific verses", it spoke only of Malta as the centre of attention. Etc...

As for the accusations made by DIREKTOR, he should be warned not to slander and to realize that my editing in the field of former Yugoslavia is purely benevolent. I belive that DIREKTOR is concerned because that field is no longer his own, and only his. I have edited in a number of fields and never met a user who is so poisoned with hatred like Mr. DIREKTOR. Mr. DIREKTOR once wrote that Serbs and Croats are one nation speaking one language, this view is not supported anymore both by Serbs and Croats as well. On his user page Mr. DIREKTOR speaks of his Italian ancestry and Slavic ancestry. The fact that he was born in Split, Yugoslavia (now Croatia) has nothing to do with his POV. I hope that the admins of this great Wiki realize that one can be a nationalist of a defunct state, like in this case Yugoslavia. One can still push Yugoslav POV, by this I do not mean that someone is automatically a communist (even a socialist) because Yugoslavia was more than its socio-political system.

The remark made by Mr. DIREKTOR is completely unfounded, it is null and void and he should really reconsider his own record in attaining NPOV and cordial contributory techniques. For instance I edited on Auja al-Hafir, where is the POV he so blatantly argues.

Everything Mr. DIREKTOR said is out of pure spite, I have asked for ANI only once, when Pietru offended me, but Mr. DIREKTOR push for ANI interventions all the time, even without just cause.

However this thread is not about Mr. DIREKTOR and myself, it is about Pietru.

As for the advice on Pietru, this is simply wrong, the tone and disrespect towards Mangojuice, if Pietru would stop making insinuations about other users that would be great.

Imbris (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blabla. Imbris, I shan't hide my disdain for you (justified as I may feel it to be); hence, I shall not involve myself in anything you do here, in hopes of keeping some sort of civil peace. If our paths cross again, we'll have to work something out in a clear and controlled manner. Until then, I feel it is fairly obvious that your editing "style" on this project flies in the face of any civilized approach (ahem...not that mine's always been above reproach) and I shudder to think what this may mean for your attitudes in life generally. Luckily, I don't much care.

DIREKTOR... it seems that Imbris makes a habit of fighting with various editors here, because his edits are by their very nature contentious. Good luck; if I may offer one piece of advice, I'd suggest distancing yourself from that individual and getting along with other things. There is plenty of time for others to correct errors made... vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur.

That's all folks. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning from Moderator

For the first time today I noticed this old edit. I was under the impression that no one was suppose to be in charge of a topic which to me this section implies. SunCreator (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not anything "official", just a strange comment by a new user. Evil saltine (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The recommendation to archive is technically accurate. It's couched in very strange terms. No, this person is not an official moderator (we don't have 'em) and this isn't the sort of thing that merits any warning. Suggest you tell the poster to WP:SOFIXIT or archive the page. No administrative action is needed. Durova 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That diff is nearly two months old, no need to deal with it now. — neuro 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Request Block of JeffBillman

I would like administrator help with ongoing vandalism at Kevin Coughlin. I have recently added a section about Coughlin's lawsuit, which has been well-documented in reliable daily newspapers in NE Ohio. I have provided the sources to back up the info but Coughlin's friend JeffBillman continues to undo them and claim it is vandalism. JeffBillman continues to misrepresent the situation in the discussion. As you can see from reading the sourced material, Coughlin was dismissed from the lawsuit after admitting an article was not defamatory and that he does not have any intention to sue over the alleged extra-marital affair that was reported. I understand the material may not be especially flattering to Coughlin, but as it is factual and can be supported.

Please block JeffBillman from any further revisions to this page. Thank you. "JamesRenner (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)"

• Assuming you are the same James Renner that is suing Kevin Coughlin, and you are trying to add information about this lawsuit to the article, this is a huge conflict of interest. You should not be edit warring with someone over a legal issue that you are directly involved with. Peacock (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have no present association with any of the parties to the lawsuit. It matters not to me the nature of the edit in question, only that it is poorly sourced and apparently offered by a person with a clear conflict of interest. Thank you, JeffBillman (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• JeffBillman certainly hasn't helped things. Xe isn't doing xyrself any favours by rejecting good advice not to use vandalism rollback tools (as xe did three times 1, 2, 3) to revert edits that are not vandalism, however disputed they are. As other administrators here know, the tools are not to be used in that way. They only serve to cause exactly what has happened in this case: bad feeling and escalation of the dispute. JeffBillman isn't an administrator, and clearly hasn't learned this aspect of rollback tools. I've pointed xem in the direction of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism but xe is now, alas, wikilawyering that and constructing straw men. A pointer to Misplaced Pages:Rollback is probably next.

  Xe isn't doing xyrself any favours by goading xyr disputant with uncivil statements such as "More silliness from Akron-area residents with too much time on their hands", either.

  Xe further isn't doing xyrself any favours by misrepresenting the dispute, here. This isn't a dispute about poorly sourced content. The content is as well sourced, from independent reporters in newspapers that are used for other sources in the article, as any other in the article. The problem isn't that the sourcing is poor. The problem is that the content doesn't reflect what the sources say. This has been mentioned on the talk page, albeit that it took a third opinion from Shell Kinney to actually point this out exlpicitly and focus upon it as the issue. I've raised the protection level on the article from semi-protection to full protection, and PCock has removed the disputed content. Further attempts to settle this, with good wording that does not misrepresent the sources, should be made on the talk page.

  I repeat my advice to JeffBillman a third time: Do not not use vandalism rollback tools to revert edits that are not vandalism and do not go around calling other editors vandals simply because they have a conflict of interest, as I see you've now done on some other editors' user talk pages too. Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • It has been my position from the start that this is about WP:BLP concerns regarding poorly sourced content, made by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest. I have noted this at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. It is my position that we cannot allow the edit to stand as is, per policy. Now, as for the matter at hand, this is a spurious allegation made by the editor who caused the initial controversy in an attempt at retaliation. I will let my record as an active editor on a number of articles speak for itself. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Except that most of what you just said is incorrect. The material is not poorly sourced, it simply doesn't accurately represent the sources. Perhaps instead of engaging in edit warring and calling another editor a vandal (which was not the case here), you could try editing the article yourself to make sure the statement accurately reflects what is said in the sources. Since the subject of the article asked you to remove the material, your reverts are just as conflicted and ill thought out as the other editors additions. This has been handled poorly by both parties. Shell 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Shell, if a user with the same name as a person who is suing the subject of an article edits about that lawsuit, and then persists in making that edit after it has been reported to the BLP Noticeboard, I call that vandalism. If that's wrong, I do honestly apologize, but what I'm trying to say here is that I was earnestly trying to follow policy, not circumvent it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • It is wrong. Vandalism, as defined at WP:VAN must be willfully disruptive. That means that it must be blatantly obvious that the editor meant to harm the article. Your use of the term is against policy.

          I will point out that the COI claims are warranted and JamesRenner has had problems with this before (see his talk page) but that still doesn't equate to vandalism. -- Atama頭 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

          • As you are the third person to tell me this, I will recant. I really don't think this warrants a block against me, though. Again, I was sincerely attempting to adhere to policy. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Vandalism is not defined as "stuff I decide it is, so I can use my rollback tool to revert it". Insofar as the edits are not made with the intent to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as described at WP:VANDALISM, then the rollback tool should not be used to revert them. This is clear, and was part of the stipulations that you agreed to when you asked for the tool. Since these edits are not vandalism, you are required to make a good-faith attempt to explain (in edit summaries, and also probably at the article talk page) WHY you are reverting them. Since the rollback tool does not use edit summaries, it should NOT be used to revert these types of edits. If you continue to use the rollback tool inappropriately, it can be taken away at any time by any administrator. --Jayron32 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Jayron, you're not going to believe this... but I didn't realize I had this special tool. To be more specific, I had thought this was a tool available to all editors. I don't recall asking for it. If we can resolve this simply by my agreeing to give up the tool, I will gladly do so. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Don't sweat it. No blocks will be handed out today. We appreciate your desire to hold BLPs to a high standard of referencing. But in doing so, please take care to assume good faith and to carefully explain exactly what the problem is; which in this case appears to be that the sources are not accurately being represented. I am certain everyone is now aware of the problem. Your intent was good here, its just that your execution was stirring up some unneccessary drama. Please continue to enforce our WP:BLP policies, but also please try to do so in as clear, and non-antigonistic manner as possible. I'm marking this as resolved. --Jayron32 01:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
              • In Jeff's defence, the rollback tool is not exclusively for vandalism, but for edits that are clearly inappropriate, including vandalism. This was a serious BLP violation, where the sources did not support what was being added. We are meant to react immediately to those, so in that sense Jeff did the right thing. What I would say is that he shouldn't have rolled back so often, but should have approached others for help sooner, rather than trying to handle it alone. But JamesRenner's edit was clearly inappropriate as sourced — not to mention that, as one of the parties (assuming it's really him), he should not be editing that article at all. SlimVirgin 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                • You haven't read what the edit summaries on the diffs actually said. Go and read them. There's no but-it-might-have-been-reversion-for-something-else wriggle room here. After you've read the edit summaries, consider the point made in the advice originally given, that calling someone a vandal in edit summaries for 2 hours escalates a situation. I've pointed out already, in other discussion that you've also missed, that JeffBillman had previously been reverting without using vandalism rollback tools, a week ago. And — Lo! — there wasn't a single "JeffBillman continues to undo them and claim it is vandalism" complaint on this page at the time. No repeatedly calling someone a vandal in edit summaries and goading disputants on xyr user talk pages ⇒ no escalation of the dispute and no tempers flared. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that using whatever tool called it vandalism wasn't the best idea; though the rollback tool doesn't do that, and I thought it was his use of rollback that was the issue. Anyway, as Jayron had closed the thread, I probably shouldn't have commented. I just wanted to make a point in Jeff's favour that, BLP-wise, he did the right thing, but I'll say no more about it. SlimVirgin 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DustaBot

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

There appears to be something wrong with this bot, it is replacing categories with gibberish, and has replaced other characters with gibberish on multiple pages. Can this bot please be blocked before further harm is done? I would also like some help cleaning this mess up.— Dædαlus 00:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have stopped my bot for now while I look at this. No need to block it. Chillum 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is supposed to remove the categories, it is simply mangling the utf8 characters on the page while doing so. I will fix it. Chillum 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I rollback the edits? This is going to take awhile.— Dædαlus 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstood, I think Chillum is going to fix the errors too. probably easier for him than for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh.. and I actually hope so, I don't think I could if I tried, too many edits to sort through.— Dædαlus 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If some mangled characters on a blocked user's page is of concern to you then I will rollback all the bots edits since the bug revealed itself. Chillum 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just rolled back every edit from the last couple days, since the bug was introduced. Chillum 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.— Dædαlus 01:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks much better. Chillum 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent sock drawer at TFA

Could some helpful checkuser have a look at Jdfngkjfnd (talk · contribs) please? There appears to be a fairly substantial sock drawer vandalizing today's featured article plus some talk pages of people reverting. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPI. There is a special section there for "quick requests" although this sounds like a full investigation type situation to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I didn't realize they did quick requests there. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, today's featured article...

...could use some admin eyes. It was just protected, as it seems to be under some kind of coordinated attack. Part of the problem is, there are no admins reverting, only rollbackers, so each throwaway account is getting 5-10 edits in before getting blocked. If a few admins can keep an eye out, maybe delete the bad revisions they're reverting/undoing to, and block on the first revert to that particular version, then protection could be removed.

Also, it was full protected, when semi would do fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see my note just above this one where I request help from a checkuser to flush out the sock drawer. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

Hello I am being stalked by Users IJA and Kedadi both of whom are reverting any changes I made with regards to Kosovo related articles. I'm trying to promote neutrality here but both of these fellows (whom I assume to be Albanian) are trying to undermine that. I would appreciate help from an Admin on how to deal with this matter. If there is a way to hide my contributions page from their view or if there is some other way to deal with stalkers which you know of in the past, please contact me. Thank you! Jenga3 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's more correct to say that you are in a content dispute with those editors, which is the subject of discussion at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo#All Tables Need Numbering. This does not make them stalkers. That is not an appellation that one should throw around lightly. Indeed, you haven't any edits outside of that subject area in the past week to actually be stalked. And at Talk:Kosovo, your edit actually followed that of Kedadi.

  The way to deal with this matter is this: Stop leaping to the conclusion that everyone you deal with who disagrees with you is a stalker, against whom you must use technical measures to get your own way in content disputes, and start regarding your fellow editors as ordinary human beings, that you talk to. They have extended you that courtesy, on your talk page at User talk:Jenga3#numbered table. Uncle G (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not stalking this user. I reverted one of his/her edits and made an explanation on his talk page after he/ she contacted me first. Also Jenga3 is the only user which supports his/her edits, around 8 users including myself disagree with his/ her edits. He/she has failed to make a consensus. I also find it rather weird that I have been accused of stalking. Regards IJA (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker

Inurhead has continued a months long edit warring and incivility at The Hurt Locker, continuously reverting all edits to the article to his preferred version, sometimes bit a time, sometimes wholescale. He has displayed extreme bias regarding the film, attacking anything he perceives as negative about it. Attempts at discussions have filled the talk page and clearly show that consensus is against him, but he ignores it and continues his disruptive edits and accuses anyone who comes to the discussion as being either a meat puppet, a sockpuppet, or a canvassed votes when the harassed editors trying to work on the articles came to the Films project (per dispute resolution) for additional views.

He has already been left numerous warnings, and been reported to 3RR twice and to ANI twice. First ANI, in July, he got a warning. First 3RR happened August 6th and he was again warned. Next 3RR, August 14th, resulted in his being blocked 31 hours. Soon as he was unblocked, he continued. At this point, the situation had escalated from a disagreement between 3 to Inurhead ignoring the comments, suggestions, warnings, and actions of half a dozen editors or more. I myself reported him here August 16th and he was blocked 72 hours. Block expired, he went right back to the same stuff all over again.

Administrative review and help seriously needed. His actions continue to hamper the legitimate improvement work being done by some 5-6 editors. I have left notices at the talk pages of who I believe to be the major editors involved in the conflict informing them of this discussion, in addition to Inurhead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, the problem edits go back to mid-2008, when Inurhead first began editing articles such as Hurt Locker and related pages such as Jeremy Renner. The edits reflect a pattern of non-encyclopedic rewrites to focus on only positive comments; a lack of willingness to collaborate when consensus turns against his preferred version; and a tendency to use personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him. I've spent the better part of a year having to watchlist the Hurt Locker article to keep abreast of the frequent changes; now that regulars from Wikiproject Film are involved there, Inurhead has expanding his pattern of attack to include unfounded criticisms of some of the most established contributors from that project. --Ckatz_spy 05:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. There is a gang of hostile editors that have recently taken ownership of the page and have tag teamed to revert every one of my contributions and/or changes. I made a suggested change tonight by one of them and yet I'm still being attacked by the above hostile editor. They have tried to lure me into 3RR several times by tag team reverting my contributions. Tonight I did not fall for their trap. Collectonian above, lists several times that I have been "warned". But there were only two times. She or he makes it sound like it was more. Again, this is being warned by contributors who were obviously canvassed to come and edit war and revert things I had contributed. I ask that User:Collectonian and User:Ckatz and User:Erik and SoSaysChappy be blocked for tag teaming and trying to islolate and attack this contributor, in an attempt to try to provoke, harass, hound and irritate me, with the goal of discouraging my contributions and/or trying to block me permanently. This is totally unacceptible, as I am a good contributor to Misplaced Pages, not a vandal. Strict scrutiny must always be applied when blocking people and it hasn't been, in my case. Again, I am not a vandal and was contributing to this page long before this group of hostile minority-majority editors came and overtook the page. Misplaced Pages is not an "elitist" club for hostile demi-administrators and bureaucrats. Every person should feel welcome to contribute without being isolated, attacked and having all of their contributions constantly deleted. Inurhead (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Every person should feel welcome to contribute, but equally, if they edit articles in the way that you're doing (removing criticism and starting the reception section with "The Hurt Locker has been very universally acclaimed among critics", copying and pasting, moving the plot into the lede section, and using unreliable sources), then they should not be surprised if their edits are reversed. You are not being tag-teamed; your edits are being reverted because they are wrong. If you keep disrupting the article, then it is only going to lead to another block or a topic ban. I'd strongly suggest discussing all your changes on the talkpage before making them. Black Kite 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that it would be fair to block Collectonian for making false reports and for mischaracterizing the situation. I did not commit 3RR tonight and Collectonian is clearly trying to make it look like I did, when I didn't. He or she did not cite any disruptions from the past 24 hours and the ones he or she does cite are weeks old, and were again, when I was tricked into 3RR by their tag teaming. Mischaracterizing an editor as having made "bad faith" edits and making threats and false reports is disruptive to Misplaced Pages and must be punished. The minority-majority group which have taken ownership of The Hurt Locker page has been attempting to use policy to "muddy" the water and to get their way. Collectonian has used policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that this editor is editing in bad faith. Again, strict scrutiny must be used when "whipping" editors with warnings and blocking them. This should be reserved to prevent vandalism, not to prevent good contributions! Misrepresenting these events and being hostile to editors to isolate them is harmful to the Misplaced Pages environment in that it chases good contributors away. If you want to keep chasing people away, then by all means listen to the "Collectonians". Collectonian is the one that is at war. Her comrades, Erik and his cohorts use pettifogging and wikilawyering to try to drive contributors away. Believe me, any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times. None of my contributions to articles has been vandalism. All of it has been factual and backed up by sources and by what I understood was Wiki policy. They seem to be inventing new policy and policies-within-policies-within-policies to try to thwart new users from contributing and/or so that they can control every film article. It's insanity. Truly. Thanks. - Inurhead (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No-one is getting blocked here. Seriously, think about it - if "any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times" - and by a number of different editors - could it possibly be that it's your edits that are the problem? Black Kite 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I've reported on here before that I was being hounded and/or wikistalked by one of them who has admitted as much on the talk page of the article. He's the one who solicted them to attack and isolate me. By the way, I didn't "invent" that the film was "universally acclaimed." It is. Check Metacritic. Check Rotten Tomatoes. It is not "wrong" to state a fact. Facts are stubborn things. All laboriously documented. And the moving of a synopsis into the LEAD section was suggested by one of them! I was merely doing what had already been suggested, which several of them agreed about. Yet, that sends Collectonian into a tailspin! Go figure. They were just looking for another excuse to revert everything I did tonight. And you are letting them get away with it. What they are doing is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. They are also doing it to try to distract me away from the article, to waste my time responding to these false attacks. THAT is also against Wiki etiquette. - Inurhead (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few things to report from my personal experiences with this editor...

• Says that I more or less don't deserve to make contributions to the article because my first edit to the article was only a month ago. Was also referred to as "SoSaysCrabby" (ho ho). .
• Borderline personal attack: Accused me of being a member of the film's production crew when there is zero evidence of any such conflict of interest.
• Since incivility seems to be a concern here...Calls my edits "boring" (I'm not trying to write the next great spy novel).
• Individually and collectively accused of being a sock puppet (apparently, my creating this User ID in April of 2008 is somehow strong evidence of this, and from what I can tell this user has a chronic habit of hounding users with puppetry accusations without going through the proper channels at WP:SPI.
• Simple childish engagement of mind games: Here is my my message to him about why I reverted to a 600-word (within guideline word limits) from his edit which expanded it to over 1100 words. He promptly deleted the post. Lo and behold, a few days later, he leaves this post explaining why the 600-word summary should be reverted to on his original one-paragraph pre-release synopsis. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inurhead, have you heard of WP:AGF? You seem to be thinking that anyone saying a word against your edits are involved in an evil plot to remove your contributions. From your comments above, I'm afraid you seem to have taken ownership of the article, and your comments at the article's talk page further strengthen that impression:

• you tell several editors not to revert because they are new to the article
• you say you're going to revert because they made a change when you told them not to
• you tell an editor to go work on some other article when he tries to make a change, and restores to your preferred version
• you dismissed an explanation for an edit saying "too much explaining for what is obviously a revert". I don't see how you can say that when you simply revert others' edits without any discussion at all.

The former 3 are somewhat old, and the 4th is very recent. There are plently of similar edits in between in the edit history if anyone is interested. And just today:

• you removed several comments made by other editors. For what reason, I cannot understand.

As Black Kite said, it looks to me that your editing is creating the problem here. Please discuss on the article talk page (and I mean discuss, not fighting to preserve your version) so that a you people can come up with a balanced version that is agreeable to everyone. If you continue like this, you're practically asking to be blocked and this time it's likely to be indef. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, despite the problems, Inurhead started a couple of reasonable discussions at Talk:The Hurt Locker, to which I've responded. I think that when so much time is particularly devoted to one article, it's hard to move on. I personally diversify my editing so if for some reason I don't agree with consensus somewhere, I can move on. With the editor's contributions mainly on that one article, though, it is somewhat understandable to take offense at the editors that have swooped in. Still does not excuse the false accusations, which does not help for collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Inurhead also has repeated his personal attacks on my talk page, including the stuff noted above about wanting me blocked for bringing the issue up here again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we block User:Rcool35's IP's?

He's mocking us by evading blocks and using dynamic IP's to show that we can't block him because they're too numerous. I know this because I constantly rollback edits by any IP that starts with 76 or 99 on the articles he edits. Roc-A-Fella Records, Roc Nation, Nas, Wisin & Yandel are examples of the articles he always edits. He also bumps the rating by .5 on Street's Deciple and Hip Hop is Dead and Stillmatic, falsifing information and making the album ratings better to his liking. He also has a habbit of changing the founders of vanity labels from their stage name to their real names, GOOD Music being his most recent example, he has also did this in the past to Young Money Entertainment and Desert Storm Records in the past. He is also doing some things that while minor, pisses mostly everybody off. He changes the genre on certain record labels to "Various" even though the record label in question serves only one or three genres, he changes the website name from it's sophisicated form to the same name as the article.

He also changes the years active to when they first released an album rather then when they officialy started their careers. Winsen & Yandel and Jay-Z being examples. He also blanks out the associated acts section and replaces it with an image from a concert that's unusually small and does not capture the subject. On a minor note, he adds a section called History and a subsection called "Beginnings", I know this works for bigger articles but he's placing it on articles where the label is just starting or doesn't have very much history. Now I don't mean to offend or anything but I want to say a few things about the guy, he thinks that MySpace and Wordpress.com are valid sources of notability, even after I explained to him that an album was not released by Roc-A-Fella, he replied in an very arrogent way that suggested that he was right and I was wrong, even though I had common knowledge for the fact. This guy also acts like he own's articles as he edits them to be right for him, not for no one else, what's worse is that he does not communitate with anyone and does not give any reason for doing these edits nor explain why these edits would make an article better. First of all, I've been reverting his edits ever since he edited the Roc-A-Fella article and I have mostly reverted a lot of his "vandalism". I know he's making it look like good faith, but it's vandalism.

I know that I brought the issue up a couple of times before but I have not gotten any response or closure and I am tired of having to revert his edits when all he does is come back over and over again, I am also angry over the fact that we can't block him. I and Explicit know his editing patern right on the back on my hand. Perhaps we can keep an eye out on IP's starting with 76 and 99 and give him a temporary block of 24 hours, this is because the next day, he'll have a new IP address (he has a dynamic IP you know) and for the innocent users who'll use the IP unknowningly that a vandal was using it. Please respond okay, I need help, I don't want this to go unreplied and unresolved. Taylor Karras (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered asking for protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection? IPs cannot edit semiprotected pages, and in this case a semi would be preferable to a rangeblock. -Jeremy 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tried that, he'll either simply wait it out or create an account to bypass the protection. Taylor Karras (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Prolonged disruption guarantees an indefinite protection (so long as the banned editor remains active), and created accounts are way too easy to expose and Checkuser. In any case, as I said protection is better than a rangeblock. However, could you post the IPs he has used so that an admin more versed in rangeblocks can determine if a rangeblock will work? -Jeremy 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

persistent vandal of population figures

It's obvious that C filev (talk · contribs) is the same guy as the population vandal that was discussed in Croats article, and the same as 114.76.205.60, 91.150.103.172, 78.3.240.245 and many many other IPs, probably also 74.216.33.161. He was told unambiguosly to use only population figures from reliable sources, and he he has been reverted literally dozens of times, but he keeps making smaller any population figures that he doesn't believe to be correct, even if it contradicts the cited source and he changes the numbers that are obtained from adding up the figures found in RS if he doesn't agree with them . Putting together the edits of the account and his IPs he has gone 3RR on some articles, and he has been slow edit-warring for months over many articles.(for example in Croats he reverted 9 times in 7 days ) He keeps coming back to articles and creating messes that multiple editors keep having to clean up. I already warned him a couple of times in IP talk pages

Please indef-block him as it's obvious by now that he is not interested in respecting WP:V, and he had plenty of time to improve his behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:KJTRGKL repeatedly recreating an article deleted by AfD

List of Khatri Gotras and clans and List of Khatri Surnames were deleted by AfD recently (here and here). Since then KJTRGKL (talk · contribs) has been recreating those under different titles. I'd brought this to the attention of User:JForget who salted titles as they were created, but every day one or two new titles come up. KJTRGKL doesn't respond to messages or templated warnings on their talk page. JForget suggested I bring this up either here or AIV. -SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked until the user begins to communicate about the issue. ↪REDVERS 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, hopefully it helps. -SpacemanSpiff 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Exciting opportunity for junior admin squad member to use their amazing powers of rollback!

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

A user has been adding spurious "references" to articles which appears to be nothing more than typical spamming. Please see Special:Contributions/Traciodea. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Junior admin squad...? I take it you didn't actually mean your apology the other day. → ROUX ₪ 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to apologise again? Is there a preferred mode of address? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given how obviously meaningless the previous apology was, there's little point in wasting everyone's time with another. In the future, refrain from this sort of snide behaviour. Instead just say "Here's a problem, can someone address it?" But of course you knew that, didn't you? Which rather makes one wonder what point you were attempting to make here. → ROUX ₪ 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly a lot less WP:POINTy than this. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I wonder what point you are attempting to make here? I saw a problem and I brought it here for attention. Rather than addressing the problem, you immediately posted a message critical of how I phrased the title. I think "wannabe admins" is insulting and inaccurate since many of those will never be admins. When I asked you to suggest another name, you called into question first my apology of yesterday and now my intentions for posting here. Did you even look at the issue I was trying to get addressed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So you posted this here for the attention of "wannabe admins"? You are actually accepting that accusation with your comment :) ≈ Chamal  ¤ 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought one of the non-admin ANI regulars would appreciate the chance to flex their rollback muscles. They are usually the first ones to comment on any new postings here, so I know they are watching. It wasn't meant to be insulting (that's why I didn't say "wanna-be admins"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits look ok and seem to contain the material cited to. There may be a COI issue but that's it. Can we mark this as resolved? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle. You need edit diffs delicious and no silly titles. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Change the title of this section, add edit diffs, before this is closed. Ikip (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Ah. Have I been too hasty? I reverted them all. Those I looked at did have some relevance, but such a huge number of links (well over 30) to his two books, articles about both of which have been speedy-tagged, looked like unacceptable spamming. I also gave him uw-spam3, though he seemed to have stopped before Delicious carbuncle's post here. Would somebody please have a look and see if I have been too quick off the mark? JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

well the http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Taco&diff=prev&oldid=312983390 certainly seemed to violate WP:EL at the very least. Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnCD. I spot-checked the links before I brought this here. While they are tangentially relevant, they definitely aren't appropriate as references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This one seems a really desperate attempt to get a link plugged in anywhere regardless of relevance. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like they are a mix of relevant and not relevant. For example this one seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No one bothered to contact the editor that this conversation is going on, I am doing that now. Ikip (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please correct me if I am wrong. Being a complete outsider to this argument. This appears to be the background which Delicious carbuncle, didn't do, and refuses to do.

Traciodea begins to add references from a nonnotable website www.bviguides.com on several pages. He also creates Smartish Pace and BVI Yacht Guide. Which User:JohnCD and Delicious_carbuncle put up for deletion, adding deletion templates on Traciodea's talk page.

There is no real discusion beyond the warning templates before it is, in my opinion, inappropriately escalated here. I will attept to talk to the editor, if the editor continues to add these nonnotable sites, he probalby should be blocked. Could this have been handled better? Yes. There is some major WP:BITE in how this was handled. I strongly agree with JoshuaZ, please close this discussion or move to WP:COI. Ikip (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor ignored the level one warning I left for them when I came across their first bit of spam. I looked at their contributions and noticed an article created by them. I tagged it for CSD and left them a templated message. I also took the time to leave them a handwritten message about COI (which was obvious from the content of the deleted article and the username). They ignored these and subsequently created another article, also speedied. I spot-checked the other links they had added as "references", saw that it was simply spam and brought the matter here so that someone with rollback could correct it. I saw no point in telling an overt spammer that they were being discussed here, after they had ignored earlier messages. I do think that Ikip leaving them a message saying "Delicious carbuncle is discussing you..." and giving barnstars to spammers is, at the very least, odd. JohnCD, rather than spending time picking apart words here, took action and fixed the problem. The matter is resolved as far as I am concerned and it would be nice not to have to defend myself against these petty attacks here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First, disinegnuousness--your 'explanation' for the ridiculous title--is insulting to our intelligence. Second, advising users you have brought them up on ANI is not optional. See the header of this page. While the initial issue has been dealt with, it seems like an excellent time to discuss your behaviour, which is problematic in the extreme, particularly in light of your attacks yesterday and the subsequent empty apology. → ROUX ₪ 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong the title. Of course I don't know what happened yesterday but I don't see a problem with calling rollbackers junior admins when so many of them have that ambition. I have rollback rights myself. He's just trying to be funny.--Patton123 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• For f!c!s sake would you lot give it a rest. Nja 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin powers are truly awesome. They are roughly on the same level of awesomeness as parking in the visitors' spaces. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like parking in vistor's spaces...except people run up to you, tell you that you are corrupt and abusing your parking privileges, get mad when you move their bicycle out of the handicapped space, "UR GAY LOLOLOLOLOL", and threaten to write the company you are visiting to remove your visitor privileges because you happened to pick up a dog turd and throw it away. --Smashville 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke any sleeping dogs -- or flog any dead horses, either -- but I find Roux's comments about my sincerity hurtful and personally insulting. I don't even know the meaning of the word "disinegnuousness" and I reject the idea that my apology of yesterday was "empty", particularly as it included the word "sincere" right in it. I hope we can all just try to get along, since we're all working on the same project here. Thanks, and please let this thread die it's natural death now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Secret Harbour, Western Australia

A newbie POV pusher (the latest of many) who has arrived on this article and its talk page, removing talk page edits and coming within a whisker of violating 3RR. His general standard of behaviour and communication in his less-than-one-hour-here has been unsatisfactory at best. Can someone please attend to this, as I'm sick (I have gastric flu :() and am going to bed. Orderinchaos 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the info he is adding is good but he's not very good at writing neutrally.--Patton123 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I left a final warning of sorts on his talk page regarding his removal (several times now) of talk page comments by Orderinchaos. Completely out of line behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. –Juliancolton |  17:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• He now has two unblock requests on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leandro da Silva (footballer born 1989)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I'm pretty sure nominations can't be withdrawn if there are unstruck 'Delete' !votes, right? Because this AfD has had a non-admin closure after the nominator said "I'm withdrawing", even though I had previously !voted Delete...GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both the nominator and the closer of this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

correct. this question should be moved to WP:AFD Ikip (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Where abouts on that page? GiantSnowman 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to discuss really, just undo the closure and inform the non-admin as to why. I have taken care of both steps now. I am sure it was merely a simple misunderstanding on Joe Chill's part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Thaddeus! GiantSnowman 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Noise at Talk:Holocaust denial

Could we get some disinterested assistance? It seems to me that one editor is being rather tendentious at Talk:Holocaust denial; I'm staying out of the fray, but perhaps some new eyes would help. --jpgordon 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty clearly to be a heavily stacked dispute with some participants becoming frustrated. One option would be to hand it off to outsiders at one of the content noticeboards (WP:NPOVN/WP:RSN/WP:CNB), and if there is little value seen in minority position there, that the matter be dropped.  Skomorokh  19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards