Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 20 April 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Slrubenstein

Entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Slrubenstein to centralize discussion and to remove space on the ANI page. –MuZemike 03:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Abductive long term disruption

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

Abductive just showed up on something on my edit list and edit warred his way to a block. While it is his first block, I took a look and for an account that isn't even a year old he's had a major amount of disruption. An SPI was opened on him last year. It was closed without action. However, he did admit to using multiple accounts to mass nominate AfDs/prod articles. This created at least a couple AN/I threads and a substantial bit of disruption as most of these nominations were apparently bad. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive/Archive. In regards to the socking, Abductive also has on his user page the claim that he's been here for over 3 years. One account was made last July, one last May. Which means there is quite likely at least one more account out there he didn't admit to using. Since he's using the current account disruptively, it is likely a disruptive sock. I don't know that I could file an SPI though since I don't have the foggiest who the other account might be.

Issue two is the edit warring. He was just blocked for edit warring on Asian fetish. Making odd claims about how you can't name the author of a study unless he has an article himself. First claiming it was WP:UNDUE then claiming it was vanity, and then claiming I must have a COI because I wasn't buying his bizarre arguments, a bad faith assumption and insult, frankly. He was blocked for 31 hours, but after a quick check I found out that this isn't his first edit war. He was warned back in July of last year about edit warring. and seemed to show a better understanding for how 3RR worked than someone who'd only been here a couple months and had never been warned about it before. Only a month ago he was involved in a big edit war on an article which was stopped with page protection. He also engaged in an edit war back in October and when he wasn't getting his way he again resorted to making personal attacks. This resulted in another page protection.

So in less than a year, he's engaged in 3 or 4 edit wars, helped to get 2 pages locked, and disruptively mass nominated/prodded a ton of articles. With this behaviour and the claim about how long he's been on wikipedia I feel like this might be a returned blocked/banned user. At the least I feel he should be restricted to 1RR on any article given his propensity for edit warring, but I also think a greater look needs to be taken at the SP issues, unfortunately I don't think SPI would be remotely useful as I don't think it keeps year old IP data.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment as yet on the substance of the complaint, however, I find it odd that the block for edit warring came almost 7 hours after the last revert, though there is no question that the 3RR was violated. I think it might be an idea to have this conversation when Abductive is able to speak directly in his defence, but in fairness, you have notified him of the thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

He was reported to the 3RR noticeboard as is the normal process. The only reason his editing stopped was that I disengaged and have for now, let him have his way. I've also informed him that if he wants to make a statement it will be copied over. There is a history of edit warring and insults that goes well beyond the current situation.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can you evidence the history of edit warring and insults with multiple diffs please. Please can you explain why you do not appear to have addressed your concerns about socking with Abductive? Spartaz 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• That is already there. Click through. If you'd like the exact diff where he insulted someone last time, . That edit war was stopped by a page protection before it went completely out of hand you can see the full ANI discussion above. As for the SP issues, those were already raised with him and that was all he disclosed, but that doesn't seem to be honest given his claim on his userpage.--Crossmr (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• The first diff does not show a violation of the 3RR, the second appears to have been two reverts and the third also appears not to have been a 3RR violation. This out of a total of 12,000 edits in 18 months. I suggest you need something a little stronger then this and please can you show a diff where YOU addressed the sock allegation directly with Abductive before raising it here? I do agree that Abductive could do with improving their civility from time to time. Spartaz 13:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Spartaz, though at least this editor's insult made me chuckle, which I always say "if your going to be uncivil at least make it funny" so I'd like to see him be a bit more creative if there's a next time. Is there any risk if Abductive is unblocked long enough so he can actually contribute to his defence here at AN/I? Yea, transcribing his responses over here isnt much of an ability to defend himself or contact others who may be able to help him in his defence, or directly confront his accusers in a meaningful way (and hopefully insult-free). Personally I say let him be and unblock him.Camelbinky (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that he be unblocked and AN/I has a long history of transcribing statements from blocked users if the need is there. Encouraging uncivil behaviour isn't exactly a compelling position.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• May 2009-Now is not 18 months. That is 11 months. In that time, he's socked and been disruptive. he admitted that. I'm now pointing out that the extent of what he admitted to isn't the complete picture. I'm under no obligation to discuss it with him further when bringing it here as the part of a bigger package. The first diff shows he was warned about 3RR and seemed to show an understanding of it (without being linked to it) beyond what a user 2 months into editing wikipedia should show. Its evidence that this is probably not his first account. One doesn't need to violate 3RR to be edit warring. I never said he violated 3RR that many times just that he'd been involved in 3 or 4 edit wars, 2 of which resulted in page protection, and 2 of which resulted in him insulting other users when he couldn't get his way.
• The first was in reference to this where he was basically fighting with another editor to try and get some tag (any tag) onto the article. Which is similar to what happened now. He was trying to remove content for some reason, any reason and when it was apparent he didn't have consensus he just edit warred and insulted until blocked.
• The second edit has 4. Edit warring isn't just reverting, it is undoing another person's edits. He has his first edit where he removed several entries that another user removed, that is 1, then he has 2 reverts, that is 3. Then he changes a bunch of stuff later on that wisdom power changed. That is 4 separate series of edits undoing other peoples work. If you really need a 3RR violation, there you go. , , , 4 times undoing anothers work in less than 24 hours.
• In the last one, he gets to 3 and the page is protected before it can go further. There was only 19 minutes between his last revert and the page locking. The other editor he was fighting with wasn't watching the page like a hawk and reverting immediately. He was obviously edit warring if the admin felt the need to protect the page.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Of course I deny these allegations. "Almost" violated 3RR? That means I didn't. With these other claimss, find me anybody with as many edits as I have who hasn't rubbed somebody the wrong way. As for the dispute that did get me blocked, it was pure 3RR, not a violation of WP:CIVIL, nor was it about the usual politics, religion, spam or ethnic stuff that graces ANI daily. User:Crossmr has a major WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the Asian fetish article, whereas I'm just trying to whip it into better shape. A thankless task--the article has been through 6 AfDs and has attracted some serious sockpuppeteers. Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I just demonstrated where you violated 3RR last month. Do you deny undoing peoples edits those 4 times? Your contribs are a matter of public record. The first article didn't see you violate 3RR but you were edit warring to put "something" on the page, you just didn't know what but were editing it back and forth anyway instead properly considering what should go on the page or discussing it on the talk page. In the last one you only avoided a 3RR violation because the page was locked. Accusing someone of a COI without evidence is an assumption of bad faith and uncivil. The only ownership problem with the article is demonstratively you and hippo43 who have both been blocked for edit warring over it. You are too quick to push your version making sniping comments rather than engage in meaningful discussion. You seem to have zero concept of WP:BRD and would much rather fight over it than actually discuss it. You have a history of it that extends almost back to your account creation. Coupled with your admitted sock puppeting, your account has basically been disruptive for its entire history. You've also failed to comment on the account issues. Your user page claims you've been here over 3 years, both accounts you've had were only made last year. Are you still using another account?--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I know nothing of his history so won't comment, but I fully support Abductive on the recent issue at Asian fetish, and I'm concerned by Crossmr's focus on the individual, not the issue. Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content, aggressively and high-handedly reverted to his preferred version of a long-contentious article. Similarly he has referred to edit warring in my past (in this discussion and elsewhere) presumably trying to undermine me as a contributor, rather than deal directly with the content dispute, and has criticised me above without notifying me. If this all leads to wider scrutiny of this article, so much the better. --hippo43 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just for clarification. You support someone edit warring to push their position? This thread is about abductive's behaviour that goes well beyond this particular article. If you want to discuss the particulars of the article feel free to go to the talk page. you'll see ample consensus seeking in all the various sections titled "proposal" all started by me.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked abductive if he has anything further to add but since he's continued editing (and warring on the article in addition to contributing to the consensus discussion) and hasn't responded I guess he doesn't. He clearly violated 3RR this time, he violated it last month. In october he got a page locked by his actions and last summer he was warned over fighting on a page. In addition to that he admitted socking last summer to mass nominate/prod articles (the vast majority of which didn't stand). For me, that's far too much disruption. In addition I've asked him directly about the account issues and he's carried on editing without commenting on that. If there is some legitimate reason for his changing accounts and not wanting to reveal the old one, that is fine, but the fact that one sock was already brought out of the drawer is a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that with regards to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive, that was a clear username change there. Secondly, that was a bad-faith SPI report made my serial sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, who was at the time harassing him and User:DreamGuy. –MuZemike 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. He still used more than one account to mass prod/nominate a ton of articles which didn't stick. Neither account goes beyond May 2009, so the account(s) that he's used between November 10, 2006 and May 2009 are unknown. We don't know if he's still using them or not since we don't know which ones they are(were). If there is a legitimate reason for him changing accoutns he's free to email an admin or arbcom and report the change and they could comment here and say it is fine. However, due to the initial disruptive behaviour and the continued disruptive behaviour it doesn't really seem like it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

After debunking one of his bizarre claims in the current dispute where he continually claimed there wasn't a single other article on wikipedia that included researcher's names, he's gone through to make a ton of pointy and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits. He's also shown absolutely zero understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and continues to disrupt across multiple articles. I provided him with 2 google searches which showed tons of wikipedia articles using the phrase "study conduct/done by". His response was to run to those articles as fast as he could and remove as many mentions of that as he could. , , , , etc you can see his contrib history for today with a full list of all the articles he's tried to do this to. He knows there is no consensus for this change, I've asked him several times to cite a policy or guideline for it and he can't. Each time it is a new excuse as to why a researcher's name can't be on an article, but I think one tells us a lot. I have seen (and man, is it pathetic) junior professors post their mention in a Misplaced Pages article on their doors This would seem to indicate some personal interest/bias in the situation. especially since he's utterly failed to properly cite any policy which says researchers names shouldn't appear in the article and they should only appear in the footnotes. He's reverted the Asian fetish article twice again today despite the on-going discussion to try and reach consensus on the article.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Somebody tell this user he doesn't own articles, and that he shouldn't wikihound. He really isn't getting it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• This your defense for making pointy battleground edits across multiple articles? You might want to look in the mirror. You have no consensus for your edits. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a policy or citation for your position and can't do it. You can't cite a single passage on wikipedia that says researchers shouldn't be named in articles and rather than discuss it you continue to edit war over it. As we can clearly see here , and . What you're not getting is that your opinion isn't the only one and if you want to change the status quo, you need to gain consensus. You've been told to read WP:BRD but at this point I don't know if you're just not capable or what the problem is. You were bold, you were reverted. You should engage in discussion. Instead you continue to revert and push it on to may other articles knowing your opinion is opposed. This is further evidence of your on-going and long term disruptive behaviour. We're still waiting for you to explain what happened with your account between Nov 10, 2006 and now.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• That is how you characterize it. As I make edits to remove just the inline mentions of non-notable researchers who are already credited in the refs, you follow me around reverting me and say that I'm making a battleground? I don't have to engage in discussion with you on articles that aren't on your watchlist. As you yourself have demonstrated, if only ~2000 articles out of 3 million use the "in a study conducted by" language, then using such language is not the norm. I have already discovered that most such usage "in a study conducted by" is followed by "UNESCO", "an NGO" and so forth, not the names of non-notable scientists who most likely edited the pages themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes you are. You knew before you made those edits that your position was contested. You knew after I reverted 2 of them, that the position was contested. But you continued to make the edits and you continued to revert instead of enter discussion. You knew I was watching those 2 articles, because I reverted you. You ignored the community standard WP:BRD and continue to edit war your way across wikipedia to try and push your point of view. As I've already pointed out the absence of that sentence on an article doesn't prove the community disagrees with its usage. Your claim was no articles used it, you were wrong. Now in an attempt to correct that you're going to try and edit as many articles as you can to remove it. You've been asked to stop and discuss it and you've refused. This is your disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• If mentioning the people who discovered a fact was used inline for every fact throughout Misplaced Pages, it would take me 3,262,608 x about 15 minutes per article, or 93 years of solid editing to remove them all. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yet again your failed logic. Absence of a piece of text in an article isn't proof of consensus from the community. Still waiting for that citation, or do you want to continue to try and distract rather than actually proving this mystical consensus you claim? Your claim was about naming researchers, not everyone who ever discovered a fact. You see, each time the story changes because you have nothing to support your position except your unending willingness to continue to edit war instead of discuss it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't think so. Studies are by researchers, yet inline language in Misplaced Pages articles naming the researchers who conducted the studies is vanishingly rare, especially if the researchers don't have a Misplaced Pages article. By contrast, naming researchers in references is policy. This suggests consensus, perhaps unwritten or even unthinking, that one shouldn't give non-notable people so much "play" in articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• What policy? Please cite the policy that indicates researchers are only to be named in the footnotes. Still waiting. Another story change, we're going to need a play book here soon to keep up all the various lines you've tried to use to claim this shouldn't happen without actually providing a citation. Let's not forget that 3 of the 4 researchers you claimed were non-notable that started your latest disruptive edit warring over actually meet our notability requirements. You'd know if you'd have actually checked. I wonder how many others you've removed meet the guidelines or did you bother to check before removing their names?--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I have told you many times, it's WP:UNDUE, in particular WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work. And you are characterizing my contructive edits to articles you only found by checking my contribs as disruptive and edit warring. You are completely mistaken about the notability of the researchers. Finally, I did not remove them from the article(s), just formatted them into refs (if they weren't already in the refs). Haven't you noticed that no admin has taken your side? Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• And as I've told you that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Have you actually read what you just linked to? Your claim was that policy stated they should be listed in the footnotes. Where is that in the text you've just linked to? It isn't there. Your second link has absolutely no bearing on this situation at all. it is talking about aesthetic opinion. You're not removing names that have anything to do with aesthetic opinion. But it shows how little you seem to understand the policy you're clinging to like a life-raft. You are removing the names of researchers who conducted research. Some of whom are notable. Like 3 from the article you got blocked for edit warring over. And why don't you check out Flávio Henrique Caetano you'll find plenty of google news, books and scholar hits for him. Its unfortunately not english, and I don't know how common that name is but it comes up enough to be at least worth checking out. Especially before claiming he isn't notable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• and here he is finally admitting he has no consensus for his actions . If he had the consensus he claimed he did, he'd know where it is and wouldn't need to look for it. He's basically been making up argument after argument on things that have no real relationship to the issues and edit warring on multiple articles over it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Crossmr is the one making things up. I have been repeating the same argument, using different words, a variety of statistics, examples and links, in a vain attempt to get this user to see my point of view. As can be seen, of the four people arguing on the talk page, 2 hold one position and 2 hold another. Everything else is just Wikihounding and tenditious editing on Crossmr's part. Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• That isn't what you just claimed was it? Everyone can see your edit. Or do you want to continue to try and lie? To tell the truth, I have not looked for a proper "citation" for the consensus I claim, what part of that is made up? Still waiting on the name of the other accounts by the way. Your argument has been all over the place. You've refused to gain consensus and even after being blocked you continued to try and push your way on the article without consensus. Please enlighten us to what the passage on aesthetic opinions on creative works of art has to do with researchers names being in the article in conjunction with the studies they've produced. The tendentious editing comes from your unwillingness to see a discussion to the end before trying to force your opinion onto multiple articles by edit warring and even when you participate in a discussion to provide evidence to support your position. You just admitted you didn't look for the proper source which basically means you don't want to or can't provide it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I previously stated, the consensus is in the form of millions of articles that do not give prominence to individual researchers, but instead use the established reference formats. I stated that this consensus is unwritten, but that does not mean it isn't the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• No you clearly stated you didn't look for the consensus. studies aren't used in millions of articles on wikipedia so it would be unreasonable to expect them to give prominence to things they don't use. Unless you've actually got evidence of mass removal of these kinds of sentences unchallenged or with discussions showing consensus agreed with their removal, you have no consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't look because you Wikilawyer everything, and because I use abductive reasoning. What I try to do is educate. As for my actions or statements being unchallenged, how much admin inaction here does it take for you to get the message? Abductive (reasoning) 08:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. you didn't look because it doesn't exist. Your juggling on the Asian Fetish talk page is plenty evidence of that. You're concocting the most elaborate and asinine arguments I've ever seen. Citing completely unrelated polices and guidelines coupled with what almost appears to be intentional misunderstanding of them to try and support your arguments rather than cite the consensus you claim you have.--Crossmr (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• ♫ Nobody's listening to us ♫♪. Abductive (reasoning) 08:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When you two are done, any concise diffs or condensed explanations might be more useful than the above. Are there perhaps a few places we could focus on? Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth User:Abductive previously edited as User:Joey the Mango. He put some odd comments on my talk page but I can't say that I found them objectionable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Concise diffs

• Last summer it was noted that Abductive used multiple accounts to mass-prod a bunch of articles Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Wikihounding, by bunch over 150. They were all contested. AN/I shot the messenger because he was a sock, but it doesn't change what abductive did. Disruptive socking. At that time it was also noted that he refused to disclose old accounts and if you follow this discussion he ducks the question every time, but his user page indicates he's been here 2.5 years longer than his account.
• Around the same time, he got in a dispute with an editor here . Not a 3RR violation, but he was going back and forth without discussion.
• In october 2009 he was involved in another edit war that was stopped with page protection before he could technically violate 3RR Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Abductive_Uncalled_for_Behavior It was also noted he was uncivil making a personal attack.
• Last month in March he violated 3RR , , , the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed.
• just recently he was blocked on Asian fetish for violating 3RR. After being unblocked he made a contribution to the consensus building discussion we were having , but followed that up with trying to push his version back into the article twice. Before being blocked he insinuated with evidence that I had some kind of COI when he wasn't getting his way . this was an assumption of bad faith and I consider it a personal attack.
• During the discussion he brought up the point that there were no articles which had researchers names in them with the study. I provided a couple google links showing plenty, his response was to start making disputed, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits to multiple articles. , , . See contribs, he's done this to 7 or 8 articles. He knew his position was disputed but reverted any opposition and carried on with other articles.
• After I reverted a couple of this indicating there was no consensus to remove these names, he accused me of wikihounding and reverted again. Ignorinig WP:BRD. , .
• He's repeatedly claimed consensus yet each time he's asked for it he refuses to provide the link because he doesn't want to look for it or claims I'll just wikilawyer it.
• Knowing that there is no consensus for his assertion and that it is disputed and still failing to provided evidence of his consensus he just tried to push it on a featured article . Basically anything that gets mentioned as support he will try to edit out.

Maybe a few more shortly.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that his edit war last month, this month and his pointy and battleground edits all seem to center around academics he thinks are not notable. Couple with his statement here about "juniour professors" . It would seem like its a hot button issue for him.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quick point to Abductive about "consensus" regarding the names of authors; look at Court of Chancery. That's an FA; one of our highest-quality articles. That's an article which has been peer reviewed, and the idea that it is high-quality and does not violate policy has reached consensus. You'll notice authors' names are mentioned when they've opined. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have made an example edit (reverted by Ironholds using automation and the single word No) with a concise explanation of my reasoning on the talk page to the Court of Chancery article, which is easier to wade through than the mess in Asian fetish. Ironholds may not agree, but I think my reasons are sound. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that your behaviour is at ANI and the (admittedly small) consensus at the talkpage says you're wrong may make you want to think twice about your quote unquote "sound" reasons. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I think twice often. For example, the phrase "according to academics" occurs in only 4 Misplaced Pages articles. "According to Professor" occurs in only 347 of Misplaced Pages's 3 million articles. In my discussion with you in Court of Chancery, I suspect that your opinion is colored by the way this stylistic concern was brought to your attention, and you might have reacted differently if I had just made the edit de novo. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, judging some form of WP natural law from statistics doesn't work. And no, I'm pretty much the same all the time. Again, have you considered that since nobody is agreeing with you, you might be wrong? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• So are the two studies on the GA Theodore Kaczynski.--Crossmr (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any WP:UNDUE weighting in the Theodore Kaczynski article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie reverting endlessly

There is an RFC at WT:ACTOR#Filmography that is stale. Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) is routinely reverting my edits with the rationale that the RFC is not "closed" and yet she's dug her heels in about closing it. This amounts to an open ended filibuster of the issues at hand. The discussion stands at 164kb/6 weeks, so there's not much room for more that needs saying. The RFC needs a close of some sort and an appropriate route forward determined. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Now being WP:TAGTEAMed by MikeAllen (talk · contribs)

Let's be clear about what is going on. Yeah, there is a discussion, that is endlessly complicated. But the overriding issue here is that the discussion is still open and Jack Merridew charged in and we agreed a long time ago to stop going about and making changes to this formatting, an agreement which he accused me of violating one time, when I undid an edit by someone else that served to combine multiple tables into one mass table. Note he clearly states he didn't realize I had made a revert. Except for reverting his covert edits to tables, that is the only time I've edited table coding and yet his bad faith behavior towards me is legion across various talk pgaes. Meanwhile, Jack Merridew persists in going about, making changes to the table formatting and hiding it behind deceptive edit summaries that do not in any way indicate he has changed the table "clean-up, bot-trick" "clean up" "tidy" "tidy" "wikify". The list goes on and on. He's been approached by an administrator following a WP:3RR complaint asking him to stop as well as by other editors . It's bad faith to go about making specific changes to things that an editor knows is controversial and hiding it behind deceptive edit summaries in an attempt to disguise the edits. That I challenge that is not an AN/I issue regarding me, it is an editing issue regarding Jack Merridew's editing practices. For instance, see here where he tried to blackmail into responding to bad faith questions on WT:ACTOR with "If you don't want me editing filmographies as I see fit, respond to the open questions on the wt:actor page." I'm quite sick and tired of seeing his name crop up on articles where I've edited and have to go back and check to see what's he done since he employs this deceptive edit summary strategy. And the only tag-teaming I saw was by Jack Merridew and Tbhotch . That someone calls Jack Merridew for deceptive edit summaries and forcing his POV isn't tag teaming. That editors question the practices isn't tag teaming, it's questioning the ethics of an editor who thinks he's ready for administrator tools. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never even seen Tbhotch's user name before that edit. You and your usual friends (MikeAllen, Crohnie, and Pinkadelica), however, are all over anything I do in this area. That's what a tag team is. Jack Merridew 09:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well first, I have no "friends" here. Anyway I seen you reverted something on my watchlist (Anna Kendrick) I took a look of your contribs and low and behold if you weren't reverting based on your assertion of hard coded tables are bad, again. I reverted and left you an edit summary, again. Nothing more. So quit accusing me of being friends with people I don't even know and have had limited discussion with here. Mostly asking for help on actor based pages. Whatever. I'll be glad when this is closed. —Mike Allen 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the colors but what you need is some CSS declarations which apply this format for you automatically. In this case, something like:

.wikitable.filmography { font-size:95%; }
.wikitable.filmography th { background: #B0C4DE; }

Then can start the table

{| class="wikitable filmography"\n

without needing to specify anything on a per-row or per-cell basis. ―AoV² 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much that on-offer at: WT:ACTOR#lean, semantic, markup. It would need a consensus at MediaWiki talk:common.css. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Except note that Jack Merridew has declared unilaterally that no changes to CSS would be considered or accepted. Such were "offered" and unilaterally declared verboten. Dangled like a carrota nd snatched away. Then all of it has been muddied up with his newer campaign to do away with tabled filmographies at all. Each time something was discussed, something new was stuck in to muddy the waters. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What I said was:

The inclusion of such domain-specific tweaks in the site css will not happen; it's unwarranted and would amount to a camel's nose for hundreds of other domains to seek classes for themselves. If someone were to propose a much higher level abstraction for a class to tweak the standard "wikitable", that could get a lot of support, including mine. This would have to be something of much wider applicability.

I've been advocating the bullet list approach since Michael Q. Schmidt suggested it on 7 March:

I'd support plain bulleted list for the reasons you cite. Hard-coded tables are about the poorest method of presenting this information

I've been discussing all of the options, including tables, and have offered possible solutions that I don't support because I was asked to. You, however, evaded the whole prior discussion last year that went against you:

• MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 9#Header color in wikitables

by abandoning a prior template approach that was offered in lieu of a common.css change, and resorting to hard-coding everything. This has resulted in chaos, as there are now about a half dozen major variations of this hard-code styling in wide use in, you say, 32,000 articles.

nb: WHL doesn't just want filmographies to have this look; she want's all tables in actor/filmmaker bios to sport it; awards and whatnot, too.

nb: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history uses #B0C4DE; (LightSteelBlue) a lot, via templates for the most part, and would likely have an interest in such a site-wide css tweak involving "their" color. Prolly not using the class name "filmography", though.

This board is not the place to rehash the whole sprawling RFC and the prior attempt to get this into common.css. What is needed is a close of the RFC and a sorting of the proper direction forward. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on finding consensus in the RFC. This is complex and may take a bit of time (indeed, I've been at it for quite some already). --Moonriddengirl 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You've said a lot of things in a lot of places, Jack and that is not what brought us here today. That you want to separate "film" appearances from other actor's work is beside the point at this board, although a less disengenous person would realize that an actor's work is an actor's work, be it film, television, or stage. There's not a huge assertion of support for using one style of table heading for a "filmography" table because you consider it that and and a different style television or stage appearance table for the same actor because Jack Merridew thinks it is something different. It's all in an actor's body of work and trying to shove through that television appearances should have a different presentation because you call it something else is basically semantics. What I see here, though, is yet another attempt by you to make it such a convoluted discussion that we lose sight of the original point - that you agreed to stop going about and pushing your POV view on tables and you have not upheld that, even to the point of using deceptive edit summaries to disguise your attempts to edit where you agreed not to do so and then came here to complain because others revert those attempts. Let's not lose sight yet again of what we're talking about. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is now closed. --Moonriddengirl 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've read it and, while it's not all I was looking for, it's a reasonable close and route forward. The semi-open issues, such as color and tables-for-all, can be addressed pretty much as you suggest. I'll be proposing a plan for implementing the next steps (mostly getting xenobot to do a lot of it). Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Without having yet looked back at the closed RFC, and over here because JM alerted me that I was mentioned, I still personally find tables to be a pain in the arse... difficult to set up and difficult to update and maintain... and this even more so for new editors. In an actor's article I find it less than helpful in showing ongoing notability to have a table that might for example list three television series a prolific actor might have been in and then the character name. At first glance such a meager amount of information is near useless, and woefully informative to a reader. If however, the same information was in a bulleted list that showed those same three series and included the large number of episodes for each and a year-range in which the actor took part... well... that might far better show a reviewing editor that the actor probably meets WP:ENT and so likely avoid an unneccessary AFD. HOWEVER... in cases where the actor is extremely well known and has an very long list of work, a table might serve. For those whose work may be great, but in a limited number of projects, a bullet list might better serve. I belive the option should for either... allowing editors to add a list if it is more productive for their efforts, and experienced editors to then table-ize if they want to spend the time... but only if that table actors would show information the number of episodes and year range of participation that is more pertinant to showing the possible meeting of ENT. Just sayin. Schmidt, 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whack-A-Mole

• Ucanca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raissa Rouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are clearly sock or meat puppets of Bircham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a focus on Bircham International University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which Bircham (who self-identifies as the owner, William Martin) has been trying to whitewash for years. OTRS volunteers can see the history at VRTS ticket # 2010011210044196, VRTS ticket # 2010011210044187, VRTS ticket # 2009122310066937, VRTS ticket # 2009102910059321, VRTS ticket # 2009102710057005, VRTS ticket # 2009102710056999, VRTS ticket # 2009100610036906, VRTS ticket # 2009100610036899, VRTS ticket # 2009031210054041, VRTS ticket # 2007062810012152. Needless to say I will not be participating in any "mediation" with this user, since his problem is with core policy not with any individual user. Just to clarify one point he keeps making re Mike Godwin's letter, Mike did not give him permission to edit the article (he can't, as far as I can tell), he basically sent him a {{sofixit}} form letter which Bircham has persistently, and again in the face of all clarifications, misrepresented as permission to edit. He has been told that provable errors of fact backed by sources will be considered but that he absolutely will not be allowed to dictate article content and that no comment from anybody anywhere can be construed as conferring any right to edit that article or anything else on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately this fails the "laa laa I'm not listening" test so we have to keep saying it month after month, as you can see from the number of OTRS tickets, all of which say pretty much the same thing. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So what's your plan? I notice that the article has never been protected; semi-protection could obviously help a bit but if it's been going on for years, it's a band-aid fix. RBI, I guess? Tan | 39 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving content to user:Orlady, who seems to me to be doing a good job of keeping it clean. I'll be happy to protect if Orlady asks, of course. The real issue for Bircham is that we (as in I) won't unblock him. Look at the history to see why not. The only reason this is anything other than straightforward is the relentless misrepresentation of Mike's letter - and there has been a lot of water under the bridge rarely has a subpontine metaphor been more appropriate since then. The fundamental problem is that he does not like the answer he's been given time after time, so keeps asking in the hope that it will change. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, I often have a hard time remembering which of these unaccredited universities is which, but I think I recall that the Bircham article was semi-protected (and perhaps even fully protected) at one time or another. Is there any chance that some of the article logs have been expunged?

Knowing that some entities like this one have sometimes been wildly successful in using libel lawsuits (or the threat of same) to achieve their goals, and seeing that Bircham recently succeeded in getting a Kenyan news media outlet to "correct" a negative story it had run 2 years earlier (see and ), I can't help but wonder whether the article history has been subject to intervention (presumably WMF-directed) that is not visible to me (as a mere admin on this wiki). --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any oversight activity or log suppression on that article, but that does not mean it has not happened. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this is just a case of faulty memory on my part, combined with a bit of paranoia. It's truly difficult to keep track of the differences between unaccredited outfits with similar names, like Bircham International University, Buxton University, and Washington International University, each of which articles has engendered its own unique forms of drama. --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. The higher the profile of Misplaced Pages the more important it becomes to these places to use Misplaced Pages to "fix" the fact that the world thinks they are degree mills. As to Bircham, the historically widespread use of the term "accredited" by Bircham, combined with the small print on their website acknowledging that they aren't but throwing in some special pleading for good measure, is a really suggestive of active fraud rather than just foolishness. Yes there are ways for non-traditional institutions to gain accreditation. For some reason pursuing accreditation and meaningful quality assurance are never quite as attractive as whitewashing Misplaced Pages. Can't think why... Guy (Help!) 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost every diploma mill seems to have this problem to some extent. I just see it as another wash-rinse-repeat situation. Semi-protection would work, but it would basically mean semi-protecting it forever. On the other hand, this "school" is on enough watchlists that any modification to it will not go unnoticed for more than a couple hours on the outside. It's aggravating, it pisses us off that we need to even deal with it, but in all reality, this guy invests far more time in trying to circumvent the system (and with less success) than we do in containing him. Trusilver 02:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye, exactly that. We should not be too wary of reaching for the protect button if sockpuppetry levels increase, but otherwise there's not much needs doing; it tends to go in waves every few months, presumably this is tied to a periodic Google sweep by Martin - I have been in contact with a few other site admins and they get the same from him. What really gets the old spidey-senses tingling is his claim of "recognition" from dozens of legitimate institutions based on his "graduates" having managed to transfer to those places. We know from extensive documentation that fact-checking even by top universities can be lax, there have been full professors at mainstream colleges whose degrees turn out to have been bought from degree mills. There is only one form of recognition that matters in post-secondary education: accreditation. The sheer volume of words expended by Bircham in trying to get around that (for them) inconvenient fact is what persuades me that the sources are probably right. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban needs tweaking

Frankly, I don't like interaction/topic bans very much. I think they generally create more problems than they solve, and one particularly flawed one has come to my attention. There is a ban listed here that came out of a discussion here at ANI last month that restricts three users, Mbz1, Gilisa, and Factomancer from interacting with one another. In the right hand column a huge loophole is detailed. These three are to ignore each other except if they think one of the others needs to get in trouble, then there is a complex set of procedures they have to follow to report one of the other two. I think the community made a mistake in adding these provisions. The ban is supposed to prevent these users from stirring up trouble with one another, but this loophole actually encourages them to look for opportunities to create more drama. I propose that this "reporting mechanism" be removed from the ban and that the users be instructed to ignore one another, period, full stop, no exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the rules are silly, and IMO the ban is not working as it should. The ban was supposed to prevent the community from the disruption by constant fights at AN/I, but as the events of the last few days have shown, the effect is just the opposite. Although I have never violated neither the ban itself nor the rules, I feel myself like an informer in the worst meaning of that word, and I'm ashamed of myself for following those rules and doing that. I am asking the community that the ban is lifted from all three of us. I promise voluntarily to stay away from the user no matter what the user does to me, and not under any circumstances report the user to AN/I (I have never done anyway). I was reported to AN/I quite a few times. I promise to do my best that it will not happen again, or at least happen much more seldom :) I mean I promise never again to write "Drork was right" in my edit summary :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

*It's worth noting that I have now blocked Mbz1 for violating the ban yet again with this edit . The restriction clearly prohibits commenting on one another's talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC) actually I misread it, ignore that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

At first, Beeblebrox's idea seemed strange to me, but now I see the logic of it. We would literally be preventing all complaints by these users about one another, per any channel. If they consider this poses a handicap to their participation in Misplaced Pages, they have the option of not editing here. Of course, if they can choose articles to work on that are unlikely to be visited by any of the others, then they should not be inconvenienced by this restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make things easier here, here are the details of the reporting mechanism: "If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Misplaced Pages policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." I've never seen such an elaborate scheme in an interaction ban before. The main text of the ban says it's to be "broadly interpreted" and this provision seems to directly contradict that, and to actually encourage stalking and wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That language was written by me; it's a close or direct copy of an interaction ban from mid last year-ish that I wrote, after discussion on ANI and elsewhere, for other users. Let's see... the Koalorka / Theserialcomma interaction ban from Aug 22 2009 and on - . It seemed to be well liked at that time as a reasonable balance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and indeed at the time there was support for this, and I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, it just hasn't worked out very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the next appropriate step IMHO would probably be indeffing people, not changing the restriction; but that's up to the community. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem to be blocked indf if I violate the terms of the ban. But I do have problems with totaly erroneous enforcment. And the talks about the ban "spirit" replacing the ban "letters" are actually an open door to block without a case.--Gilisa (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Yes, this makes eminent sense. I have watched this interaction ban work out horribly, just become an attempt at "gotcha!" while it creates more and more drama. Beeblebrox is right-on. Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Expand Actually perhaps lifting the ban altogether would be best per Mbz1. I think both users have learned their lesson here. Mbz1 has made a commitment, now if Factomancer would make a similar commitment I think this thing will go away. Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to make nearly any commitment to make this distracting ban go away, but I doubt that is going to happen. Factomancer (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Anything that reduces the WikiDrama in this editing area is a Good Thing. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Otherwise, one of them may violate seriously and get away with it, with the others unable to point it out without being sanctioned themselves. If the users can't abide by the terms as written, the next logical step is an outright ban, rather than removing their ability to point out violations. The intermediate step is asymmetrically unfair. I agree the situation is approaching or at the next step level, but this proposal isn't the right next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• oppose considering the problems already existing with the enforcment of this ban (which to me seem as bad idea from the begining)removing the reporting mechanism will only make it just worse, of course. --Gilisa (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support in that it would stop any encouragement for one party to follow the other around looking for violations. --SGGH 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment to SGGH: And you assume that reports of violations from other editors who are not banned will not come?--Gilisa (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of an interaction ban is to reduce drama, clearly that goal has not been achieved. Most of us can see for ourselves when it is in everyone's best interest to walk away from a user or a situation, but you three don't seem to be able to do that on your own, hence this restriction. This is the central point here, and I know you're sick of me but I'm going to try one more time to clarify this. You should just ignore Factomancer, and they should ignore the two of you. Try and follow the spirit of the ban as opposed to the letter of it, and everyone, including you, will be happier on the long run. If one of you is doing something that is really so bad as to merit blocking, it will be noticed by somebody. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense. The reporting mechanism was a very bad idea to begin with, given that it encouraged each party to inform on each other. Factomancer (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per Factomancer (with the word "apparently" in front of "encouraged"). --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as I have stated earlier about this interaction ban: "the way I understood it (silly me); was that an interaction ban should force people to move on...it wasn´t meant to give people a cause, or inspiration, for spending day after day, collecting diff after diff, posting on admin after admin, ..for a block." And, IMO, one should also consider applying such a full interaction ban on more editors in the I/P-area. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan B

Maybe George is right, and it's time to up the ante. What if we leave the ban conditions as they are now, but instead of a slowly escalating series of blocks, any of the three who can be shown to have violated the ban gets an indef block. If this thing actually had some teeth it would have a better chance of curbing the problem. The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue be eliminating themselves from the equation. In the interest of keeping this conversation on point I will go on record right now in recusing myself from any further blocks based on these conditions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Along these lines - the whole point of this was really to point out to those involved that the community has communally run out of patience with all of this mess, both sides of it. In general it would seem like the message was not received.

We can only warn so many times. The question is zero more warnings, one more warning, or N (very small) more warnings. Beeblebrox is proposing zero more; I agree that that's within reason given the situation. Perhaps two more and a six month block is the least strict next step I think I'd agree is reasonable. Some solution bounded by those two limits seems about right. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero more warnings - It really is time to try to put a stop to all this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No more warnings - Agree with BMK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Ugh, I didn't want to be drawn into this discussion, and I'm supposed to be on a Wiki-break, but this proposal would mean one of us would be indeffed for sure. Given that we are active in similar topic areas, it's very, very easy to accidentally trigger the interaction ban without thinking, particularly considering that the ban is to be "construed broadly" and one of the ban conditions is reverting an edit with no time-limit, which essentially means that we have to check the origin of all material in an article before editing it to be 100% sure that we aren't violating the ban; even the writer of the ban has admitted that that condition is an onerous burden.

"The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue"? Only if it's me. Is that the assumption here? Because I don't really feel I deserve to be indeffed quite yet. And if not, then let's be honest and discuss that.

To be frank, I think this ban has been a disaster and has encouraged interaction, of the "informing" nature, not discouraged it. A simple ban on reporting parties to noticeboards would have had a much better outcome because that was 99% of the original problem. Factomancer (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we agree that the ban has been a disaster, that's something. It wouldn't have to be you that would get the indef, I only meant that the first one of you to violate again would get the banhammer, although I suppose it's possible that one of the other two would get it and then one or the other of the remaining users would be foolish enough to follow suit. Of course the more desirable result would be for the three of you to take this seriously and just follow the ban to the letter and not make any edit that even comes close to maybe possibly violating the ban, ending the need for any more blocks or other drama. Simply ending this cycle of drama is my only concern here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Give plan A a chance to work first, at least. --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support zero warnings toward me only--Mbz1 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose Plan A and B and also Mbz fetish for getting the third degree, though I might understand wanting to get forced to take a break. The interaction ban was interesting, but simply detracting from editing the encyclopedia. I would suggest a simple extended topic ban on all and hope the time off does it's usual work. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Institute of AfD needs protection

The decision of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was to merge the content of that article into 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Not to delete. Not to keep. But to merge. It was a heated debate with many dissenting views but those who "lost" are now trying to ignore the decision made at the AfD and to simply agree on the same day on the talk page that it would be the best to just delete it instead. But just like with close result elections, those who lost can assemble a crowd but it doesn't mean that they have that narrow majority that the other side has (look at Italy, many huge protests involving millions of people but then the same ruling party wins again).

Is it clear that the AfD serves zero, none, nada, no purpose if the hard made decisions over there are ignored and exactly opposite moves are taken? AfD decision is to merge and we delete. Tomorrow AfD decision will be to delete and these users will keep on recreating deleted articles.

User:Jack Merridew who strongly disagrees with including this content wrote on a talk page "I've removed this silliness." as if it was his call, if he has more authority then AfD where admins closed the discussion and made a decision based on dozens and dozens of votes, arguments, proposals, views. He also called the content he is removing - "shite", "ignorable" and "rote platitudes". Other dissenting users are not using insults so much, but are equally ignorant. Their posts "Agree with removal", "It's a pity that the AFD effectively forced the article to accept a mountain of off-topic material." or raising questions like "Is 106 citations for one death appropriate in any article?" on an article talk page right after the lengthy AfD was closed is simply mind-boggling. It's like going to a polling station day after the election if you don't like the results to cast your vote and while doing that you also consider that this "vote" of yours is somehow able to override whatever was decided in a serious process of elections yesterday.

On my part I tried to bring two sides together and put the content into collapsible template so if someone can't stand to see that content with their eyes they don't have to for as long as they don't click show. I think this is fair enough for all.

How can any dissenting users be above the AfD? If we were to ignore decisions made at appropriate places, then Misplaced Pages is about to descend to anarchy. So, Admins - hello! Please do something to protect basic institutions of Misplaced Pages. And please do it in a simple and quick manner without dragging this, otherwise anyone who disagrees with some decisions made all around Misplaced Pages will know that they can obstruct the whole project for some time with their nonsense and ignorance of the community and consensus.--Avala (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think this is the appropriate place to be discussing these issues. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the basic institutions on which Misplaced Pages is found on from disrespect is the first and foremost duty of admins. Of course you could propose a better place to discuss this as you haven't.--Avala (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, although the text is a bit long, the point is perfectly valid. If the outcome of AfD was to merge, it's no good pretending it was really to delete, but the admin was too polite to say it. If that is what is happening. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Merridew was the problem here, not the Afd process. He objects to the enitre genre, so decides to Afd the most high profile recent example, knowing full well it would end as nothing more than a train wreck. Then he weighs in with opinions as seen above, and that merge = 99.44% removal, as he and others edit war on an article linked from the Main Page because they can't act like adults and respect the outcome of the Afd, or send it to Drv. MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And the edit war continues. What has to happen here before someone will fully protect this Main Page linked article? MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir yes sir. Tan | 39 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And also, give Physchim62 a wrist slap for labelling one of those reverts as both a minor edit, and a vandalism revert. . MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And of course with the returning backhand, slap the people who have forgotten that Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD is not an "institute" that needs protecting. An AfD discussion has three possible outcomes: Keep, Delete, or No consensus (which defaults to keep). Administrators have IAR powers to suggest an alternative solution to the problem, but such solutions are constrained within the limits of any invocation of IAR, that is that they are in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) made a goos faith decision to suggest a merge "once the article has been sufficiently condensed". The suggestion to condense the subject matter has not been followed by the editors who wish to reinsert it the the main article: instead, they wish to add 74kB of wikitext in one go, disregarding many policies and guidelines and also the ongoing discussion on the article talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Read through my "date late on the elections" comment. This, or the article talk page, is not the place to make revisions of the AfD decisions.--Avala (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For information: I've listed the article at WP:DRV, which I think is the next step to take re this subject. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT...

Can someone inform Oriclan (talk · contribs) that these edits are inappropriate , & ? Perhaps a note about the angry POV-pushing would help as well? Or the banhammer would work... — Scientizzle 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

These are clearly legal threats to me. Aren't we still immediately blocking for that? There have been some discussions, so not sure what we're currently doing. — Satori Son 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously involved, but the combination of legal posturing, aggressive POV-pushing, and outright rude behavior doesn't bode well for the long-term prospects of this editor... — Scientizzle 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Vsmith (talk · contribs) blocked Oriclan. — Scientizzle 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana and Pinoy Big Brother

Can anyone intervene in this?

Over the past couple of days, Active Banana (talk · contribs) has been deliberately removing contestant data from Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010. Despite the information about them coming from the show's official website, he uses WP:OR and WP:BLP in deleting them wholesale without even listening to anyone that such data is valid. He is also doing the same with Melason. We have been putting up contestant data on Pinoy Big Brother and its related articles for many years, yet no one has taken issues with them until Active Banana stepped in. He seems arrogant with deleting the materials. Gogo Dodo has been alerted of this matter, but although he has yet to respond, other admins with experience on BLP issues can also join in the effort as well. Please help. thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Notified Active Banana: .--Unionhawk 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• I've intervened - by removing the material again. If this somewhat trivial information is indeed from a reliable source, then that source needs to be quoted, though I don't see why potted bios of non-notable people are needed in the article anyway, especially if they're verbatim from another place (WP:C). Some of the information is indeed slightly dubious per WP:BLP and I don't see how the article is improved by it anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". And per Black Kite, I have no further comment. Active Banana (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite, the profiles need to be sourced. I think this issue got escalated a little too far with all of the template warnings (WP:DTTR), messages, reports to WP:AIV, etc. without much discussion of the issue on the article talk page or friendly notes on user talk pages to open a discussion about the issue. I recommend that all parties step back for a moment, dial back the anger, and work out the issue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:92.17.229.215

I'm not sure what to make of this user's edits... does anyone else have an opinion? Do they seem... odd... to you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I should AGF, but it could be a banned user. There are some that tag their own sockpuppets. Aiken ♫ 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's another Wikinger (talk · contribs) sock. Any IP that turns up continuing these edits (including edit-warring against them!), if it comes from Poland, should be blocked for a short while; any IP from elsewhere should be blocked as an open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

79.191.237.90 (talk · contribs) was making edits to Wikinger sock pages and made a request on my talk page to remove copyvio notices from Wikinger's user talk page. This IP address geolocates to Poland. However, none of the edits really merit blocking, so what action should be taken? NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Block, revert, ignore. Everything this banned user does should be immediately reverted, no matter what. Except if by reverting it you would be reverting to yet another sock of his, as is often the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't block, because I am not a sysop. However, for any sysops here, I also found 79.191.252.254 (talk · contribs). Wikinger admitted to having a dynamic IP, so maybe we should consider a rangeblock. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Concern with IP's message

204.185.163.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made several nonsensical comments on several talk pages, but the IP's comment at Talk:Sesame Street (since reverted) concerned me a little. I was not sure what the proper venue for this was. If there is another place to post my concerns, please let me know. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI imo (I've done the "B" part), the threat doesn't seem credible. But if someone wants to report it to MOREnet staff, feel free. –xeno 18:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

MOREnet's contact page is here. Not sure what precedent has been with such comments on Misplaced Pages. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh. While I highly doubt the threat is credible, that's one of a series of abusive edits from that address over the past week. I sent them an email with that diff and a link to the contributions page that more-or-less said "hey, someone's dicking around on your network, just letting you know." Universities tend to be a little touchy when someone's doing that in such a way it can be easily tracked back to them. Hersfold 20:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable approach. Thank you! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

45g, Michaeldsuarez, and Snaisybelle

Can some interested admin or editor look into what is going on with these three editors? I received a comment from 45g that some Encyclopedia Dramatica fight has spilled onto Misplaced Pages. I don't visit ED and have no wish to be involved in anything to do with it, so I'm disinclined to go look into this any further. I know that ED issues have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, but like I said, it appears to be spilling onto Misplaced Pages. See all of the relevant conversations at:

• User talk:Gogo Dodo#Misplaced Pages admin vandalizing my page!
• 45g's talk page
• Snaisybelle's talk page
• Michaeldsuarez's talk page

Thanks to anybody willing to dive in. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First glance suggests that 45g has been rather abusive, and may have violated WP:NLT on Snaisybelle's talk page, to my eye. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet fights are so ridiculously moronic. What is this, 4th grade? If someone violated policy here then block them and ignore the rest. I'm quite sure that the last thing we need here is to add ED's drama to our own. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not specifically an ED issue, nor is it an internet fight. You may dislike ED but we follow the same processes as you, and this is a prolific vandal who has been banned on multiple occasions who has crossed the line into internet and too-close-to-my-doorstep-for-comfort stalking. He has made attack pages on me at wikipedia specifically as well as literally hundreds of off site issues. Whether he is banned or not is frankly beside the point as I am currently dealing with the matter through police and care workers. JUST GOT SERIOUS YO. Snaisybelle (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I call bullshit, else why do you still allow the user Paralel to edit? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's "Paralel", and how is that user relevant to this issue? In addition, what exactly are you calling "Bullshit"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the link to my talk page with a permalink, since User:45g recently blanked most of the discussion relevant to this issue. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued vandalism from user 216.115.123.69

This user has just vandalized again, after being blocked previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:216.115.123.69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.188.168 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: you'll normally get a faster response by reporting this sort of vandalism to WP:AIV. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account

Iceman444k (talk · contribs) claims that his account has been compromised and requested that it be blocked indefinitely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk page was improperly speedily deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• And although it is now a blue link, it has not been undeleted yet. Another editor has left a message on it. Could an admin please undelete? DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, this should be undeleted and redirected to the Talk page, as if it were a WP:RTV. Than should seem to make sense for what is essential an abandoned account. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll do it shortly. Rodhullandemu 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I added a BLP-Prod tag to an article the account created: Twinkle automatically notifies the creator. I will redirect the talk page. Or if it needs to be reverted to the version prior to the deletion feel free. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Sorted Rodhullandemu 00:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can see the talk page has not been undeleted, just redirected to the userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Any admins who can tell the difference between a userpage and a usertalk page? DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe you can't see the history, but as far as I'm concerned, I deleted the userpage and restored it without the two recent additions, then redirected it to the Talk page. That preserves the GFDL requirements as far as the User page is concerned. And any use should be able to tell the difference between a User page and a User Talk page; it just seems to be customary in these circumstances to do this. If this is a problem....? Rodhullandemu

• • No, it is customary to delete the userpage and keep the talk page. You restored exactly the wrong page. Please read WP:RTV. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, does anyone fancy restoring the talk page and re-deleting the incorrectly restored userpage? DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored User talk:Iceman444k. My first undeletion; hope I got it right. The userpage seems to still be deleted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looks fine to me. Another admin redeleted the userpage (which is also fine and DOES NOT NEED UNDELETING!) DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. Thanks for fixing my overreach. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought user pages weren't normally deleted unless the user requested vanishment. I have an account that I stopped using for various reasons ages ago, but I wouldn't want its userpage deleted. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Various IPs at Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell

Various IPs (likely a single editor and/or meat puppets) have been attempting to publicize claims made by a blog. They have certainly crossed the line into personal attacks on several occasions and edited against consensus as well. While the attacks on me are of no consequence personally, the newest IP has now graduated to baseless legal threats. This article is currently semi-protected, preventing further damage here (at least at the moment). I leave the issue here for consideration of the need for further action, if any. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An apparently related IP has been stopped by protection on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY 01:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes, marijuana/cannabis

SqueakBox (talk · contribs)

Am I missing something here, or is WP:REDIRECT in place to address precisely what SqueakBox is doing at the moment, changing every link to marijuana into Cannabis (drug) ? Tarc (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN, specifically. I don't get it either. Marijuana is more intuitive and probably more widely known than cannabis, making edits like this one seem odd. So what's the deal, SqueakBox?--Chaser (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, linking to this explanation would have been helpful to begin with. In any case, I can't see how this messes up Special:whatlinkshere. Squeakbox?--Chaser (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I saw his response as simply a direct refutation of the redirect guidelines, so I didn't think it was important at the time. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirects mess up what links here & also mess up urls (esp important in sharing). When I do basic routine maintenance/janitorial work i do not expect to be edit warred against & reported here (when he said he was reporting me here he also said . Tarc:"From past experience with you re: Virgin Killer, I don't have the stomach for interaction, honestly". This strikes me as bad faith. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Squeakbox, but interacting with you has been a most unpleasant experience over the years...with the Virgin Killer album eDrama and your repeated threats to go to ArbCom (which you never did) over the Wales co-founder issue...which is why I have avoided it for some time now. It is unfortunate that this recent trip of yours happened to come across a music page that I watchlist. We have content guidelines linked above that while not policy, reflect a broad consensus of the community. Your reasons for editing counter to that guideline really do not make sense. What does it matter in what link you "share" ? It all goes to the same article. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Happy 4/20? I think that "marijuana" in general is ideal when one is talking about "that leafy green thing one might roll in thin paper and smoke"; cannabis could also refer to hashish, or any number of other preparations of the drug. Mass changes without regard to context seem inappropriate. That being said, I don't think WP:R2D quite covers this because SqueakBox is also changing the displayed text. Has this been discussed anywhere (such as WT:420?) –xeno 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I felt this was more of a general-interest concern over a style guideline rather than something for a wiki-project. And as far as displayed text goes, I believe this user has only done that twice in response to reverts; one of my own at Alice in Chains and one of MZMcbride's at Blow (film). A random sample of other edits... Scooby-Doo, Green Day, Muta...shows' it i just a straight change to ]. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's little need to replace ] with ]; the former is a redirect to the latter. In fact, in the example above, this edit to Blow (film) is probably unwarranted for the fact that it's an American film and (though I haven't seen it) quite probably refers to the product as marijuana and not cannabis. Since they're basically synonymous (not totally), the use of one term or the other should be guided by the the article topic/content & direct usage of of either term in the topic's real-world sphere of influence. Academic treatments of the drug are probably better aimed towards Cannabis, but many colloquial uses in articles (e.g., Feel Good Hit of the Summer) would be degraded by a replacement...In essence, I don't see a mass replacement to be of much benefit and it has the potential to cause some content confusion. — Scientizzle 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support using "cannabis" (the scientific name for the drug) rather than the nickname "marijuana" as I believe the former to be more encyclopedic. I say this without having looked in detail about the edits SB is making. --John (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the 'scientific name for the drug' isn't simply cannabis. In fact, if you go to PubMed, "cannabis" will return 12344 research articles and "marijuana" 15047. Since "marijuana" is a specific preparation of cannabis, and is associated with specific cultural identities, movements, and uses, there are valid arguments to use that term instead of cannabis in particular articles. In my example immediately above, the term "marijuana" is used specifically in the song. Replacing it with "cannabis" would degrade the information within the article (in a very minor way, mind you, but non-zero). — Scientizzle 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Marijuana", besides not being the scientific name, is rather US-centric. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to John/DuncanHill: how then, does one distinguish among the different preparations of cannabis? –xeno 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is straying a bit far from the point here regarding one user making mass changes contrary to guidelines. But if we really need to get into that, I'd reply that we're writing a general-interest encyclopedia here, not a technical or scientific journal. Would we replace all instances of "cat" and dog" with "feline" and "canine" ? Tarc (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's inappropriate to do these mass changes for the basic reason that "marijuana" may be arguably a more appropriate term for a given article. Redirects do not, as far as I can tell, "mess up" Special:WhatLinksHere. Any of these changes should be made on a case-by-case basis. — Scientizzle 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to clearly distinguish between the language our articles use and the links we emplace into articles. Here's a nice analogy for those who see nothing wrong with using marijuana rather than marijuana or (better) cannabis; what about booze versus booze versus alcohol? I am sure we can think of other examples. I may be at an extreme end of this argument, but I don't think there should be any links to "marijuana", and I don't think we should even use the word except in quotes or other very special cases, any more than we should call it "boo", "shit" or any of its other many nicknames. As an encyclopedia for grown-ups we should use the grown-up word for it. --John (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a "grown-up" who does academic research in neuropharmacology and drug addiction, I can assure you that "grown-ups" who study the effects of cannabis & cannabinoids commonly use the term "marijuana" in scientific publications (as I noted above--check out PubMed). The term may have slang roots, but it's hardly equivalent to modern street slang. To turn your "booze" analogy around, I hope you wouldn't propose changing all alcohol-related links to ethanol...that's the "grown-up" term, you know. — Scientizzle 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

@John, again, if we use "cannabis", how do we distinguish among the different preparations? –xeno 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Much as I despise WP:R2D, this is exactly what it's in place to prevent. Changing links from "marijuana" to cannabis en-masse is disruptive and unnecessary. The former is more commonly use in North America, whereas the latter is more common in the UK and Europe and as for the "grown-up word" argument, if we were dispensing with "grown up words", we'd have to change all the links to "weed". Essentially, I think it's another one of those national variations of English and should only be changed where there are strong national ties. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing for getting rid of the proper scientific term but for encouraging it. Xeno, we can easily distinguish between the different forms of the drug where necessary by using the words for then, eg hashish. In most cases this probably won't be necessary. Scientizzle, the ethanol article is a general one on the chemical substance so alcoholic beverage is definitely the one. Like I say, this might not lend itself to a general answer but we do need to be thoughtful not just about what word we use but about what we link to. --John (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And what word should we use for the leafy-green preparation of the drug? –xeno 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not ready for consumption? Risker (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest herbal cannabis on first mention. --John (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Who ever calls it "herbal cannabis"? Are we looking to confuse our readers? 66,700 hits for "herbal cannabis" versus 23 million for marijuana . That being said, I think this probably should be discussed at WT:MOS or something. We're straying off topic. –xeno 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is how Misplaced Pages observes 4/20, with a pointless edit war over redirects versus pipe links to cannabis/marijuana/weed. (Boy, some people know how to have a good time!) First, stop fixing links that aren't broken, especially en masse. Second, discuss this somewhere, but not here. Third, um, what was I saying? Jonathunder (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui

Causa sui (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

In a Nutshell: Sysop Causa sui abused his sysop tools, and says he would do it again. He also refuses to edit in accord with consensus. Two other sysops involved in this matter indicated that an AN/I would be the appropriate place to address his behavior.

As background, he was heavily involved in editing an article. He was criticized by a number of editors for edit warring and failing to follow consensus, and he responded by threatening to use his sysop powers in the article dispute. He was apprised of WP:INVOLVED.

He ultimately deleted clearly relevant, RS-supported text from the article. The text indicated that the article subject had been accused by a U.S. official of "working actively to kill Americans". He deleted it with the unhelpful edit summary: "Trim". I criticized him for this on the article talk page. Causa responded by using his sysop powers to block me.

In lifting the block, Sysop Jac16888 wrote: "Causa sui is clearly not an uninvolved party here, and this block is highly inappropriate regardless of the circumstances." Sysop Xeno had similar and additional criticisms, as did the broad consensus of editors commenting below the block.. Causa was somewhat short of contrite, and somewhat less than sensitive to the consensus criticism of his actions, replying: "what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances."

I recommend that Causa be censured, and that he undertake to uphold WP:INVOLVED and respect consensus in the future.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The block does seem inappropriate, and I would second the suggestion that Causa Sui disengage from using his admin tools in this content dispute. Although Causa Sui has since said he's willing to discuss it and reverted his removal, he's since removed the information again, which seems odd (unless I'm missing something). There seems to be agreement, at least on the talkpage, that the action was inappropriate; despite further discussions that indicate Causa's interpretation of BLP is considered doubtful, Causa Sui has since said he'd do it again. I think it's obvious Causa Sui needs to stop using his admin tools here and also receive a rather large troutslap; beyond that, consensus forming on his interpretation of BLP would certainly be helpful in resolving the wider dispute. Ironholds (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if this were a gross BLP violation, which it does not appear to be, an admin who is so deeply involved should not be placing blocks. Causa_sui has made 75 edits to Anwar_al-Awlaki, and another 75 edits to talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki in the past two weeks. He placed a block template on user:Epeefleche's talk page saying that he had been blocked for vandalism, which is sloppy and misleading. The edit that Epeefleche lists as the cause of the block appears to follow the source very closely. It cites a Washington Post article that says, "He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." Epeefleche wrote "According to an unnamed U.S. official al-Awlaki is "working actively to kill Americans", ... I don't even see how that's a BLP violation, much less one that requires an immediate block. In addition to blocking Epeefleche, Causa Sui also unilaterally topic banned him from the article for two weeks. This all seems inappropriate and I look forward to reading Causa Sui's explanation. Causa Sui may be in need of a topic ban himself.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• If only Causa sui had agreed that perhaps it would have been best to recuse in this case and similar future instances, this thread would not have been necessary. Other than the thing from 2005 (when protection was still in the "blocking policy"!); this appears to be a very isolated incident so hopefully no action is required except some clarification to Causa sui about appropriate recusal. As I commented to them, despite the mixed messages being delivered via "Exceptional circumstances", there are hundreds of active admins, so should recuse to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. If feel further administrative action is required, post to ANI and see where the chips fall. As for Epeefleche's request to amend the block log, I see no reason to annote further than the matter-of-fact statement by Jac16888 ("Inappropriate block"); which, along with a pointer to this ANI, should be enough to exonerate Epeefleche from this block if any questions arise in the future. –xeno 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is not any breach of WP:BLP here, from what I see. This appears to be a case of a content dispute which Casa poorly handled. A flimsy excuse to block someone who happens to disagree with him and challenge his 'authority', his actions were totally inappropriate. I understand but disagree with Xeno that we should allow this 'isolated incident' to pass because of Causa's record. Whatever the right or wrong of the edits by Epeefleche, I find Causa's action to have been premeditated, flagrant and deliberate, and in violation of WP:ADMIN, in particular WP:UNINVOLVED. His explanations and justifications so far are less than convincing. Such an abusive admin act, such bullying, is inexcusable and ought to be made an example of. His unrepentant stance in itself suggests that Causa should take a break from editing the article in question, as doing so seems to be seriously affecting his judgement. Issuing block threats on the article talk page was NOT appropriate – because of the nature – and already in violation of WP:ADMIN. Actioning it himself, without a formal warning on the user's talk page, is an even greater fault. I would say that an unreserved apology is due; a one month recusal from, or ban on editing, the Awlaki article would not, in my view, be inappropriate. Ohconfucius 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The admin in question has been here almost 5 years, and should know better than to block someone with whom he's in a dispute. Even in the worst case, a blatant and gross policy violation, he should get an uninvolved admin to review the situation and take action (or not) as needed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If there was the slightest sense that an apology to the wrongly blocked user was in the air, I might be inclined towards taking no substantive action. But there is no such sense; rather, an attempt at self-justification. This will disappoint all who want the good reputation of admins to be maintained. Tony (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the gist of what he's saying is that he is right and everyone else is wrong, and Arbcom says so to so there. DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. At this point, I'm trying to explain my confusion over this matter since mixed messages in policy and Arbcom rulings seem to justify what I did. In my opinion, what I did was right, yes -- but I'm willing to change that opinion, if someone would explain to me why it is wrong beyond finger-wagging. A lot of energy is being expended on the least productive topics possible here. Having a conversation about why the BLP policy page is wrong to authorize administrators to use sysop tools to enforce the policy in articles they are involved in editing would be productive. Can we do that? --causa sui (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed all the editors above suggesting that you weren't enforcing BLP policy, and that the material did not qualify for your gung-ho approach. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says they may; but I think that was written in there for clear-cut emergency situations where removal is necessary. Where there is a dispute between yourself and other users over what is BLP-problematic, I think you would do well to recuse and report for other administrators. –xeno 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

causa sui's reply

Hi all. I want to say right out that I don't intend to use sysop tools on this article in the future. I find xeno (talk · contribs)'s reasoning sound: Given the number of eyes we have on this article now, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it would be better to let other sysops moderate this dispute (which I think, as far as actual article content goes, is winding down anyway). I think the confusion is a result of some mixed messages being delivered between the WP:BLP and WP:INVOLVED policy pages and Arbcom rulings. I made an earlier reply to Epeefleche (talk · contribs)'s talk page, which I've largely reproduced below, but I made some changes to fit the updated circumstances.

Now, to the policy as it stands: My understanding of the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy is that users who repeatedly re-introduce contentious and poorly sourced material into biographies of living persons are to be blocked.

Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that non-compliant material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages in accordance with theprotection policy. Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption; see the blocking policy.

Further, the burden of proof is on those restoring the content to win consensus that it does not contravene the BLP policy. Note well that the question is not whether the material is actually BLP compliant, but whether the users restoring the content have won consensus on the talk page that it should be restored (my emphasis):

In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding, restoring, or undeleting material about living persons must ensure it meets all Misplaced Pages's content policies and guidelines. If material that was previously removed or deleted is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Most importantly, administrators may enforce the provisions of the BLP policy by any means necessary, even if they are involved in editing the article (my emphasis):

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should bring the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Now, we can have an honest debate about whether the policy should be this way. But in point of fact, it is this way. We usually do expect administrators who are involved in content disputes not to use their admin powers to advance their own positions in the disputes, but both the blocking policy and the BLP policy unambiguously state that this expectation does not apply when the content dispute is about potentially libelous or defamatory information about a living person.

That was the case here: the article was riddled with poorly sourced information that the user in question seemed determined to restore without discussion no matter how many times we took it out. The relevant policies are again unambiguous about what should be done here: the content should be removed and the user should be blocked immediately. If this is a test case that shows the BLP page is in error, then we should amend the policy.

Also, consider the following recent ArbCom ruling . Some interesting findings:

That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included...That Misplaced Pages, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment...That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The user was then commended for cutting through the red tape (and even objections of other editors) to get BLP-noncompliant content out of the project:

The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

Much more extreme than anything I'm accused of here; this was a case of not only blocks following edit warring over BLP-related issues, but actual wheel warring. It seems quite clear that we are to handle BLP problems with urgency and not wait for discussion or procedures before getting dubious content out, and arbcom has ruled that use of sysop tools to interfere with BLP cleanup is the incorrect behavior. If my understanding of this is wrong, I'm open to having my mind changed in honest discussion; but there are a lot of mixed messages being delivered here. --causa sui (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Will you undertake, in any article in which you have significantly edited, to seek the help of other admins (we do exist, you know) to enforce such policies rather than doing it all yourself? (there are big hints in that question to show that I am really hoping for a "yes" answer).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the answer is yes, though I believe it's my duty to inform you that that's mostly motivated by a desire for self-preservation rather than ideological agreement. Note that prior to blocking Epeefleche (talk · contribs), I had made a post on the BLP/N page, which attracted some attention in favor of my cause, but not the interest of any uninvolved administrators. I would be much more satisfied, and I think you should be too, if we could have open discussion about whetherWP:INVOLVED applies in cases where a user is persistently re-introducing poorly sourced contentious material to a BLP and the administrator has failed to attract attention of neutral admins on the BLP noticeboard. It remains my opinion that ArbCom was absolutely right to exculpate an administrator who cut through the rules to get BLP-problematic content out of the project and I think the precedent it set is perfectly appropriate and applies to this case as well. We really ought to set about changing my opinion on that matter if we want to get final resolution to this, and I'm fully open to having it changed. --causa sui (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would have thought it obvious that WP:UNINVOLVED is there to minimise potential conflicts of interest, even if it was not explicitly declared, which it is. By simultaneously editing and acting, you are by definition wearing two hats at once. Therefore in conflict. I would say that I would probably not cite an unattributed comment which appeared in a RS, but there is inherently nothing non-compliant with BLP - the comment in question was not libellous, although it may be disputed. Ohconfucius 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N is for soliciting editorial voices about the disputed content. Use ANI to solicit uninvolved administrators when you feel a block or other administrative act is necessary. And if none act, perhaps the action was not warranted in the first place? –xeno 15:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see-- that was a misunderstanding on my part then. We still aren't addressing the substantive issue here. --causa sui (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about your involved action and whether it was warranted. The substantive issues do demand treatment, but probably at WP:VPP. –xeno 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, maybe we should start a thread over there then. I can't say I'll be the one to do it though, since I think the policy is as it should be, but I will participate in policy-amendment discussion if someone begins it. --causa sui (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As do I, I just think you're misinterpreting it beyond what it permits. –xeno 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please start a thread then, because the vagueness badly needs to be cleared up. --causa sui (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Causa sui: the information is clearly sourced to an article by the New York Times. Is that somehow an unreliable source now? Yes, admins have discretion to enforce WP:BLP until someone says otherwise. But at the same time, your interpretation of WP:BLP is so far off it's at ED. Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  The problem with the content wasn't that it was attributed to unreliable sources, but that the statements in the article often ran well above and beyond what the sources actually said. Bringing the content of the article into alignment with what the sources actually say was the #1 issue in this BLP dispute. If you would like to discuss any of my particular opinions about the content of the article, that should probably go on Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki. --causa sui (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  No, the particular bit under dispute here (the Unnamed American Offical (tm)) was perfectly referenced, and didn't in any way go above the source. Ironholds (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  OK, I suggest we allow time for people to vent, but at this point, I wonder how much more we have to do here. We aren't desysoping Cs, he's promised to bring other people in, in similar situations, and the content matters can be argued elsewhere. Self preservation is as good a motive as any, it is how society works. But there's no more administrative action called for.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed. –xeno 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  Having followed this for a while, I agree with this too. It seems the original edit was well sourced, so this BLP provision did not apply, and this just got a bit out of hand. Given the almost universal agreement for this (apart from Cs), I suggest an apology for the stress this action caused the editor might also be helpful, while Cs considers the reasons for the majority view. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  As for the reasons for the majority view, what reasons? I haven't been presented with any, and the principled refusal of everyone involved here to even have a substantive discussion on policy content and interpretation, as I've repeatedly invited everyone to do, is quite frustrating. I would love to consider the reasons you guys disagree with my interpretation of policy, as I outlined above. Can we please have that conversation? Pretty please? --causa sui (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  Given the weight of evidence from independent admins, you may like to have the discussion after you have apologised for the stress you have caused Epeefleche. Your inability to understand the reasons is not, in my mind, a reason for failing to reduce the level of ongoing friction. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

@Causa, Notwithstanding the fact that it appears no one else agrees with you that there was a blockable BLP violation here, it is clearly explained at WP:INVOLVED: "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." There was no pressing need here for you to take action. –xeno 17:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to this. The WP:INVOLVED policy is definitely contradictory with the BLP policy and the Arbcom decisions that I quoted above. It should be amended to be more internally consistent -- in my opinion, the bit you quoted should be re-factored or removed from the WP:INVOLVED policy, though the result of a wider discussion could well swing the other way, and I would respect that decision if it did. Considerations of 'best practice' fall into the category of recommendations or wisdom rather than compulsion or obligation, and so if this bit is the part that I've run over, the high-volume reaction to this seems to be out of line with what the policy requires. If I incorrectly perceived BLP problems where there weren't any, that should have been handled via the talk page rather than bald reverting. --causa sui (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong, don't you? –xeno 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As an assessment of my personality, I wouldn't say so -- though I doubt many people would admit that about themselves. Really, I don't want you to give up so easily. :-) I have my opinions, and I'm really struggling to understand how they aren't right. --causa sui (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can say. Several users called into question your interpretation of BLP and whether BLP was being violated with content you were removing. Another user restored this (apparently well-sourced) content. Though heavily involved, you blocked that user. This was a bad block. You should apologize, and recuse in future. You can juggle policy all you want, but essentially you've made a bad call, even in light of the policy. As I've commented several times, this does not appear to be a pattern for you, and all you need to do is admit that you might have not thought this through, apologize, and be on with your life. No need to dig your heels in! We're all human, and administrators are not expected to be perfect. –xeno 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think everyone has a result they're happy with since I've agreed to stop using sysop tools with respect to Anwar al-Awlaki. I don't want to dig in my heels or be defensive; I really, honestly, just don't understand the other viewpoint. Maybe with some distance and reflection I'll be able to understand your point of view in time. So unless others decide to escalate, I'll consider the matter resolved. Thanks for trying, anyway -- I know we still disagree about this, but everyone here is really trying to do the right thing. --causa sui (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we're also hoping you will recuse in similar future situations, not just on Anwar al-Awlaki. With over 800 active admins, there is no need to be a lone ranger. Report to ANI instead of (or at the very least, before) taking administrative actions on an article with which you are heavily involved in a dispute with other users. –xeno 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Causa sui, this thread is about your behaviour as an admin. It isn't the venue for a policy discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm responding to Stephen B Streater's suggestion that I apologize, which I can't do in good conscience without an understanding of where my understanding of policy went wrong. Pending that, I'm inclined to agree with Wehwalt and say that no further progress can be made here and we should move on. --causa sui (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to be let off the hook that easily. A bit of grovelling would not be amiss right now, methinks. Ohconfucius 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If by "grovel" you mean "lie", I see no call for that. He made a mistake. He is also an admin of long service to the project. He is not losing the bits over this. I think he's gotten the message that proceeding in this way is not worth the consequent hassle.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems Causa sui did genuinely think it was the right thing to do, based on all the policy stuff he has cited above, and he is honestly surprised that other folks are disagreeing with him. I think if he could just acknowledge that Epee is upset because he genuinely didn't see he was doing anything that warranted a block, so the position is the same on both sides, that's all that can be called for really.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: there is no disagreement about the policy per se, or its interpretation. Causa sui appears to have overlooked the point xeno makes above that using BLP as a reason to overcome WP:INVOLVED requires some kind of pressing need, which seems not necessarily to have been evident. This is mitigated by his use of WP:BLPN to seek involvement from others - though, as noted, that's more for editorial involvement and he should have come to ANI. On the factual point, it seems people generally disagree with Causa sui's interpretation of whether there was actually a BLP issue arising from the facts. Mistakes were made, and it would be nice if Causa apologised to Epeefleche (if he hasn't already), but really, this seems about all there is to it. No policy issues really arise - just a reminder to be cautious about INVOLVED, and to remember that BLP issues can be in the eye of the beholder. Also, a reminder to everyone concerned that the talk page should be used appropriately, and especially where BLP issues arise that may mean leaving content out while it's under discussion. Perhaps we can get out a pen now to draw a line under this? Rd232 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Causa sui)

• Comment - Well, I for one disagree that a highly charged and otherwise slanderous statement about a person can be considered "well-sourced" when it is attributed to "unnamed sources". It doesn't matter who published such allegations, it is indeed an unattributed statement, and an encyclopedia should not be repeating it point-blank, the way that it has been in this article; in particular, the selection of the "killing Americans" allegation is unnecessarily sensationalistic, and we already know that extraordinary facts require extraordinary verification. I think Causa sui would have benefitted from seeking other parties to examine this situation, but the foundation on which he based his actions is quite correct. Risker (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Risker beat me to it. Whilst I wouldn't have blocked Epeefleche myself in such a situation, the removal of such a vaguely sourced contentious sentence in a BLP was quite correct. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • This may indeed be the case, and I actually encouraged causa sui to continue "striving for balance and compliance with BLP on the article" but suggested he "do so as an editor". To avoid even the appearance of impropriety on the part of administrators, it is important that we have checks and balances on things like this. –xeno 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, Xeno, we now have a situation where there is indeed at least one (and probably more) BLP violation in this article (repeated in both the lead and the body), and it has been repeatedly placed there by multiple editors, who claim that consensus trumps hardline policies. I hate to say it, but this is exactly WHY administrators have a wide range of tools. Repeated insertion of BLP-violating content is grounds for a block, particularly after multiple warnings. So now, can we have some admins step up to the plate and actually enforce this policy through use of persuasion, warning, editing and/or sanction? That unattributed allegation needs to come out, as does any other unattributed allegation present in the text. Risker (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
        • No, Risker. You’re argument seems to be predicated that the wisdom of admins is flawless and that justifies their doing whatever they please. Causa sui’s actions were baseless and contravened many, many guidelines and policies. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
        • @Risker, you have the exact same tools that I do, and more (along with the added deference given to a sitting arbitrator). Please take what actions you see fit, or initiate a separate ANI thread seeking administrators to take action. –xeno 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I have not looked into this content matter (that's what the BLP question is - it is a content policy), but if consensus among reasonable good faith editors is that a particular statement is not a BLP violation then any administrator who thinks otherwise should not be unilaterally using tools to enforce his / her position. There are plenty of avenues to resolve this kind of dispute without unilateral recourse to tools. If it's truly a BLP violation despite a local consensus to the contrary then bringing it to BLP/N or RfC should resolve the matter. But if the community as a whole decides there is no BLP violation then that is the policy outcome, not a single editor's opinion to the contrary. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Now that I've looked into it, I see a minor technical BLP violation. Repeating an unreliable source by saying "according to X, Y is true" is asserting an unreliable thing. The correct way to say it is that "X said that Y", and that would have to pass relevancy and weight concerns. In this case, if the belief of the unnamed source that he is "working actively to kill Americans" is related to the kill-order then it's probably relevant; if it's just the opinion of a random government official or something the government is leaking to influence public opinion, it is not. In any event, it does not serve the purpose of BLP policy to enforce it here - we are not avoiding harm or avoiding litigation here. The person is already the subject of a death order, and nobody could be sued over this. This not being the place to discuss policy, what it boils down to is that if there is a BLP violation it is neither severe nor urgent enough to justify IAR-type administrative action. I would work it out as a content matter on the article talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have no problem with an admin getting wound up in an editwar and making an unjustified block; Epeefleche’s block was reversed soon enough. The deeply troubling issue here is Causa sui’s persistent and continued insistence that what he did was absolutely right, and … would do it again.

  The text Epeefleche insisted on restoring into the article was a quote from a U.S. government official that Al-Awlaki is actively trying to kill Americans and is cited to this article in The Washington Post. It is a critical bit of germane and encyclopedic information necessary for the reader to appreciate the unprecedented move by the U.S. government for targeting one of its own citizens for direct military action. Causa sui had been deleting that text and Epeefleche had been restoring it. The last time Causa sui deleted it, his edit summary was “(trim)” so it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Causa sui was really alarmed by the inclusion of “poorly sourced”, “defamatory” material. This was simply a case where Causa sui was being frustrated from getting his way on the article, and simply wanted to add more exculpatory information without another editor adding text such as the U.S. government’s basis for their unprecedented move.

  Causa sui, who was clearly an involved admin here and was biased beyond all reason. He 1) Blocked Epeefleche for two days, 2) Provided no explanation for his block as absolutely required by clear policies Causa sui had to have known about, 3) Left a block tag where the words “abuse of editing privileges” linked to WP:Vandalism, which wasn’t the case here by any stretch of the imagination, 4) Left a threatening note on Epeefleche telling him to consider himself topic banned from that article for two weeks as Causa sui busied himself to do as he pleased on that article with impunity, 5) At the same time, announced that he was perfectly free precisely as he pleased and didn’t have to consider other editors because he wrote “I am not interested in discussing this matter with you (or anyone else) on this page anymore”, and 6) refuses to take advise from other admins who are trying to bring him to reason here.

  It is obvious to me that this is just a matter of a regular editor who ran afoul in a “contempt-of-cop” situation with an admin. What is unique about this one is that Causa sui’s position is baseless, he flouted clear rules of conduct in his block, continues to insist he is absolutely right, and insists he’d do it again.

  I truly honestly think Causa sui is incapable of serving as an admin to the betterment of Misplaced Pages. I truly think the project would be better off if he is de-sysoped. And, regardless if he is de-sysoped or not, his persistent bias and editwarring on terrorism-related articles indicates to me that the best way to ensure harmony in a collaborative writing environment is for Causa sui to be topic banned for six months. Epeefleche’s writing on terrorism-related articles may be far from perfect, but another editor and I have had zero (zilch) problems coming in afterwards and cleaning it up to make it more balanced and encyclopedic. Greg L (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm obviously not saying that this is the case here, but you seem to be insinuating that any reliable media source could print absolutely anything, credit it to an "unnamed official of X government", and we'd take that as a reliable source to repeat something that could effectively be slanderous? I think not. Unidentified anonymous sources aer not reliable for such quotes, regardless how reliable the source is that they're quoted in. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think that Causa had effectively moved the spotlight from the purpose of this AN/I. Which is his misbehavior. To a policy discussion that is a red herring. "Admin" brings with it greater responsibilities for appropriate behavior, not lesser responsibilities. "Of long standing" addressed the question of -- is he just a newbie who didn't know better. That certainly was not the case. Both of those make his misbehavior starker. His abuse was deliberate. He threatened it beforehand. He was informed that it would be a violation of applicable guidelines. He was clearly editing against consensus. He did it anyway.

The key here, is that there was no emergency. There was no BLP violation. Nor did Causa -- with two days between his warning and his block, and despite many entreaties, ever make even the slightest effort to articulate where there was an emergency BLP violation. The edit that he reacted to with a block was certainly not a BLP violation. Causa's entries here all serve as misdirection, to turn the focus away from his misbehavior.

It was Causa who was clearly edit-warring, editing against consensus, and deleting relevant material without justification. He didn't "overlook" WP:INVOLVED -- he was pointed to it, and it was quoted to him before the block. He wasn't unaware of the need for a pressing legitimate BLP issue to invoke the emergency clause -- it was pointed out to him days before the block by Xeno, and many times before the block by various editors who noted that though he was waving the BLP flag -- he was not providing any evidence of a serious BLP violation. And the "BLP" violation that he reacted to? A revert of his deletion of a highly relevant reference in a top-level RS? Come on. Is anyone in this string really buying that this intelligent sysop just "missed" that little detail that required that his assertion of BLP violation must have at least the slightest semblance of legitimacy?

After the dust settled and umpteen editors informed him of his mistake, he said he would do it again. And his editing on the very same article has raised concerns even after his block. And his comments in this thread exhibit, yet again, his rather curious "I am right and everyone else is wrong and I won't edit in conformity with consensus" attitude. Which, of course, is part of the problem. It is for that reason that one of my suggestions was that he commit to edit in accordance with consensus. "He got the message?" Just the opposite, it would appear. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Epeefleche, but that is most certainly a BLP violation. Consensus does not override core policy. Risker (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus that BLP should not apply, so there is no consensus to override policy here. There is, apparently, a consensus that there is no BLP violation. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict with several above): No policy on earth overrides the expectation of using sane judgement for any issue. There are several levels of errors being alleged: 1) using admin tools at all while involved in an article => per BLP, this is justifiable under some circumstances, but try develop a sense of what situations it was intended for. I'd say using them here was an error of judgement of a type forgiveable as long as the admin action is minimal for the situation, and there's no appearance of an attempt to bias the article. 2) Blocking Epeefleche=>clearly unnecessary here under the principle of minimizing admin action while involved. The purpose of emergency BLP admin action is to keep bad stuff out of the article regardless of other WP processes, and page protection would have done that. Blocking was only justifiable if Epeefleche was going nuts re-inserting the same info into multiple articles or something comparable. 3) Blocking Epeefleche as a vandal instead of describing the actual issue => obvious error, don't do it again.

  Causa, if you felt admin action was really necessary in the situation, it would have been better to just protect the article noting in the protection log that you were protecting due to a BLP concern while involved in editing, and that you wanted an uninvolved admin to take over the situation and unprotect at their discretion. Then immediately disengage from the article and start an ANI or BLPN thread seeking help. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection is not a bad idea. Risker (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Black Kite: With regard to this post and your 17:50, 20 April 2010 post (“Vaguely sourced”), I don’t think you understand much about how the government get’s its policies explained to the public. It is regular practice for U.S. government officials to ask that they not be personally named when explaining something to the press. That’s why we rely upon the WP:Reliable source-test; so we don’t run afoul with WP:NPOV and WP:OR and don’t have volunteer wikipedian’s throwing out half our citations to “an unnamed government spokesperson” (because The Washington Post is an *unreliable* secondary that can’t be trusted to quote reliable government primary sources).

  In the Post’s article Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill, the Post was, for certain statements, quoting CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano by name. We can trust that the Post quoted either Gimigliano but omitted his name at his request, or that they found an equally authoritative spokesman. Clearly, this was not “vandalism” by any stretch of the imagination, as Causa sui indicated.

  The text Epeefleche added is topical, germane, encyclopedic, properly cited, it explained the rationale underlying the government’s targeting of al-Awlaki, and is properly in the article today.

  I suggest that if you don’t like “unnamed government spokespersons”, that you work to achieve a consensus on our policy pages that Misplaced Pages should no longer look towards sources that have a long and distinguished record as a WP:Reliable source if they ever dare to quote “unnamed government spokespersons.” I doubt you’ll achieve such a consensus. Clearly, the place to argue this nuance is not here.

  It is obviously the height of absurdity to think Causa sui’s calling Epeefleche’s edit “vandalism” is accurate. Turning the *Common-sense-O-meter* past 25%, is is clear this is nothing but a “contempt of cop” problem with a rogue admin. Methinks too many apologists are trying to defend Causa sui by hiding his conduct behind the apron strings of BLP, which wasn’t violated in the slightest with the inclusion of text cited to The Washington Post of all places. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not in the business of helping the US government get its message out; it is in the business of writing an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if it is the Washington Post or TMZ publishing allegations attributed to unidentified sources. This is what falls under the heading of an "exceptional statement" and thus requires exceptionally stringent sourcing. This is not just WP:BLP, it is also WP:V and WMF policy as well. Risker (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The guideline refers to "high-quality sources". The source in question -- one of our highest quality RSs, I would expect, is just such a high quality source. The entire concept of RS-hood is that we determine if a newspaper has a good reputation for fact-checking. If it does, we rely on it. We don't require an audit history at that point of every fact it checked. Clearly, we can rely on RSs such as the Washington Post and the NYT to be reliable here, and clearly they are high-quality sources. As the BLP policy says, further "Public figures... In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Again -- this is documented by a reliable third-party source.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah… I see, upon reading my post, Risker, you deleted that quote and locked the article down. Impressive. I feel your power. Do you think that allows others to see how you must be right? I see also, that you and Causa sui had no problem leaving in place, exculpatory information, such as “and some analysts have said the alleged ties to the group are ‘more speculative and assumed than concrete’ ”, which is cited to an opinion piece written by Gregory D. Johnsen, who is a Ph.D. candidate in Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, and who quoted no one else but himself. Now there’s a “reliable source”. I’m sorry, I find the biases here to be astonishing. Moreover, I find the tactics being used here by certain editors to be utterly reprehensible and will no longer dignify any of this by pretending certain admins are acting here in good faith. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, potential misuse of administrative tools by an arbitration committee member in the middle of a discussion on the subject. That's rather bold. I suggest we clearly establish what consensus is on the article talk page and go through appropriate escalation after that, if anyone believes the content is not BLP violation and is truly important for an encyclopedic presentation of the subject matter. If not, let's not fight over a moot point, but I would admonish Risker not to try to override consensus, outside of proper dispute resolution channels, based on a disputed personal interpretation of policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this is poorly sourced material is right in the two sentences that I removed from the article - "anonymous" is not a good enough source for a highly sensational negative statement about a person. That the statement seems to appear in only one source further points to its violation of BLP policy. And consensus does not override core policy or WMF policy. Risker (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• We seem to be moving away from the real question, which is "given that there are 800 active admins on the project, is it appropriate for Causa Sui to intervene in a way prohibited by policy, with the justification that another policy trumps it?". To me, the answer is "no". There was no attempt by Causa to mention that this was some sort of emergency, nor query other admins for a block. If there are other admins who could have blocked (and there are) and there is no emergency (and none of his comments at the time indicates there was) exactly what justifies an involved admin blocking an editor and then saying he'd do it again? Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by FellGleaming

I didn't become involved in this article until it was posted to the BLP noticeboard, about the time the block was issued by Causa. I therefore won't offer an onion on whether it was warranted. However, I will say that the article did have severe BLP issues when I first visited it. Most were of the nature of source overreaching....a newspaper report would say something like "unnamed sources believe al-Awlaki may have done xxx", whereas in the article itself it would be translated to something like "al-Awlaki has done xxx". There was also excessive material with little to no direct connection to al-Awlaki, which appeared to be thinly veiled poisoning the well against the subject. Finally, there was severe oversourcing, with some claims having 4, 5, or even 7 inline citations, most of which did not support the claim at all, complicating verification.

I didn't look through the log to see who was responsible for these, nor will I comment on whether there was any edit warring taking place. However, at the time the block was given, the article contained numerous BLP issues. Fell Gleaming 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• For reference, here is the article as it stood before I began editing it. --causa sui (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockfarm Stauner/Irvine22

We've had an outbreak of socks this morning from banned user Irvine22 under the label. Affected articles (which could do with some protection) are Cynefin and Welsh People. For those interested the stauner is urban slang see here --Snowded 06:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks for tracking this one. --Ckatz_spy 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am watching those articles too. Let me know if you need any enforcement; per WP:DUCK I don't think there should be any problem in blocking any such user names on sight. --John (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Magyar Televízió

See archive ANI report - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Disruptive_editing_of_Channel_3_.28Thailand.29_and_Myanmar_Radio_and_Television_by_IP_range. It's still going on - as soon as the latest page protection was lifted, the same IP editor (he claims there are two editors, but they both have the same style and add the same kind of stuff to the same kind of articles), he's back adding the same unsourced trivia after ignoring all discussion. Lots of stuff added to this and similar articles has been blatantly false, so we really can't trust any unsourced additions from this person.

The problem is, what should we do? The IP ranges are owned by TOT in Bangkok, Thailand, and will be used by many people - I've seen other editors operating from the 125.25.x.x range, so a range block might be quite damaging.

I've asked for page protection again, and would welcome any suggestions as to how to solve this problem long-term. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've informed the editor at his last-known IP address, User talk:125.25.42.129, and at the article Talk page, Talk:Magyar Televízió#ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For now I've reprotected the article, for 2 weeks, or pending whatever comes out here. GedUK  08:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim there are two, I claimed there are three. and from today, I will quit editing Misplaced Pages. (Really, I edit Misplaced Pages only 20 days). And I'm sorry for editing Myanmar TV articles. Really, I did not claim anything. THERE ARE REALLY THREE!!. But all TOT users have this IP range (125.25.). I disagree blocking the range, that means Thailand will be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. and what is your "same style"? I do not understand.

He have nothing with me. OK and I am sorry for making him sad by editing Vietnam Television. But for Magyar Televízió is his false. He didn't know that if he edited an article that being watched, if he editing some other that will be watched too. See Talk:Myanmar Radio and Television.--118.172.193.0 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't reply for a long time

I see that User:Boing! said Zebedee haven't replied my comments for ten minutes already while he is now online.--118.172.193.0 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter for administrative action. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To say the least. For the record, however, Boing! has now replied to each and every query on his talkpage. — Satori Son 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It must be election time again

An OTRS ticket alerted me to the fact that links purportedly to newspaper endorsements of Mark Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were, in fact, to his campaign site. Looking into it a little further, I have removed a block of stuff almost al of which was sourced to his own congressional microsite or YouTube. I guess there will be a lot of campaign staffers vigorously buffing up their candidates' Misplaced Pages resumes right now. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And there's a quite bitter UK election happening too. GedUK  13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A bitter election? Thank goodness there is something to get excited about, rather than having to listen to those politician fellows. I have to say I am a Fullers ESB voter, although I may tactically vote for Flowers IPA if it looks like that Boddingtons lot may go top...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting for Lindt 70%! 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I favour black sheep, and will probably vote accordingly.   pablo_hablo. 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2 times 3RR, POV pushing, Page lengthening and Dicussion Page Vandalism by BangladeshPride

This new user BangladeshPride has for the been breaching rules of wikipedia multiple times trying to push his POV on the article Bangladesh Liberation War. He started to edit wikipedia on 14 April 2010, and since then has made over 20 edits including 7 reverts. Most of his edits consisted of unsourced changes in cited data. However he did did cite one reliable source which was placed in the article. He however continued his POV pushing trying to repeat it multiple times as well as vandalising cited data.

Following editors tried to stop his vandalism and POV pushing through repetition of certain points on the article page:

• Myself
• User:Sentinel_R
• User:Drmies

Here are the details of his action.

He started to edit wikipedia on 14 April and immediately breached 3RR on the same day.

• 1st revert: 11:44, 14 April 2010
• 2nd revert: 12:01, 14 April 2010
• 3rd revert: 17:22, 14 April 2010

I followed wikipolicy of WP:AGFC, thus assumed good faith for first 2 edits. Then I went off line thus not being able to report WP:3RR violation

In the next few days he had made 4 more reverts and multiple edits :

• 4th revert: 09:37, 15 April 2010
• 5th revert: 06:28, 17 April 2010

Following this I issued him a warning

• Warning

He still continued reverting not heeding the warning

• 6th revert: 20:19, 17 April 2010

After this Administrator Toddst1 gave a warning ban of 24 hours to him.

• 02:10, 18 April 2010

BangladeshPride simply removed the banner of ban from his talk page and continued reverting and editing breaching the 3RR rule for the 2nd time

• 7th revert: 06:00, 18 April 2010

This time as he was already under ban I gave him final warning and did not report to WP:3RRN.

• Final Warning

The article was then reverted to the version before the dispute started till it was resolved on talkpage and Administrator Ragib fully protected the page

• 21:53, 18 April 2010

BangladeshPride however immediately started requesting for removal of protection from Admin Ragib so he could continue his vandalism and pov pushing

He started multiple sections on talkpage as well, to repeat his POV to stress on that. He also resorted to Dicussion Page Vandalism repeating my talk on articles talkpage as well.

Finally he responded to my final warning stating "uplinkansh you are giving me warnings when you are the one vandalizing the page. i will be giving you a warning soon. plus i have contacted the neutral wikipedia moderators and showed them your continuous vandalism. do not simply try to get people banned so that you can stop people from removing your vandalism."

Following this he started sending me warning messages even though the article had not been edited since it was reverted to version before dispute started till dispute was resolved and was place under full protection by Ragib

He is continuing to request for removal of protection from Admins Ragib and User:Excirial to try to get protection removed through WP:FORUMSHOP

I would request some sort of action by Admins relating to actions by BangladeshPride.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At first glance this looked like the sort of TLDR thing that usually ends in an editor being Plaxico'd. However, Upon review, UplingAnsh has good points and a valid complaint. I have blocked BangladeshPride for 48 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring, harassment (calling UplinAnsh a vandal when he clearly isn't), and multiple violations of Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy. I welcome second/third/fourth opinions of other editors. Tan | 39 14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've taken a look, and I see a lot of belligerent POV-pushing (some of which seems blatantly wrong), nRR (where n certainly exceeds 3), and lashing out at other editors in retaliation rather than listening and talking. So I think it was a valid complaint, and your block was the right thing to do - and if he doesn't start to talk, it unfortunately might even need to be extended. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:75.68.82.23

75.68.82.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor is the user who seems fascinated by causes of death. He or she was given a final warning by admin Ronhjones not to change date formats in infoboxes, yet continues to do so. Their last block was for 1 month; because the IP is obviously stable, and their edits are generally suspect and unhelpful, if not quite obvious vandalism, and because they refuse to enter into discussion about their editing, despite concerns expressed by numerous editors, as seen on their talk page, I believe a block of at least 3 months would be justified.

Could someone please take a look? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

They also edit using 67.253.66.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive

IP 86.155.74.236 is this troll again attacking the WT:CRIC page today. His normal IP range 88.108.0.0/18 was blocked for one month last weekend. Could someone please place a similar block on his new range? Thanks. ----Jack | 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Afraid not. It's far too big a range to block, even if it were technically possible (which it isn't). And even if it was technically possible and wouldn't cause huge amounts of collateral damage, it's only a small range of BT Broadband, the biggest ISP in the UK, so the user could simply hop to another one of their ranges. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards