Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:01, 14 March 2011

• 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

Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles

Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have had a long drawn out dispute regarding the Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried up to MedCom, and various editors have given of their time to attempt to resolve the issue, but it continues to drag on. It has been suggested on the COI noticeboard that a Topic Ban might now be appropriate. A voluntary Topic Ban would not work as Blackash has stated she won't agree. Articles involved in the ban would include Tree shaping, Axel Erlandson, Arthur Wiechula, John Krubsack and Expo 2005. There may be others. SilkTork * 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support and add Grafting and Richard Reames please.Slowart (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've listed for Formal meditation twice, the last time Slowart didn't agree. If Slowart would agree to go to Formal meditation I'm willing to go. Blackash have a chat 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given at the COI noticeboard. I agree with Slowart that the ban should include the Grafting and Richard Reames articles as well, in fact all articles related to tree shaping. I think the topic ban should go ahead even if there is also an effort at mediation, since mediations often fail. In the lucky event of the mediation being successful, it will be easy to get the ban lifted. The turmoil at these articles should not continue, and a topic ban is a milder option than blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for three editors, but allow comments I have been semi-following the Tree shaping issue since noticing it at a noticeboard in June 2010, and have found myself in agreement with Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)—we think there has been too much effort devoted to minimizing use of the term "arborsculpture" in the article. As I recall, Martin Hogbin and I are the main contributors to the talk page who have no commercial interest in the topic. One editor (Slowart, named above) apparently has a commercial interest in "arborsculpture" and has favored mentioning that term as an "also called" in the lead (diff), while two other editors are very keen that "arborsculpture" not be used in the lead: Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) (diff1, diff2) and Blackash (named above) (diff). Many more such diffs over months are available. I support a topic ban for Slowart and Blackash and Sydney Bluegum: there is little point in applying a ban to only two of these editors. In a normal topic ban, the editors must completely avoid the topic. However, in this case I suggest that each be permitted to make suggestions on article talk pages, although they should be asked to not comment frequently or repetitively. These editors can make useful suggestions or point out errors, but an article topic ban should be enacted because the editors have unduly focused on the question of how "arborsculpture" is mentioned in the article—off-wiki interests seem the most plausible explanation for the vigor with which this matter has been pursued. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Johnuniq I noticed you have pointed to where I've supported an editor removing alternative names from the lead (my reasoning), yet you don't point out I later offer a comprise that puts alternative names (inculding arborsculpture) back into the lead diff. You also don't mention that Slowart removed a chunk of cited content about his own methods and then refused to talk. Why didn't you also point this out? Blackash have a chat 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest it is because Johnuniq is showing examples of editors violating WP practices - which is rather the point of commenting at ANI - rather than instances of compliance. If this were a matter of having the named editors (including you) banned from the site, your question would have relevance. Further, the tone and inference of your question indicates a possible symptom of the alleged interaction issues. Makes my decision easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions @ LessHeard vanU

1. An editor who removes referenced/cited content about themselves and then won’t discuss their edit, are not violating WP practices?
2. Whether someone is to be banned from the site as a whole or only part of the site it still is banning. I would have believed that the editor’s overall behavior and looking at their diffs in context would be what guilds the decision to ban in either case. Are you suggesting that the editor's overall behavior/diffs in context don't count when it comes to topic banning? Blackash have a chat 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On your question #2: If the problems are related to a single area, then the editor's behavior in that single area is all that matters. An editor can be a perfect angel 99% of the time, and still get topic-banned from the 1% where he or she misbehaves. Behaving well in one area does not give an editor immunity in another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. My edits and behavior on this topic has been as I stated below. I edit, talk giving reasons, and offer or except comprises. Any edit that may be considered a potential COI I gone to noticeboards and asked outside editors' views. It seems that because I've followed WP policy in regards potential COI I am to be banned as it is causing other editors too much grief, not because my editing/behavior is inappropriate. Please note most of the time outside editors agree with my view. Blackash have a chat 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is ridiculous on all sides. Phearson (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban for all three named editors, but allow edits to talkpages - with a view that if good faith dispute resolution process are (re)started then this ban can be revisited sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban but permit talk page edits per what LessHeardvanU says above. I believe that both Blackash as well as Slowart have self-declared their COI on the topic and should be permitted the assumption of good faith. --rgpk (comment) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support It seems the only way forward. Sydney Bluegum is clearly an SPA (see contribs) and should be included in the ban. The question is, 'Then what?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support For Blackash and Slowart for reasons stated above and obvious Conflicts of Interest. Abstain for Sydney Bluegum as his support of Blackash seems like a content issue not a CoI issue to me. However I have not been taking part in the discussion for about six months so I leave it up to others who have been directly involved more recently to decide on the best course of action as far as he is concerned. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The expertise of these editors (blackash and slowart being some of the foremost practitioners in the US and australia) slightly outweighs the constant arguing over the name. Over the last 2 years the quality and detail of the article has improved drastically, with these two doing the vast majority of the edits. The mediation committee needs to get their act together and actually send out a mediator. AfD hero (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is not a simple problem, it like a game of chest. By banning me all that is happening is the players from one side are being removed leaving the lobby group for Arborsculpture. Of course Slowart is willing be banned as he still has players in the game. As has been stated on the talk page this group of editors are so hostile to anyone with a diffing view that most editors go elsewhere to edit. The result will be tree shaping and surrounding articles will become heavily weighted towards on their stated goal.
  Google Arborsculpture, it all leads to Richard Reames/Slowart. In spite Richard’s claims, Arborsculpture is not the accepted name of the art and that is why Slowart removed his methods and image of his results his bending method. And now IPs keep coming in and removing Instant tree shaping section as well.
  Comment Apart form that I believe it not right to ban me when I’ll added valuable content to the main article, I’ve always being willing to discuss content, offered or excepted comprises. Any edit I thought may have been considered pushing my view I’ve talked first, then asked at the appropriate notice board and even when been given the go ahead to completely remove the word Arborsculpture from the article I didn’t. The reason I was given to accept a voluntary ban was because editors where feeling too much grief. I’ve not been uncivil and edited in good faith and learn from my mistakes. I’ve been told this doesn’t’ matter if this is true it seems bad behavior is rewarded because topic banning appears to be the easy answer. Blackash have a chat 23:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No Blackash this is not a game of chess, there are no "sides" and we are not "players". This comment shows that you feel there is a way to "win for your side". But editting to win is not compatable with editing to help make WP better. This is the definition of a Conflict of Interest. The fact is I do not care about tree shaping or arborsculpture at all. I have never done it or even seen it in person and I know no one who has. I simply want to help make WP a better more complete encyclopedia. This is the one sole reason anyone should edit here. Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I got involved with that page several years back through a third opinion request (before I was sysopped) and it was exceedingly difficult to get anything done. I'm not entirely surprised that this is still going on, but an edit war that long has to be put to rest. — HelloAnnyong 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I vaguely remember having offered a third opinion, like HelloAnnyong, on one of the disputes that Blackash and Slowart were having two or more years ago. They're clearly still at it from entrenched positions and won't desist voluntarily. – Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I posted about fifteen times to the tree shaping talkboard and also to the WP:NPOVN in 2010 for a few months ending in August. There was no resolution then and I do not think there is any plan to find resolution. This issue has distracted me and a lot of other good editors. I feel that all Wikipedians have a duty to compromise as they must to minimize time spent on talk pages and maximize the time spent contributing to articles. There were good, friendly debates on how to present the Misplaced Pages articles related to this subject but with these two editors participating in the discussion I do not feel that the debates are likely to end. Perhaps other users associated with this topic should also cease editing. I would have supported a topic ban 6 months ago and if the issue is still hot then the reasonable response is a topic ban. There could still be mediation if the parties want to arrange it but if this happens then I think the topic of mediation ought to be the conditions under which the topic ban is removed after a year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on anything in the mainspace related to tree-shaping for Slowart and Blackash. As this has been a long-term dispute with edit-warring issues, I believe that a long-term topic ban is proportional. As endlessly arguing with each other is also disruptive, I would also be willing to support restricting them each to a single tree-shaping-related comment on any talk page or noticeboard per day, although perhaps that's an issue for another day.
  I have not yet formed an opinion about Sydney Bluegum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think it would be more productive to ban these editors from any name-related edits or discussion, since this is the only real point of contention, but allow them to continue to contribute other content. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the two should be permanently banned from making any edits relating to the subject name or any section having a commercial connection, such as lists of practitioners of the art. Clearly they are both experts on the subject, whose views we should welcome but I think a short total ban might be useful while editors with no commercial interest try to sort things out a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hogin, you may not be commercial involved but as Bluerasberry stated you are not a neutral editor on this issue. A fine example is your last edit diff on tree shaping where you removed referenced/cited content. Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The".

Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit.Blackash have a chat 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Martin Hogin to agree to mediation with me. For more details go to Tree shaping talk page. Blackash have a chat 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you have been proposing mediation since 2008 (diff). Many of your edits have been excellent, and this 2008 comment provides a very reasonable point of view (it appears that certain practitioners use tree shaping methods they believe are different from those of the person who coined the term "arborsculpture", and those practitioners object to having their work associated with that term). Nevertheless, independent editors need to take control of the articles since it is not satisfactory to have them dominated by those with a conflict of interest. As recently as a week ago you were removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article which suggests a "take no prisoners" approach that is not helpful on Misplaced Pages. Mediation is not required—the editors with a COI regarding terminology simply need to undertake to not make edits regarding such terminology. Instead, make proposals on the talk page and let uninvolved editors respond (yes, that might take a long time, and it might lead to unsatisfactory results, but it would be better than the advocacy and ownership now demonstrated). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I am perfectly willing to assist in any form of dispute resolution process as a neutral editor with no commercial interest in this subject. On the other hand, you must stop making edits like this one in which you added the proprietary name used by your own business for the art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, when Slowart puts his own word into the lead you didn't comment to him about his COI. You now have twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page, the other time you made conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content. You have yet to explain why. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. It is because of your support for the word arborsculpture and Reames/Slowart edits, that I've asked you to go to meditation. Please go to tree shaping talk page and list the issues you would like to discuss in meditation and agree there to formal meditation. I don't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine, as happen last time I listed and Slowart didn't reply. Blackash have a chat 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to participate in formal mediation but have, as yet, not received any official notification on the subject. There is no requirement to list the issues I want to discuss in advance. In fact there is only one such issue, editors with a potential COI. As I say below, this might be a good case for arbitration of we can find no other way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated why I haven't listed yet above your comment. When listing a formal meditation there is a section "Issues to be mediated". Would you please list the issues you have. I'm guessing from your talk page that spam is one, by your edits that the methods on the page are other and going by your comment I'm also guess which names are in the lead is also an issue. But when I file I don't want to be guessing what you are thinking. So please go to the tree shaping talk page and list what are the issues. Thanks for being open to mediation. Blackash have a chat 11:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one proposing mediation, I have just said that I am happy to participate. If you start the process stating what issues you wish to be mediated, any editor is free to add their own. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin I'll list on Friday as I don't have the time until then. Feel free to list for mediation if you want or if you have the time. Blackash have a chat 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think a topic ban would work as there are more editors than just Slowart and Blackash involved. It is not that hard to have another account running as some editors do. A topic ban would not effect me at all as I came to wiki as an end user to get info. I got involved in this conflict as Blackash was the only editor providing useful information in the article while other editors were pulling her edits down. On the talk page, other editors just dont answer or talk about behaviour rather than content.This has been ongoing. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban: Mediate title - it would be ridiculous to stop two agreed experts from editing the articles. I can however see a case for a consnsus being made by uninvolved editors as to which term is best, and then restrictions put on the editing so as to endorse that view only. Egg Centric 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not planing on contributing any more unless Blackash goes unchecked in describing my work, removing, redefining or watering down the word arborsculpture. Check my edit history please, I proposed topic ban for myself and Blackash as I don't need these endless battles, and to be honest, the subject deserves better. Yes the title issue should be revisited but keep me out of it please. Slowart (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There is no established name yet the discussion that lead to this wording . Misplaced Pages describes not prescribes. Me and my life partner at Pooktre don't care what the name of the article is as long the title not linked to a method or leads to one artist. So Pooktre and Arborsculpture are both out as the title. Google Pooktre it leads to us google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames. If you are interested here is a link to a page with the alternative names suggested for the title with references and quotes. Blackash have a chat 09:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another COI edit

Blackash has just made this . Whether it is sourced or not is irrelevant, editors should not be adding proprietary names for the art used by their own businesses to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pooktre is not registered or trademarked, its a word Pete and I created to name our own art. Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork stated pooktre has also become generic. I suggested this change on the talk page close to two weeks ago. diff Martin I'm not a mind reader, if you had an issue with the my suggested comprise for the alternative names you should have spoke up. Blackash have a chat 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, the argument is not about whether Pooktre should be in the lead it is about whether you should be the one to put it there (or restore it). Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How about full page protection

With topic ban it is my understanding that an editor would watch the articles. There have been comments as to this conflict tying up editors time.This seems to be an issue. On the COI noticeboard EdJohnston suggested full page protection. I feel this is a valid outcome as the conflicts are centered on Tree Shaping. Page protection would free up editors to work on other topics. If this were to go ahead the article needs to have the three methods in place when it is locked. As the article is now with Tree training, arborsculpture, and pooktre, I feel this is fair. As Tree training was suggested by multiple editors as the title for the article, it is reasonable for it to go in the lead first. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether desirable or not, that's not going to happen—as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", pages are only protected for the amount of time required to prevent disruption. If particular editors repeatedly edit against consensus or Misplaced Pages's principles, processes such as the one being discussed here are undertaken, and problematic editors end up being blocked or topic banned (with blocks for violations). Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We need a topic ban for all WP:SPA editors and all those with a potential COI. The remaining editors can then discuss the best way to deal with the commercially sensitive issues in the article in a fair and impartial way. Once agreement has been reached and the necessary changes made the other editors should be allowed back, on the strict condition that they make no edits within a defined area.

I think this would be a good case for arbitration, as the main issues are with editor conduct rather than content in itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So the fact you decided to remove cited content with no discussion is not relevant? I think it highly relevant Blackash have a chat 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I have already explained, the reason that I reverted was that the edit was made by an editor with a potential COI. You do not seem to understand what this means. Both you and Slowart have a commercial interest in this subject that potentially conflicts with your editing here. You should both refrain from making edits that involve the name of the art or current practitioners of it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No you said, you reverted an IP,comment diff of Martin's revert. Going by your reasoning above you should have also reverted the 3 IPs who had mirrored Slowart's edits removing cite content, but you didn't.Blackash have a chat 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support full page protection The tree shaping article as it stands at the moment has had multiple outside editors help shape it, though my checking different points on noticeboards. Which seems to be why I'm up for topic ban. No-one is saying tree shaping article is a mess.

I think the best solution is to do a full page protection of the article for 6-12 months. That way the article is not left with only the pro arborsculpture group. Who have done:-

1. Have a stated goal of changing the title to arborsuclpture.
2. To suggest editing the article for a WP:POINT diff to help achive their goal.
3. Have already edited the article to give undue weight to Arborsculpture when they were requesting the article title be change back to arborsuclpture. For more detail
4. Multiple editors have commented to various pro arborsculpture editors about them being uncivil and/or rude, sometimes to the point of driving away neutral outside editors.
5. Are willing to support removal of cited content and diff. In the second example there has been no discussion as to why.
6. When it comes to answering content related policy questions they mostly don't. Some recent examples

Note how I created points or ask questions and they are not addressed. This Archive of the talk page should give a sense of the way discussions go this one is about the title and this is good example of their style of argument . Now times that by 5 or 7 editors who state I have COI (with no back up and other editors like SilkTork have stated I don't have COI) and you have some idea of what I've been dealing with.

As one of the issues is, this conflict is taking up to much of other editors time. A full page lock would be the best solution, as this would free up other editors. If the page was fully locked, I would be fine with not bringing things up on the talk page or noticeboards. Though I would like to reply to treads others start. I would continue to edit fortnightly on orphaned articles. There is good reason that Slowart seems eager to be topic banned. Quote edit summary "Topic ban please" diff Blackash have a chat 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Full protection is not going to be enabled for anything like six months, let alone a year. Misplaced Pages has far more controversial articles which survive without full protection. In the end this is a relatively minor naming dispute which only gives the impression of being significantly problematic because of the number of editors with COI involved in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is extremely likely that the battle about "arborsculpture" has been waged on the Internet since 2008 or earlier—see northey reams pooktre arborsculpture for examples; Blackash has declared "I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI" a number of times (example). Misplaced Pages cannot allow those with an external agenda to decide what terminology is used in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note I didn't suggest or ask for the arborsculpture article be moved or what the new name should be. . This is where there was more discussion after the move As to the google link Johnuniq put up, Bluerasberry addressed this when Colincbn brought this same issue up at the NPOV noticeboard. " Bluerasberry quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Misplaced Pages (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Misplaced Pages much). Misplaced Pages needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Misplaced Pages, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone." reply link

As to listing for meditation Colincbn was going to list on the 23rd of Sep 2010 as there had been a consensus to on the talk page link but by 28th he hadn't so I ask him on his talk page and then I listed on the 6 Oct 2010 Blackash have a chat 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest there is anything wrong with promoting your work. Nor am I suggesting a canvassing problem. What I am saying is the bleeding obvious: you have a COI and have used many Internet forums to promote your work and your POV. And now you are using articles on Misplaced Pages to do the same, and that has to stop—you should no longer be permitted to make edits that concern your clear COI. The Google search link shows you have conducted a campaign since at least 2008, and you will never be convinced by discussion or mediation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I was trying to get the title change to Pooktre I would have a clear COI. But a practitioner discussing the overall name of a art form is only a potential COI if that. I'll state again, I don't care what the overall name of the art form is as long as it neutral. I would be willing to believe that I'm a tree trainer but like all other artists (with the exception of Richard Reames) in this field I don't believe I'm a arborsculptor. Blackash have a chat 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Full Protection - Not only is it not within the guideline of WP:FULL to protect a page because it gets vandalized, but if wikipedia fully protected pages because of vandalism or COI editing, then there wouldn't be too many unlocked pages to edit, now would there.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Zombie433

Zombie433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Zombie433

This guy has been long term nuisance for those of us over at WP:FOOTY and keeps on reappearing with a new IP every few days - the ones in the category are just those we've managed to catch, God knows how many more are out there - any chance we can get a rangeblock or something please? GiantSnowman 14:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• How i'd wish for that, mates. He continues with his "work", and as Snowman says, has a seemingly neverending array of anon IPs. Even worse (apparently) is this case, User:Pararubbas, Zombie has only had one account, this "user" creates sockaccount after sockaccount (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas and here http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas), and also has several anon IPs as "backups". Both do not engage in any talkpage conversation whatsoever (Zombie did once or twice, when severely threatened, Pararubbas has NEVER) and write zero summaries.

Rangeblock definitely, if possible - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All his IP's are from the same general area. It's likely he is just using his school or library's computers as zombies. A range block should handle that.AerobicFox (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody fancy helping us then? My request back in January at Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations for "a long term solution" was also ignored... GiantSnowman 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has vandalized 1000's of BLP's User wrwr1 ] has tried to repair some of the damage, but this is gonna take years....Cattivi (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

His added info was all wrong? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No not everything, maybe 10-20% is a product of his vivid imagination, but that's still a lot with the number of edits this user has made. At least 50% is OK, the rest is not appreciated by everybody. And it's not only en.wikipedia, other wiki's copy en.wiki ,those need to be looked at as well, even 'reliable' sources like clubwebsites copy en.wikipedia Cattivi (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd say the vast majority of his edits was adding false information to BLPs - not a minor offence, and hence why he has been indeffed. GiantSnowman 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As the admin who blocked him, I'd like to make it clear that he was blocked because we couldn't trust his edits rather than because they were all hoaxes. Nevertheless, he's blocked, and ideally should be prevented from socking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the list says, all but 2 are from the range of 79.213.64.0/18 (79.213.64.0-79.213.127.255) The question is, are his actions severe enough to block 16384 IPs, knowing that he has some access to IPs out of this range? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask a trusted wikipedean who lives in Ghana, Nigeria or Cameroon, and who has a bit of knowledge about (sports)papers and magazines in these countries (How detailed are their reports on local football) , and you will have an idea of the scale of his vandalism. There is a possibility zombie is used by footballagents to make obscure footballers look good, Cattivi (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The behaviour of User:Nmate

The context

On 8 December 2010 I was unblocked and granted a second chance after an indefinite block, becoming again a contributor with full rights. Since then, I've been a very active wikipedian and all my edits were made in accordance with the wiki policies. The fact that I've become a trustable user was also recognized by the admin HJ_Mitchell, who gave me reviewer rights.

Nmate (who was notified about this report) may have violated WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKO, WP:NOSPADE and WP:PLACE.

In the first place he posted a message on my unblocking admin's talk page asking for details about how I was accepted back in the comnunity

Secondly , he reverted me with no explanation on János Bolyai article. When I asked for a clarification on his talk page, he refused the conversation

Next he filed a report accusing me that I fight against sock puppetry, "instead of flattening to a sequestered corner"

Nmate engaged into an edit war against me at Lajos Kossuth article. The edits he was trying to revert were explained on the article talk page, but he refused to participate at the discussion, preferring to simply revert.

He posted a message on my talk page asking me to leave WikiProject Hungary

Nmate also accused me of "trolling" and deleted my post on User:Yopie 's talk page, breaking WP:TALKO

Later, when I explained him that it is mandatory to inform other users when filing reports against them, he replied me the following "If I report anybody for edit-warring, and then I do not leave notification on the talk page of the reported person, it is my own business"

Current problem

Today, he refused to respect WP:PLACE, even if I informed him 2 times about this policy. He switched the order of alternative names in the lead of the article about Košice and engaged into an edit war on this subject: . According to the rule: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages", but he disregards this (Iaaasi (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

My answer

I have asked the user several times to avoid my enviroment , but despite this, the user keeps clambering on to my heels, and even my talk page teems with spam messages posted by Iaaasi ,even though I asked the user shun my talk page. And If I started to edit an article, the user still emerges at the same place to make "constructive" edits there, which is quite weird. And when the user was blocked for indefinite time from editing Misplaced Pages, his sockpuppets still followed me around on Misplaced Pages. And the fact that the user fights against sockpuppetry, is the most weird thing that I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages.

The Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 page was opened by User:CyanMoon who was one of the comfirmed sockpuppets of User:Iaaasi--> And then the second reporter was User:YellowFF0 there, who was also one comfirmed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi--> Interesting to note that Iaaasi is still often proposes checkuser requests at the SPI page of Stubes99 and Tiptoety is the most active checkuser there.

Please note that Iaaasi had made more than 10 confirmed sockpuppets and administrator FisherQueen told one of his sockpuppets that " You've created so many sockpuppet accounts that it's very unlikely that you'll ever find an admin willing to unblock you, or at least, not until several years have passed without any more edits from you. You've tried often enough that you know now that any accounts you make will be blocked, and the changes you want won't be made by you." And that Iaaasi is allowed to edit the English Misplaced Pages ,again, thanks to the fact that Iaaasi hoodwinked the administrator and checkuser Tiptoety,who does not have a soaring stature anyway, with a very extensive and steadfast IRC canvassing. According to my assumption Iaaasi had devoted six months to covince Tiptoety to handle his unblock in the background.

There is a continous ,mutual, and self confessed interaction between Tiptoety and Iaaasi via IRC, even before Iaaasi received his second chance type of unblock. "I was approached by Iaaasi" "I too have interacted a fair amount with Iaaasi"

Administrator Tiptoety warned user:Squash_Racket and user:Hobartimus on the ground that they reverted all edits of the sockpuppets of Iaaasi , and then User:Rogvaiv1 also reminded Squash Racket of that . But later it came to light that Rogvaiv1 was also a sockpuppet of Iaaasi. There was even an interaction between Tiptoety and user:MarekSS here and MarekSS was also a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi.

Interestingly enough that Misplaced Pages:Standard offer reqisites at least 6 months without sockpuppetry, but the WP Offer coming from Iaaasi appeared here on WP ANI, on 27 September, 2010; despite the fact that Iaaasi had 3 detected sockpuppets one month before. See: ->(blocked on 9 August, September)->(blocked on 11 August 2010) ->(blocked on 25 August 2010) At the unblock proposal, Iaaasi was supported by 3 administrators, Tiptoety ,Muzemike (he was the nominator of the unblock proposal ,which based on a false pretense " He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time." when in fact Iaaasi had 3 detected sockpuppets last month, and Shirik . And , albeit, the community refused to unblock Iaaasi, the acces to be able to edit his own talk page was recovered by administrator Slakr for inscrutable reasons and then administrator Rohnjohnes unblocked him without community discussion 3 months later. Since then the user keeps following me around on Misplaced Pages for which I am upset.--Nmate (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As it can be seen, User:Nmate did not address my accusations against him, but responded again with comments regarding my unblock from December 2010. Instead of accepting that I am again a member of the community, he keeps contesting my unblock for 3 months (instead of WP:LETGO)(Iaaasi (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Comment: Have both parties considered the third step of BRD, Discuss? I see no discussion on the talk page (or on either editor's talk page). I do however see accusations and threats of invoking administrative intervention (WP:EW, ArbCom, etc) by what appears to be both parties. Before this becomes a thing on ANI, can we please try some of the lower tiers of dispute resolution (Talk page discussion, 3O, mediation) before asking for immediate intervention from Administrators? Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First, your wikihounding aimed at me is still pertinent. Second, if you want to resolve content disputes, then WP ANI is not a right place for it. Third, I do not give a hoot about your opinion related to anything and anybody. Furthermore, I have asked you in the past sveral times to stop following me around on Misplaced Pages and to stop posting any messages on my talk page but you do not want to complete my request.--Nmate (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are the one who has followed me and reverted me with no reason. Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Which is your work and how have I inhibited it? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Iaaasi is a serial sockpuppeteer who recieved several indefinite blocks please see the following accounts each of which received an indefinite block:

1. Ddaann2 (talk · contribs · logs) 16:17, 17 March 2010
2. Nauneim1 (talk · contribs · logs) 22:16, 16 April 2010
3. Umumu (talk · contribs · logs) 06:43, 20 April 2010
4. Conttest (talk · contribs · logs) 07:16, 12 May 2010
5. DerGelbeMann (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
6. MarekSS (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
7. EurovisionFan2010 (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
8. DusanSK (talk · contribs · logs) 17:07, 16 June 2010
9. Karpatia1 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:15, 9 July 2010
10. Rogvaiv1 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:57, 9 August 2010
11. CyanMoon (talk · contribs · logs) 09:09, 11 August 2010
12. YellowFF0 (talk · contribs · logs) 08:01, 25 August 2010

From the above it is clear that this extremely disruptive user never stopped editing even after this many indefinite blocks, in some cases the banned user edited for several hundred edits before being blocked. See many of them had huge number of contributions and the admins did nothing to stop him WHEN he was blocked. Now it is getting worse this user seems to believe that he is free to harass Hungarian editors all day, continuing the same thing he was blocked for so many times. This is not the case. Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words this block was violated two THOUSAND times easily if we add up all the edits, and all this seems to be ignored. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That case is closed. You look too much in the past, all these sockpuppets were well known when I was unblocked and since then I've respected all the policies (Iaaasi (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

There is no point in continuing discussion with someone, who dedicated in wikihounding and to pick a quarrel with my edits. Once I had reported this user for a violation of 3RR and soon after his interest in editing the article White Carpathians that I had edit just before I filled my 3RR report concerning Iaaasi, "resuscitated". (Nauneim is a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi which was created on the ground that the user was unable to wait until his 3RR block comes to an end. But after the 3RR block had expired, the user also continued editing the article with an abusive 3O request there without having had an interest in editing the article beforehand.Just by checking the edit history of the article Košice out, it plainly looks that the user hadn't had any interest in editing the article before I started to edit it, but shortly afterwards his interest in editing the same artice, enhancely increased and picked a quarrel with my edits there and went to ask for an abusive 3O request forgery, too. So that it is not too surprising that if I am unwilling to accept his 3O request forgeries neither here ,nor anywhere else on Misplaced Pages.--Nmate (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits on White Carpathians were in February 2010, more than 1 year ago, when I was still a very beginner on Misplaced Pages. And since when asking for a 3O is an abuse? (Iaaasi (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Some of the socks were used to constantly follow around Hungarian editors and revert them, report them to ANI and various places, in violation of rules prohibiting harassment block evasion, with the intention to force them off of wikipedia. It seems very relevant to the present day because if the same thing is going on here (targeted attacks against Hungarian editors) just without the use of the harassment socks, than that's a direct continuation of a more than a year long pattern. Hobartimus (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I used my socks for making constructive edits, anyone can check that. If we take in consideration such old events, I can also remind the admins about Nmate's blocks for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility. Let the admins decide if we can talk about targeted attacks of you and Nmate against me or vice-versa

For the record: I was blocked for ethnic slurs and incivility by Elonka, who has an interesting way of thinking, and everyone could check which were the ethnic slurs and incivility for which I was blocked here: --Nmate (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I could also add that at least one of the reasons of my blocking (suspected of being a sock of User:Bonaparte) was wrong.

When I got 48h block, User:Nmate reported me on a subject where the presumed edit war enemy, User:Rokarudi, accepted that my edit was made in good faith and it was not a conflict there. Even if it was technically an edit war, it was not a proper conflict. (Iaaasi (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

I think it is important to show what kind of answers I get from Nmate when trying to resolve a dispute by asking for a third opinion: (Iaaasi (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Note: User:Nmate just got a Warning for incivility (Iaaasi (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

I already told that I could not cosider your 3o requests to be serious ones but abusively used ones ,due to what you did at the article White Charpathians and for your continous Wikihounding.--Nmate (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't accept 3O you may propose any other legal way for solving the dispute (except edit warring as until now)(Iaaasi (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

As I told, I do not want you to always edit the same articles as I do.--Nmate (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative Encyclopedia. As long as the rules are respected by both of us there is no reason to avoid each other. Wikihounding means inhibiting someone else's work, so I ask you again: which is your work, and how have I inhibited it? As the policy says: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". If you like, I am ready to compare my edit history with yours in order to notice who brought more benefits to the project between us (Iaaasi (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Nmate, this is what you are calling wiki-hounding? The correction made by me by moving the Hungarian name to the correct field in the infobox (from native_name to other_name)? (Iaaasi (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I can confirm the fact that Iaaasi indeed harassed others in the past in fact doing the same for about a year. For example please review the contributions of this attack account from almost a year ago. By that time He already started to stalk, harass, revert other editors then post to ANI (as above) and communicating with various editors , attempting to mobilize them against intended targets, pretending that his harassment style attacks were just a "legitimate dispute" over "content" , while the sockpuppet account's only purpuse was harassment. All this while being blocked. The MO was always the same, pretend that it's a content dispute while harassing his victims over and over an over reverting them and "warning" them while pretending that his sockpuppets were legitimate editors . Hobartimus (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your accusations, but I will not give a detailed answer. However I am not the subject of this report and these things happened months ago. Please refer exclusively to my post unblock activity (Iaaasi (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

These things happened continuously over a long period I merely gave a single example above. I will provide more examples if necessary. Hobartimus (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have any complain, please file a separate report. This discussion is about User:Nmate (Iaaasi (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I would like to inform the admins that Hobartimus has broken WP:NPA, by bringing unsupported accusations: "Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock" {Iaaasi (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I see this report (as usual) got complicated and it is discussed everything except the reported problem about the unusual behaviour of User:Nmate, 1; 2; 3; openly refusing to work with other editors 1; 2; 3 , his usually empty edit summaries that easily(and almost by a rule) become edit wars (if you don`t explain your edits , how should the other user know what are you doing...) 1. I really think this behavior should be analyzed because we are in a situation of solving something when the other user just sits and engages in edit wars(and not talking), with empty edit summaries... The most current case in at the article Košice ,where , as I can see by now, the same behavior is applied. Adrian (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help

Can someone take a look at all this? Is it necessary for me to make a separate report for this issue? How should I understand this kind of statements , to cooperate with this kind of user and to reach a consensus??? Adrian (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So it is called a block shopping ,and wikihounding on your part.(Iadrian yu is not an I.Q. champion) But, you can fill a separate report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that you are certain to aware of.

Not too surprising that I do not want to "cooperate" with Iadrian yu as it is obvious that the user followed me to that article ,to which hadn't shown any interest beforehand. But despite this, I am willing to discuss with the user, to be filled with abashment:

"Reverted 1 edit by Rokarudi; Unification of Transilvania with Romania is a fact not a POV. Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim Transilvania we can`t mention facts? ".--Nmate (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from name-calling and unsupported accusations. Your "evidence" is taken out of the context(by the way this happened August 2010...), if there is an opportunity/requested to explain I will, but not here(off-topic subject). If you want to accuse me of something please file a separate report and provide evidence for your statements. It would be better if you could explain your behavior than to offend other users...

Never the less your personal opinion of some user might be, if you are not ready to talk , maybe you should reconsider your presence here. I could say the same about you, but I am talking with you without any problems, so please , try to be constructive.Adrian (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, are Adrian and Iaaasi the same person? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. If it is requested I will submit to a check user verification to avoid any confusion. Adrian (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on talk page

I reprimanded a new user User:ImperiumCaelestis on his talk page for failing to abide by Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines, and uploading images under false licenses while claiming authorship of them. As such, i tagged them for deletion and informed the user as well. Instead of being civil and admitting his mistakes, he defensively resorts to counter-accusations of incivility and name calling (Judas Iscariot). After i warn him that any further name calling will be reported here, he dares me to do so. Furthermore, at the end of the previous message, he makes a subtle insult against me with the following statement, "My faith in the supremacy of grey cells over grey hair only increases with each piece of correspondence I receive from you." As such, i would appreciate it if the concerned administrator could do the following:

• Warn him against indulging in such behavior in the future.
• Please read the following correspondence between us and let me know if anyone feels that i was uncivil and made unfair attacks against the user's character, as opposed to his conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis#Question

Joyson Noel 10:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I submit my protest in the manner user Joyson Noel has presented his feedback right from the outset. His style of communication is sharply antithetical to Misplaced Pages:BITE and Misplaced Pages:Don't_tear_others'_heads_off. What was a technical irregularity certainly did not warrant the use of words like you been stealing' and you happen to be a Hindu with the odd name Lui Godinho.

If you kindly peruse Talk:Kanara_(Canara)_Konkani you will find that I have had healthy interactions with veteran users like PratikMallya, Aoghac , 'Yes Michael? and AshLin and have heeded to them and have appreciated their way of putting things across.

It is not only I, but also user AshLin who has found Joyson Noel' language of correspondence offensive. Kindly peruse ]

user AshLin has also conveyed his annoyance at the language used User_talk:Joyson_Noel#Anout_your_post_at_User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis.

I wish to make known that Joyson Noel's language is unbecoming of a veteran and an unwelcoming experience for new users. I appeal to the concerned administrator to take cognisance and necessary action. Godspeed!! Imperium 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is now known that you two don't like each other. I don't think any admin intervention is necessary here. I don't see any egregious personal attacks. Maybe the copyvio accusations warrant a closer look, but I hope users don't expect admins to start finger-wagging at mature adults. We can't take sides or scold other users when they don't get along, all we can do is protect the wiki from disruption. -- œ 12:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ohkay....

Joyson, you're violating WP:NPA and WP:BITE. Those sorts of warning messages are not acceptable even in the case of outright vandals; them, we just block. You adopted an excessively confrontational tone from the first contact I can see, and that's not OK. You need to stop doing that.

Imperium - claiming copyright on someone else's images here is an excellent way to be permanently blocked from contributing here. Violation of others' intellectual property rights is not OK. Even if material is in the public domain now, putting your name anywhere near a copyright without properly crediting the original author is extremely questionable. Even if you transformed it somehow, the original ownership and credits have to be respected and properly noted. "Own work" is entirely unacceptable under those circumstances.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

admins œ and Georgewilliamherbert, I begin my note by thanking you. I admit, as have on earlier occasions, that I had a problem in finding the right copyright templates and filling factual information in the infobox.

If you kindly peruse my talk page, you will find that I have also been questioned regarding the copyright status of certain images I uploaded earlier and the administrators (e.g. B) were courteous enough to read my comments and suggest accordingly ] The images in dispute were downloaded from Facebook and I had no key words to make a search on google for the details of the same; having uploaded those images, I also appealed to veteran users to peruse the articles and offer their criticism (as against censure) ]. I give you my unequivocal assurance that I do not aim to violate intellectual property rights. I am just getting used to filling the infobox; customising copyright templates is still a handicap. PD and copyright templates pertaining to India are few and one has to go through a volley of discussions and subsequent editing. This is an enlightening experience and helps avoid similar errors in the future. I assure you that I am liaising with AshLin to learn the tricks of the trade and get all images factually reworked.

It is not that I have any personal misgivings against Joyson Noel. I maintained a welcoming stance in my conversation. I appreciate the genuineness of his concern; I have a problem with his articulation. These are two snippets of the initial correspondence I had with him:

The only issue regarding the Konkani language agitation page was that an eager beaver administrator marked it for deletion citing it was not as per the standards of a stub just as I was creating the page. please enlist the other lot of issues Look Joyson Noel, I am not an antagonist. That article speaks of a history that is common to both you and I, and I'd like you to submit constructive criticism on that article's page if any. We could get into hair splitting arguments on whether Canara/Kanara Konkani is prevalent or not. We could also team up and help our mā̃ybhās rise out of the ashes. I leave that to your discretion. The manual of styling is something which you too can help out with. mog āso!!

My dear fellow Konkani Joyson Noel, Those articles belong to all of us. They are our common history. I have no issues with users editing and contributing information so long as there is a reason. It is killing when someone just deletes one's contribution without discussion and overlooks offered evidence. Your advice is, and will be, well received. Don't wait to be asked, just hop onto the bandwagon.

kindly peruse

warm regards, Imperium 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperium is lying and has deliberately misquoted the statement. I said, unless you happen to be a Hindu with the odd name Lui Godinho. This was part of the response to Imperium falsely claiming ownership of an image, when In fact, the image belongs to a Lui Godinho. Furthermore, I don’t find the use of the term “stealing” objectionable, as it was used to accurately describe Imperium’s dishonest plagiarism of non-free images while claiming it as his own. Furthermore, this is not the first time I have contacted with the user. My first contact was here, when I offered him helpful tips as I discovered that he was a newcomer with a lack of knowledge on basic rules. After a while, I implored him to take some time off editing here and study the rules which he ignored. See here. If my reprimand was harsh, then it was in light of his flagrant disregard for my advice and the rules. Nowhere in our correspondence have i taken to name calling, false accusations and personal insults. I accepted his request for help and what do I get in return? When I reprimand him with the intention to correct his attitude, i get called “Judas Iscariot”, falsely accused of being uncivil, along with the false charge of insulting Hinduism as well as rebuked for reprimanding him. Let alone the fact that he does not even show the maturity to admit his own mistakes. Even after warning him to steer away from personal character attacks, he goes ahead and makes a subtle insult against my intellect. Make no mistake! I do not request you to take any severe action against him, merely to do what is right and warn him against behaving like this in the future.

Regarding the offense taken at my statement by Ashlin, please see the discussion here at my talk page. The misunderstanding has been cleared. He felt that I was taking Imperium’s anger out on him, which was not the case.

He is manipulating our correspondence to make me look bad. These are the excerpts of my correspondence towards him. Do these sound rude or biting?:

Joyson Noel 14:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I find Joyson Noel's name and religion charades grossly offensive. I come from an age that has seen a Muslim Malcolm X, a Catholic Fr. Prathap Naik and a Hindu Julia Roberts. I appeal to the administrators to take cognisance. His use of Biblical terms in correspondence with other users, and obtuse reasoning, is appalling. I appeal to the administrators to advise him to join a course on formal writing skills and verbal reasoning in the English language. I pray the older veteran takes my comments in good stride. It also looks like the user considers the three years he has tenured in Misplaced Pages as a major professional achievement; I say this as he has been consistently harping on this and trying to tower over me through his previous pieces of correspondence. I suggest he refrain from self-sympathising by using phrases like He is manipulating our correspondence to make me look bad.

As far as the images are concerned, I reckon that Misplaced Pages has an internal mechanism and they are being dealt with accordingly; I pray he understands this, and does not use this page to voice his concerns on the image issue.

I reiterate, I have no personal problems with Joyson Noel. I have seen his user profile and he comes across as a user, younger to me and quite enthusiastic. My proposition is only that he refrain from using directive language and a confrontational tone. I would like to submit to the user, through you, that if he does not refrain himself from doing so in future, I shall make a request that the user's administrator and auto-control rights be withdrawn.

warm regards Imperium 07:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are both being far too wordy. I'm sorry, but you are not coming across as constructive. Also, please stop emphasizing your opponent's name by copying his coloured signature all the time. I don't know why this is, but in my experience doing this while discussing a complaint against another user is almost invariably a sign of an unconstructive, hostile stance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

hahahaha(pardon me for this rendition)...I am an Indian national and coming to the point for me, and my countrymen (as was with colonial England), is a lengthy process of edits, revokes, abrogations and propositions. Hence the verbosity. The British law that we inherited follows the process of an opening statement, followed by arguments and counter-arguments. being a novice on Misplaced Pages, I deemed it best to follow that same time tested approach. Your point is noted. I shan't use copied signatures of users I have a difference of opinion with. Godspeed!! Imperium 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So, you insist you are the freelance photographer Lui Godinho and as you have yourself claimed in your userpage, a Hindu too? I’m not saying that those with non-Indian names cannot be Hindus, but how many Goan Hindus does one meet with Portuguese names! It’s a very rare occurance. To my knowledge, there were a few Hindus from villages in Bardez which did have such names. But almost all of them reverted back to Indian names after 1961. A few Catholic Gaudas re-converted to Hinduism in the twenties and sixties and maintain their Lusitanian names. But the well-known photographer is not a Gauda! I’m unaware of his religious orientation, but he is most likely not a Hindu. The well-known Goan journalist Frederick Noronha is in my contact list and is a friend of Godinho. So, if Imperium is insisting that he is Godinho, I can obtain Godinho’s email id from Noronha and verify the truth of the matter, simply by asking him if Imperium's account belongs to him

I find it disgusting that Imperium is playing the “Religion card” on me again, while simultaneously accusing me of religious bigotry based on my ethnicity. After all, since I am a Mangalorean Catholic, I must be a Roman Catholic too. Right? ...... Wrong! I have been an Atheist since the age of 15. Furthermore, I am an Antitheist, which means that I dislike religion in general and am not in favor of Christianity. Furthermore, no one in his/her right mind would construe the quoted statement as anti-Hindu/anti-Hinduism. By use of the sentence, one could more easily accuse me of being anti-Portuguese than anti-Hindu. Of course, we know that such a supposition would be absurd. So, why should a sensible person pay any heed to this nonsensical allegation?

Why would a staunch atheist and anti-atheist like myself use Biblical terms in the first place? Could Imperium provide an instance of such a use? Who resorted to name-calling me “Judas Iscariot”, probably in light of my ethnic background, after i tagged the Commons images for deletion? Wasn’t it you, Imperium? So, it’s more likely you’re the religious bigot and not me.

As for obtuse reasoning, one merely has to look at your comments in this page to see evidence of it. For instance, interpretation of my comment as anti-Hindu bigotry, claim of my reprimand on your persistent disregard for friendly advice and basic Misplaced Pages policies as "incivility", the objection to the use of "Stealing" to describe your theft of images and claiming authorship of them, etc, among many other examples. I can go on and on about this.

For the sake of common decency, I would suggest that you refrain from reprimaning me for supposed uncivilty, religious bias and obtuse reasoning, if you lack the ethical bone to abstain from them yourself. It’s not your place to do that.

And why shouldn’t I look at my three years tenure in Misplaced Pages as an accomplishment? During my tenure, I have created 79 articles and made minor and major contributions to hundreds more. Compare that to your limited experience and your own edits, which includes a lack of awareness and disregard of Misplaced Pages norms and rules, and you will see why I am in all rights, a far better Wikipedian than yourself. Now, you will probably dispute this. "Hey, i've received a barnstar. Doesn't that mean that i am a good Wikipedian?" Simply the fact that a user has given you a barnstar doesn't mean that he gave it, because he was impressed with your edits. As Wikipedians usually do, he probably gave it to motivate you. One look at your created articles (Canara Konkani, Goa Konkani language agitation of 1986 - far worse prior to my few corrections and title change) reveals a lot of unsourced original research and haphazard editing. The fact that your edits have been disputed by every editor you have come in contact with doesn't in any way make you even an average Wikipedian. An editor is to be judged by the quality of his edits, as opposed to the single barnstar that he received for motivational purposes.

Time and again, Imperium has shown an incredible lack of ethical conscience, as evident from his persistent lying and shameful lack of acknowledgement of his own behavior. Instead, he is trying to deflect criticism from himself and the topic at hand (persistent personal attacks in spite of warning), by putting forward counter-allegations. This is a defense mechanism on his part. He will definitely do so again. I fear that to continue to respond to defamatory attacks and slander from someone of his kind would somehow serve to validate them, putting me in the same boat as him. I leave it to the administrators to suggest that he refrain from this kind of behavior in the future. Joyson Noel 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What was initiated as a message to take cognisance of an alleged insult, was splashed into the sewers of name versus religious identity and has finally been tinged in the dark hue of ethnicity. My man, do get hold of yourself. Your communication is turning out to be a classic case of argumentum ad nauseam. User Joyson, as much as I am a moderately religious person and a practising Hindu, it must be understood that your religious predilections, as mine, are not relevant to the subject of this conversation. The word Judas Iscariot is used as, a simile, to refer to a person who, notwithstanding one's reliance on them, lets them down. I urge you not to take up an "anti-Portuguese", "anti-religious" or any other anti prefixed stance or bring it into public domain unless it is called for, and certainly not on the Wikipedian platform.

User Joyson must refrain from mental processes that result in the usage of phrases like "to my knowledge", "most likely not", "probably" on Misplaced Pages; these can be termed as unsubstantiated statements.

I am sure the administrators will take note of the belittling posture in your last paragraph and will weigh it against your claims to be a responsible and welcoming editor. I can not comment on how efficiently you have contributed to Misplaced Pages; I can certainly comment on how irrelevant a veteran you have proved yourself. I feel the administrators have already given their views on the matter and it is unwise to continue deliberation on this matter. This will be my last piece of correspondence on this matter on this page. I thank the administrators for their discretion. Imperium 12:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You call a person “Judas Iscariot” when he has back-stabbed you, not when he has let you down. You called me so after I tagged your plagiarized images for deletion. I never cease to be amazed by much more absurd your reasoning gets with each passing comment. Furthermore, my "relevance" or "irrelevance" is not for you to decide. If you expected me to take kindly to your cheap under-handed behavior towards me and not criticize you for your misdeeds, then you are in for a big surprise. I am normally very helpful and nice to people as evident from my earlier interactions with you. However, i do not take well to those who ignore friendly advice and then instead of admitting his mistakes like a mature person, responds with lies, name calling, slanderous allegations, etc. So, you shouldn't be surprised at all when faced with such harsh criticism. By the way, i find Imperium's claim that "I have no personal problems with Joyson Noel" very hard to believe. If this is the case, then it would be very odd for him to request that the Goa_Konkani_language_agitation_of_1986 article's name to be changed to the original one without any proper reason, after reporting him to ANI, especially considering that he had earlier completely agreed with me on his talk page. I can't find any other logical explanation for this sudden change of mind. I, however, don't feel that the administrators have deliberated on this matter and await their views. I trust that they will take the right decision. Joyson Noel 12:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I submit my apologies for coming out with this message inspite of stating that my previous message was my last one as the latest message by user Joyson warrants an addendum on my behalf. I would like to make known to him that I do indeed have no misgivings, personal problems or bias against him. I enjoy each piece of correspondence I receive from him. I consider him a unique specimen created by Providence on the seventh day of Genesis and his writings and views only help me get to know him better. I appeal to him to continue his communication on this subject, or any other in this matter, on my user page. I shall not communicate my views on this page on this matter unless called for by discerning administrators (read-third person). I wish user Joyson success in his endeavours. Going off the air... Imperium 13:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In keeping with his past conduct, Imperium shamelessly continues with his name calling and insults again:

I consider him a unique specimen created by Providence on the seventh day of Genesis

How much more evidence does one need? This is the third time! Joyson Noel 13:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we've seen enough. I've interacted with both editors in question, and in my experience, both of them are mature, reasonable editors. Lets not blow up the issue. As mentioned by an editor above, admins cannot discipline editors. Konkani is for all of us, Misplaced Pages is for all of us. If there is really an issue, let us sort it out amicably. Yes Michael? • 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

user Mike, It's a simple case of Much Ado About Nothing. Having read the other articles on this page, I felt ashamed to submit my arguments on this page. It is too trivial to be presented here. I was left with Hobson's choice as I was directed to this page to give my side of the story. Nevertheless, do read an interesting article on the Lusitanisation and delusitanisation of Roman Catholic Gaud Saraswat Names sandwiched between the comments. Also read the autobiography and self-appraisal. Please enjoy the hillarity in the conversation. That is all there is to it. warm regards Imperium 19:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperium, the only hilarity to be found is in your absurd "reasoning" (I use that in the loosest possible sense) and arguments. Take for instance, your objection to my use of the term "Stealing" to describe your theft of images and claiming authorship on them, among many other examples. I can't say that these are to be enjoyed, merely ridiculed and pitied. Furthermore, i mentioned some info about a few Hindus (obtained from a credible book i've read), especially Hindu Gaudas having Lusitanian surnames, not Lusitanisation and delusitanisation of Roman Catholic Gaud Saraswat Names as you have foolishly pointed out. Time and again, you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about. I understand that you are too lazy to read comments carefully as well as to study basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, but this is no excuse at all! I repeat, I am not asking any administrator to take sides, merely to reprimand him for the persistent personal attacks that he has shamelessly resorted to, as this violates WP:PA. Mike knows very well who is at fault here, but he has ignored them because he believes that reprimanding Imperium does not make him neutral. I'm not asking anyone to take my side, just to do what is right! I'm tired of asking this. If administrators cannot be trusted to discipline editors when they repeatedly get out of line, then who can? I must admit that my faith in the ability of administrators to take timely and just action is waning. Joyson Noel 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Both parties have been given a final warning on abusive behavior and personal attacks. Further hostility will result in a block. I sincerely hope these two will avoid each other in the future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

nudity on userpages

What is the current community feeling regarding gratuitous nudity on userpages? I know this is a recurring issue, but given the many many recent discussions about why Misplaced Pages has trouble attracting female editors, I am not clear where the community stands presently. I ask because I came across the userpage of User:LustyRoars, who is an obvious yet unblocked troll, and User:RandomGuy202 who appears to have done no editing other than putting up a gallery of topless women as their userpage. (And, yes, I did purposely entitle this thread "Show me your tits" because it amuses me when people are offended by such things as mildly risque titles of threads but not bothered by the actual issues being raised.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted both userpages, per Misplaced Pages:UP#Images - Kingpin (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion for images in mainspace that incorporated unnecessary attention-grabbing elements. , with consensus saying that such images are not appropriate, and modifying the Rules of Thumb #9 at WP:IUP to now read: Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article. Since we are not a webhost, I would argue that while there may be an exceptional reason to allow an editor to include a nude picture (perhaps they are a professional nude model?), the average editor never needs to include these, and such images should be removed from userpages. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware of those recent changes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree w/ the nuking of userspace nudes, but as a participant to that IUP discussion I can definitely say none of us even considered images outside of the mainspace when discussing the change. Protonk (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is ANI the right place for the general question - is there something that admins can do, by application of policy? In the case of LustyRoars, possibly; we can discuss whether they are trolling, and if so whether they should be banned (in which case their userpage will be replaced with a template, thus eliminating the nudey pics, should the decision be in the affirmative.) RandomGuy202? Not really, but then there was nothing to stop you from blanking the page per IAR as it is serving no encyclopedic purpose. Any person other than the account holder reverting would need to show why it it needed for those images to be shown - and if the account holder re-activates after being moribund for so long they can also provide a rationale. It is a case by case situation, I suggest. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED but it is WP:NOTWEBHOST either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have anchored the needlessly titillating header and given a reflective title. Delicious carbuncle, please don't disrupt the wikipedia to make a point or, because as you say, it amuses you when people are offended. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not amuse me when people are offended. You have misinterpreted what I wrote, but exactly fulfilled my prediction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't? Then why did you write "it amuses me when people are offended"? maybe you'd like to strike that? - Kingpin (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is part of what I wrote, so I will admit to being amused when people are offended under certain specified conditions with attached clauses. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed the last dozen of so edits of Lusty Roars (such gems as trying to get Gonville Bromhead's name to rhyme with a rude word, accusing park staff of murdering ducks, preventing the removal of improperly sourced BLP material, while adding false info himself, and just general vandalism) I've indeffed him. Can't see this chap is a net asset to the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would you folks react to a nude picture of the user hirself? Plenty of Wikipedians have photos of themselves on their user pages, and if the user were a nudist or some variety of skyclad pagan, it might even be a religion or (legally parallel) creed issue. Given that anti-nudism is itself a religious taboo, and that the law in many places protects nudity (here in Ontario, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to bare their breasts in public), you'd have a hard time arguing that someone should be censored for it. SmashTheState (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess my first thought is I'd be highly dubious that any revealing photo was indeed of the user in question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And mine would be "Can I have a revealing photo of User:Casliber on my page?" Bishonen | talk 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

While it may be perfectly lawful and socially acceptable for women to go topless in public in many jurisdictions, Misplaced Pages is a collection of privately owned servers associated with a privately "owned" domain name. Although NOTCENSORED is frequently trotted out here as some kind of excuse for anything that people object to, it is nonsense. Misplaced Pages is censored, and that censorship is the right of its owners, who set the rules. Of course I mean the community sets the rules, but only inasmuch as the rules do not conflict with the aims of the owners. All of which is to say that a "constitutional right" has very little relevance here or on any website. So, I guess the answer to your question is, per WP:UP, no, a nude picture of the user would not be allowed here (although Commons would welcome it with open arms). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Per NOTWEBHOST it's not appropriate for the site to let users keep any disruptive personality displays in userspace or elsewhere else. We're traditionally pretty flexible about userspace content, but if something draws significant controversy, the burden is on the user to show that it has an encyclopedic purpose if it's not to be deleted. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the conservative, would be censors here need to step back and check the rules. Nudity is not prohibited by WP:UP. Sexually provocative images are. Without making any comment on the images in question, statements like "a nude picture of the user would not be allowed here" are simply not in keeping with the rules. Take your conservatism over to Conservapedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As a rule, I'm in favor of gratuitous nudity. However there is a time and a place for everything, and user pages of an encyclopedia project intended for all ages and genders might not the be best place to expose one's genitalia to anyone who wishes to leave a note. Misplaced Pages articles should not be censored. But user pages should show a level of maturity consistent with encyclopedia editors.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult area for a global encyclopaedia. Community standards on nudity vary widely across the globe. Should the encyclopaedia be forced to conform to the most conservative of those standards because some people are offended by any nudity, or should we aim for some middle-of-the-road approach? It's very possible to have some nudity with being sexually provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, you will notice I started out by asking what the current community feeling is on this, since it has changed over time. While your characterization of this as a right vs left issue is just silly, you make a good point. The guideline does not prohibit nudity, it prohibits images "clearly intended as sexually provocative" (as well as saying some other things about which are open to interpretation). Here are archived versions of the now-deleted userpages ( & ). Taking into consideration the contributions of those editors, do you think they should have been retained? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hilo48, user pages are not "the encyclopedia"; they exist to facilitate development of the encyclopedia, which is different. Users looking for Myspace know where it is. See also NOTMYSPACE, which says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." If someone has an encyclopedic reason for a nude image in a user page, e.g. if they are drafting an art-related article that includes some nude Rubens paintings, no problem. If they have a small, unprovocative photo of themselves as a part of their user info, that's generally accepted though I'm not a supporter of the practice myself. But in all cases, they should not turn user space into a personal photo gallery whether nude or not. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I might add a comment as an uninvolved user. Short of shouting "Won't somebody please think of the children?" I am of the opinion that although Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED I think that gratuitous nudity on user pages is wrong because it serves no encyclopedic value and people hardly come on here and expect to see pictures that should be in a gentlemen's special interest magazine on someone's userpage. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting block for editor making overtly racist edits

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

User:Giornorosso was recently warned about edit-warring on Types of rape for repeatedly inserting "Race is a very significant factor in determining offenders. Most of gang rape offenders in the UK are black", which is a gross distortion of the source. This followed their insertion of "nigger" into an image caption, which sadly went unnoticed. Here are a few more choice examples, but there seems to be a specific agenda underlying all of their editing: , , , & .

Giornorosso has already been indef blocked on de.wiki for a single racist comment. On Commons, they have included pro-Gadaffi comments in image uploads ( & ). I suggest that their contribution history be carefully reviewed following an indef block (Gang rape is a new fork of Types of rape, for example). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The n-word comment was added by an IP, not Giornorosso. His edit was to add an image of Barak Obama. Another edit calls someone a "black supremacist" without a source. Another adds unsourced stats on prison populations. One of your diffs is of Giornorosso adding the n-word to a page to describe a group of people. No comment on the links from other wikis. N419BH 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

? I wonder if you were looking at the wrong link. He added the word "nigger" in the link supplied; no IP has edited that article in quite some time, as it has been semi-protected since 2008. --Moonriddengirl 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This is the diff of him adding "nigger" on the Nigeria article which is what was being referred to by DC I believe. There is a distinct theme to many of his edits relating to Roma, blacks, muslims and crime. Some of the edits are sourced - rather dubiously, but some of his edits like the Nigerian one are pure vandalism of a particularly offensive kind. This an editor with an obvious agenda and a willingness to vandalise. I would propose an indef. block. Fainites scribs 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for racist vandalism. --jpgordon 01:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He's requested an unblock, of course. Could someone more familiar than I with how SUL works verify that this demonstrates that it's the same person on the various wikis? --jpgordon 16:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the same person. If it weren't, the last column would say something like unattached or unconnected. I'm denying the unblock request. NW (Talk) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You just can't keep a good man down

Visitor10001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Remember this guy? The one who didn't get blocked for this and this because he said he was leaving? Remember how calling other editors "assholes" and "douchebag" for reverting him wasn't good for a block because he said he was leaving? Well, brace yourselves for a shock; he's back. But wait, there's more. Now he's announcing his intention to sockpuppet if he doesn't get his way on his favorite article.

Here's the backstory: Redemption theory is one of those goofy tax-protest scams that says you're not legally required to pay taxes, and if you follow some obscure procedures you're legally excused from doing so. Real lunatic stuff. Visitor has been employing the equal validity fallacy to insist that the fringe ideas be given equal treatment with what the FBI, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice (in short, the reality based community) say about it. Here is an example of his thinking (if you can call it that) from my talk page, where he carries on about the "fraudulent U.S. government". You get the picture. It doesn't go anywhere good. His latest edit to the article is attempting to use this as a reliable source. This is a report written by a guy who at this very moment is sitting in a Federal prison cell because he followed the same bad advice he gives in this report.

Now I realize this may look like it's somewhat of a content dispute, but check more of his recent diffs. And remember, this is a fringe theory that has more consequences than most. Unlike disputes about who wrote Shakespeare's works and whether the lost continent of Atlantis ever really existed, if that article gives any credit or validity to "redemption theory" and our readers follow it, it will take them by a short route to federal prison. We owe our readers better than that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's vowing to sock, he deserves the block! —Jeremy 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. I cannot believe that this editor is not going to do something in the near future that won't get him blocked, but nothing he has done since his return is in violation of policy (even the threat to sock isn't, as it appears more to be rhetorical musing). I would also be wary of blocking for the past PA's, since the block period would likely have expired by now. I suggest that we wait, civilly engaging with him regarding WP:CONSENSUS where thought necessary, until he makes an inappropriate comment and dealing with it at that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If blocks are supposed to be preventative, then their statements fully justify one. They are making it clear that they intend to disrupt Misplaced Pages until they gets their way. IMO, this should be treated similar to an NLT block: indef until they back off the threat. Resolute 19:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• In a rational world, we could block this guy based on WP:LOON, block any accounts that suddenly show up to continue pushing the same ridiculous POV, and move on with our lives. Someone who pushes this silliness is never, ever going to be helpful in building a respectable encyclopedia. However, this is not a rational world, this is Misplaced Pages, and in this environment LHvU is probably right: we need to go thru the charade of pretending that it is only a matter of explaining our complicated policies about not being an edit-warring POV-pushing loon, and the lightbulb will go on an he'll start churning out FA's, and the extreme likelihood of this happening is worth the weeks of disruption it creates for everyone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I thought better of this, and was going to just block him indef, but I see FPaT is faster than me and has blocked for a week. I support the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• FPat? Future Perfect at Teatime? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Even though this is not a rational world, last time I looked persistent tendentious editing was blockable. Blocked a week, as a start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to note for the record, his last edit before being blocked was this taunt on my talk page.

Also a question. Does it make any sense to think there should be some special level of scrutiny on tax-protest related articles due to the serious legal consequences that could accrue to anyone if they got erroneous or suspect information from a Misplaced Pages article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages quite clearly states in many places that it cannot be depended upon for legal advice. How could we, with editors from hundreds of countries contributing? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is certainly collegial. Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Block changed to indefinite, and talkpage privileges withdrawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Materialscientist‎

Can we get some semi-protection and RevDels there please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 14:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Not by me, I went there and found the actions taken - just placing resolved template, at second attempt, here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

User Slrubenstein

Please consider yet another evolutionary action for this novice editor This users typical communication style is denigrating by way of unspecified negativity:

• "nothing you have" written is valid; everything you have written is " worthless".
• After deleting an entire day of my editing effort, without discussion they said "I really do not see how it is a worthwhile use of my time to give you any more feedback". Does this violate WP:Editing policy by removing without discussion?
• following me around, undoing my edits
• demanding expertise (Please consider the WP:experts are scum essay in this reguard.)
• psychobabble where serious discussion with me is warranted: "Misplaced Pages is not about temptation, and I am not your tutor."

See the discussions hear, here, and here. Slrubenstein lacks knowledge of the Misplaced Pages culture, is bold, and yet too defensive for communication, remaining silent on issues they might better apologize for. I give it up to you to judge my own hypocritical judgment. I have tried, and so have others. — CpiralCpiral 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset at having your work reverted, in the future you can avooid that by proposing large changes and rewrites on the talkpage before adding them to the article. In this case most of your edits were clearly not based in a sufficient level of knowledge about the topic and in fact completely misrepresented while also not being based in sources. It is a strong word to call your contribution worthless, but in terms of our mission of improving the wikipedia by using the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR to add and expand our article content it was not strictly speaking an wrong evaluation. You are not being quite truthful that Slrubenstein has refused to give you feedback, he has in fact argued at length trying to explain to you why your edits were not an improvement to the article. He said that he would give no more feedback when after extended discussion you still did not appear to understand. He did undid your correction of grammar, but you do not show that he then immediately after proceded to undo his reversal and let your correction stand. Slrubenstein does have an abrasive tone in discussions, that is trur and I have asked him to tone it down sometimes, but he not really being incivil here. But actuallt I do understand his frustration when users undertake major rewrites of articles without doing the basic research necessary for understanding what the actual topic of the article. I don't think there is basis for sanctions here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you understand me wrongly. I am happy about the reversion, and hope the best afterword, as is evidenced by my repeated efforts to make progress. It seems to me you swerved off early on, and landed at a destination not tied to the original investigative request. Your narrative of events is commendable, but vacant concerning my unmet need, as asserted. My fault and my subjective frame of reference here is not lost to me, and I don't understand why my fault needs to be questioned or pointed out here. Slrubensteins faults are what seems lost here. You have said Slrubenstein is "strong" and "not incivil", but you give no proof, as I have, that there is a problem letting Slrubenstein run rampant. An objective, factual, and specific inquiry into the charges I have laid out here, should be considered.

To answer your other charge against me: per Slrubenstein's talk page, I requested he explain his edit, and his response was relevent: silence. Yes, he did revert (irrelevent), but there was no apology, or effort on his part to acknowledge his errant (and suspicious) behavior and subsequent uncivil remarks to me ("I am not your tutor." he said!)— CpiralCpiral 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think the problem is that you've been adding original research. You removed sourced material from Cultural relativism, and replaced it with unsourced material such as: "Cultural relativism is the cultural aspect of relativism. Like any science cultural relativism has a philosophy that attempts to justify its structural aspects," and "What is really right philosophically, for being moral, is a question that asks how we know what we know to be morally true in the largest conceivable structure of an absolute, objective reality."

Again, the problem is as the original assertion stated. If there is a serious problem with me, please let it be made a different subject. Thank you. Currently, I am the patient one with the unmet need for recognition of stalking and repeated incivility.— CpiralCpiral 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That kind of edit will always be removed if spotted, because our articles have to comply with the three content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. That means you should include reliable sources for any edit likely to be challenged, which is practically everything in an area like this. SlimVirgin 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel like the focus should be on me or my work. Here I am being accused of lying and misbehaving as if I did not already know I was wrong for my action. If one does research on my style, history, and level of quality, they will find differently than to conceive of my portrayal here. Respectfully, perhaps I expect too much from this administrative body, and I can only applaud the good reminders (that I need occasionally) that I need to prove by citing, (such things as that "cultural relativism" relates culture and relativism), and go on, happily patted and advised on a matter differently than I ever expected could be seriously taken up by more than one councilor.

Nothing to see here. Cpiral, you may wish to request input from additional editors if Slrubenstein's explanations do not satisfy you; this is the first step in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I being clear? What can I do to be actually heard rather than spoken to? Can I get some acknowledgment here, please? — CpiralCpiral 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but referring to an admin, who has had an account since 2001, as a "novice" is not likely to lead to winning your argument. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Think again, for the linked-to page from the term "novice" shows, indeed that Slrubenstein is a novice editor. Furthermore, I'm not so desparate that I need to flatter my way into the good graces of some lordship's judgement. Who were you referring to? I have limited patience for this so-called "hearing". Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_is_failing#The_assumption_of_limitless_patience

• "Novice editor" is a joke.
• SLR's earliest contrib page
• SLR's edit count
• It should have been quite clear from what SLR wrote that he isn't a novice, and is knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages policies.
• You have been answered already more than once, it's simply that the answer isn't one you want to hear: You are wrong. SLR is right. Move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cpiral, Maunus gave you good advice and Slim Virgin explained the problem pretty well. 2/0's comment is a bit misplaced since you're already receiving feedback from other editors, as Beyond My Ken explained. You mention that "I do not have a mastery of the subject, but I am a four-year degree in electrical engineering, and am well read in many disciplines" If you are well-read about cultural relativism then the cure for this dispute is obvious: just cite your edits to reliable sources about that subject. Otherwise, you should probably study the subject a bit before making those types of edits to the article (you don't have to become an expert). Discussing proposed changes on the talk page is also a good practice in these situations. Right now, you are editing like WP:RANDY, which is not a good thing. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

Hello. Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) has recently made a series of allegations that I and another user (User:Slatersteven) are are involved in off-wiki collusion and are supporters of the British National Party or extremist politics in general.

Diffs:

I made clear to Hauskalainen that I wan't happy and asked him to remove the comments at his takpage here: User_talk:Hauskalainen. He has responded, but does not seem to see that he has done anything wrong. Far from removing the comments, he went back and edited them so as to additionally offend against Godwin's Law: .

My request is: please could an admin either delete the material contained in the diffs above or else give me clearance to do it, then please give some advice to Hauskalainen so that the behaviour isn't repeated.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the user seems to be using the accusation as an attempt at intimidation ]. The user has also refused to appoligise or to retract the accusation ].Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a series of personal attacks and Hauskalainen should be blocked unless it is retracted. TFD (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone should advise Hauskalainen that excessive use of the caps lock key and the bold face markup has the opposite to the intended effect. Instead of strengthening one's argument, it weakens it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think at this stage a warning is all that is needed. Unless this represents a patern of attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked the account until they provide the alleged evidence or they confirm they will redact said allegations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be OK to remove the material from NPOVN? I consider the claims made there to be a serious slur and it's quite a public location. --FormerIP (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be best if it were redacted rather than removed, so the more legitimate aspects of the discussion can remain in the original format. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is my concearn, if he does not retract it the accusatio remains there. Thus the slur on our characters. I have no major issue with it but would have liked toi have had the chande to refute the evidacen rather then allow the inuendo (and thus the doubt) to remain.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to review this edit: . Steven: I've also slightly edited one of your posts in the process. Hope that's okay. --FormerIP (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No probs, but i am not sure that there was consensus for the materials removal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Question, regarding LessHeard's comment above: "provide the alleged evidence" - why would providing such evidence of the user's membership of extreme political movements justify the users comments? It's not against Misplaced Pages policy to be affiliated with political groups if it doesn't affect your editing, but WP:NPA and its derivatives are applied across the board. S.G. _ping! 19:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've got no problem with the idea that Hauskalainen can be unblocked if he can convince a reviewing admin that his allegations had a basis, because he won't be able to do that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The accusatin (and thus the evidacen) is about POV pushing based uopon political advicacy (and indead COI).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie-

User IRWolfie- is seriously disrupting the Frank J. Tipler article by deleting peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings. Here is a diff: . As I said to him on that article's Talk page on this matter after he had already been repeatedly told about how this is improper:

This time around you also deleted "Cosmological Limits on Computation", which was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (published by Springer). You also deleted numerous other mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journal papers, such as from the International Journal of Astrobiology (published by Cambridge University Press) and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science (published by Wiley-Blackwell). You also deleted the peer-reviewed proceedings papers (peer-review is a standard process in proceedings papers).

Based upon your deletions of these peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, it appears that you are simply attempting to disrupt this article.

--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My response in Talk:Frank_J._Tipler#Journals and my improvements should show that I am acting in good faith to try and improve the article. The "journal of religion & science" is not a reliable scientific journal nor is the Journal of Astrobiology. The "Cosmological limits on computation" is about the possibility of universal turing machines also and so not related to the specific claims. I have made further edits to tidy up the article and separate Tipler's scientific work from his personal work on religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The International Journal of Astrobiology is published by Cambridge University Press. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading journal on science and religion.

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" was the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology, so you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.

Based upon your complete ignorance on this topic, there is no possible way that you could improve the article, except for perhaps grammar.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for personal attacks. Also note that I am a fully qualified physicist. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

also the "zygon: journal of religion & science" is not a scientific journal as is evident from http://www.zygonjournal.org/. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading journal on science and religion. Here is Wiley-Blackwell's Zygon homepage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9744 .

You ignorantly said that the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" didn't much concern the topic of the article, when in fact it was the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology, so you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.

I didn't make a personal attack upon you, I simply pointed out the fact that you have not the slightest idea about this subject, and so it is logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Again please no ad hominem attacks. Zygon may or may not be a good journal or not, but still it is not a scientific journal. Zygon describes itself as "Zygon is an interdisciplinary journal". "The paper Cosmological Limits on Computation" concerns itself with the fundamental feasibility of a universal turing machine. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible. So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.

Pointing out that you have no idea whatsoever as to what you are talking about on this subject is not a personal attack upon you. Rather, it's simply pointing out that it is logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.

Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading academic journal on science and religion.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note there have been problems with Jamie Michelle tendentiously editing Tipler articles in the past. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a false statement. A number of vandals, and also stalkers of myself, had shown up due to their ideological dislike of the Omega Point (Tipler) article from having seen a news report on Prof. Tipler that was posted on some antitheist discussion boards, with some of them being banned for their vandalism and their nasty and extremely hateful abuse of me.

I notice you also appear to be among their circle, given how you follow me around in order to make comments like the above and in order to support those who disrupt the Tipler articles, which doesn't speak at all well for you.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Jamiemichelle is still reverting every change I have ever made to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a false statement. I did not add back the correspondence. You have admitted above that you know absolutely nothing about the Omega Point cosmology, and so it is not logically possible for you to improve the article except by editing grammar and typos, and the like.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a diff of your revert: . Here is a diff of before I edited the page and after you reverted all changes. The only paper you have removed is the nature correspondence, whereas you removed all further edits I made to the page. . IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So you here admit that your statement that I have reverted every change you made is false. Like I said, I did not add back the correspondence. All your other edits which delete the peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals and proceedings are highly disruptive, and so of course they are going to be reverted.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of the attacks against me by the user Jamiemichelle. . The user also reverted my edits three times within 24 hours as can be seen here IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never made any attack upon you in the slightest. You are the one who has repeatedly admitted both above and on the Frank J. Tipler Talk page that you do not have even the slightest knowledge about the Omega Point cosmology. I have merely used these admissions by you to point out that it is logically impossible for you to improve an article whose subject you know nothing about, except for making edits concerning formatting, grammar, typos, and other such edits which don't require any knowledge of the subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk)

• (Non-administrator comment) Content dispute, tendentious editing on both sides, and possible ownership issues. Suggest dispute resolution process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "tendentious" edits on my part, as I'm merely reverting highly disruptive edits by a person who has repeatedly admitted that they know nothing whatsoever about the subject which they are presuming to edit. Nor is there any "ownership" issues on my part, as deleting peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals and proceedings is extremely disruptive. I would hope anybody would revert such edits, particularly by a person who has admitted that they have no clue about what the papers talk about which they are deleting.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute, and a fairly major mess. Looks like some possible ownership issues and perhaps undue weight given to some fronts. Sorting through it at the moment. Both of you are at 3 reverts for the day, by the way. N419BH 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) violation of WP:3RR

It appears as though the following constitute reversion of the same information, namely the re-addition of ten references to back up a single sentence:

1. 1:50 3/13/2011
2. 18:11 3/13/2011
3. 19:20 3/13/2011
4. 19:36 3/13/2011

The final two attack IRWolfie's credibility in the edit summary. N419BH 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm accusing him of being disruptive, and hence lacking in credibility. That's what this report is about.

IRWolfie- has repeatedly admitted above and on the Frank J. Tipler Talk page that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the Omega Point cosmology. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if he would not attempt to make edits based upon that complete lack of knowledge, yet he has repeatedly attempted to delete the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" based upon his ignorance of the subject. He finally on the Talk page admitted that he was wrong in attempting to delete that article.

Now Tim Shuba (who is part of an antitheist crowd that got involved in articles associated with Prof. Tipler after a news report on Tipler was posted to some antitheist discussion boards) has re-deleted this article, which IRWolfie- admits that he was wrong to delete. As well, Tim Shuba has also reinstated IRWolfie-'s other deletions of the peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals and proceedings.

These edits are improper and violate Misplaced Pages policy regarding credible sources.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your four reverts in one day are also improper. I agree with Tim's edits and have added a few myself. Instead of arguing about which version is correct, why don't you find references to back up the positive statements made about the gentleman. One reference will do per sentence. N419BH 22:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but, for the record it should be noted that I made no such admittance that I have "no knowledge whatsoever". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly admitted that you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the Omega Point cosmolgy. Look above in this thread: you repeatedly stated that the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" didn't belong in the article, because you said it was about universal Turing machines. On the Frank J. Tipler Talk page you admit that you were wrong about this paper.

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible.

When Prof. Tipler states in that abstract "In particular, it is shown that it is possible only if the universe is closed and only if its future c-boundary consists of a single point", that is the Omega Point cosmology that he is speaking about. And again, Tipler explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper. The Omega Point is the is name that Tipler gives in this paper for this future single-point c-boundary: hence the name "Omega Point", meaning end-point at a literal geometric point of infinite sharpness.

So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about on this subject. It is therefore logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving formatting, grammar, typos, and the like, which don't require any knowledge on the subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim Shuba

User Tim Shuba has reinstated user IRWolfie-'s disruptive edits already reported on this board: .

Tim Shuba is part of a crowd of antitheist ideologues who for some time now have been dirupting articles associeted with Prof. Frank J. Tipler. Viz.: .

Awhile back, a number of vandals, and also stalkers of myself, had shown up due to their ideological dislike of the Omega Point (Tipler) article from having seen a news report on Prof. Tipler that was posted on some antitheist discussion boards, with some of them being banned for their vandalism and their nasty and extremely hateful abuse of me.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this from being it's own thread to being a section of this one as the matters are directly related. You didn't notify Tim as required. I strongly suggest reading WP:BOOMERANG before continuing. N419BH 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to notify him, but I'll do that now.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption of article, improper deletion of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals and proceedings

IRWolfie- has repeatedly admitted above and on the Misplaced Pages Administrators noticeboard that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the Omega Point cosmology. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if he would not attempt to make edits based upon that complete lack of knowledge, yet he has repeatedly attempted to delete the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" based upon his ignorance of the subject. He finally above admitted that he was wrong in attempting to delete that article.

But his other deletions of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals and proceedings is also utterly improper and a violation of Misplaced Pages policy regarding reliable sources: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

Now Tim Shuba (who is part of an antitheist crowd that got involved in articles associated with Prof. Tipler after a news report on Tipler was posted to some antitheist discussion boards) has re-deleted the "Cosmological Limits on Computation" paper, which IRWolfie- admits above that he was wrong to delete. As well, Tim Shuba has also reinstated IRWolfie-'s other deletions of the peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals and proceedings, which as I said is an utter violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources.

Out of ten of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers that are published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, all of them except for three papers have been deleted from the article. It blatanty appears that IRWolfie- and Tim Shuba's intentions here are to make it appear as if Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology hasn't been as widely published in the mainstream scientific literature as it in fact has been. At any rate, this is an utter violation of Misplaced Pages policy regarding reliable sources: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

The following are the seven (out of ten) of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings which have been deleted by IRWolfie- and Tim Shuba:

• Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, Bibcode:1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)
• Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1988), pp. 27-48; published by University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.
• Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97-0.
• Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", Bibcode:1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, Bibcode:1993dgr2.conf.....H.
• Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; Error: Bad DOI specified!. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.
• Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 20-1, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, Bibcode:2001AIPC..586.....W.
• Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, Bibcode:2003IJAsB...2..141T; also available here. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.

Again, all of the above deleted papers are peer-reviewed and published in mainstream scientific journals or proceedings, and thus deleting them is a complete violation of Misplaced Pages policy regarding reliable sources: .--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me, I made no such claims as you show in the first paragraph, please provide diffs. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly admitted that you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the Omega Point cosmolgy. Look above in this thread: you repeatedly stated that the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" didn't belong in the article, because you said it was about universal Turing machines. On the Frank J. Tipler Talk page you admit that you were wrong about this paper.

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible.

When Prof. Tipler states in that abstract "In particular, it is shown that it is possible only if the universe is closed and only if its future c-boundary consists of a single point", that is the Omega Point cosmology that he is speaking about. And again, Tipler explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper. The Omega Point is the is name that Tipler gives in this paper for this future single-point c-boundary: hence the name "Omega Point", meaning end-point at a literal geometric point of infinite sharpness.

So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about on this subject. It is therefore logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving formatting, grammar, typos, and the like, which don't require any knowledge on the subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle seems to be confusing 'doesn't accept everything about my pet cosmology' with 'knows nothing about'. We have fringe for a reason, people using actual sources instead of "religious science" claptrap to back up what we put in writing about the structure of the universe should be a common event, and fall under WP:FRINGE. Do a substantial majority of practicing cosmologists openly dismiss it? Then its use should be minimal and restricted to articles about the fringe theory. -- ۩ Mask 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Known IP edit warrior is back

The editor has a long history of disruption, edit warring, and consequent blocks under different IPs, while the most recent ones are:

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

The user has been discussed on this noticeboard 3 times:

• In September, 2010: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#User:213.33.31.120 @ Gaza War
• In September, 2010: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#User:213.6.11.49
• In October, 2010: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#213.6.27.118 and 213.6.11.49

Overall, the following IPs has been used by this user:

• 213.6.11.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.6.27.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.6.29.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.6.36.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.6.4.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.6.46.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.213.38.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So far the user has faced 7 blocks ranging from 24h to 7d. The connection between the IPs can be established, taking into account the same writing style, and the same behavior patterns, such as edit warring, ignoring warnings, own talk page blanking, area of interests, geography. The most recent and serious violation is 1RR on Palestine-Israel articles:

1. 1st and 2nd reverts on Mira Awad within 22 hours.
2. 1st (1, 2, 3) and 2nd (, ) series of reverts on Palestinian Christians article within 22 hours.

The user seems to simply ignore warnings and blocks, for that reason I'm asking for administrative action. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please consider the following connected IPs, raising the total number of blocks to 10:

• 213.6.29.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.6.13.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.6.7.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm deeply sorry to say that, but the first problem of the user is WP:COMPETENCE. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

i do not know any of the above ips and i have no connection with any of them! u can not come up with a connection of some people from different ips or even countries edit the same article or agree with something that others do not agree withm ,means that they r the same person! ur accusation makes no sense, and i find it very offensive! u owe me an apology!--213.6.4.208 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"different ips or even countries edit the same article "

You may be unaware of this, but you can trace all IPs to a general area through a variety of websites. All IPs that begin 213.6 are from Essen Germany, and the IP 82.213.38.2 is from Munich Germany, so it is clear that these IP's are not from different countries.AerobicFox (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These IPs have also been reported here, not long ago. Soosim (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the "report" u filed against my ip and other ips, all what i know is that i am not associated or connected with any of them, and do not know what is this all about anyways!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If the IPs deny the connection between them, despite the notable similarity of the edit patterns, is it proper to treat this as a sock puppetry and open an SPI case? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actionable and disturbing vandalism, please respond sooner than later

Sanchristobal76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User Sanchristobal76 has been uploading an image of himself(hopefully it's not someone else) in fetishistic clothing onto multiple articles.

• Here
• Here
• Here
• Here
• Here

These are all just from the past half an hour or so. He has a history of doing this as evidenced by his repeated attempts to insert these images of himself since Nov. 30th. Ban him.AerobicFox (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to making himself a new poster boy for the old saying about fools names and faces often seen in public places, I thought "original research" was against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As is photobombing and self promotion with low quality pictures.AerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Same expression, whether in Lederhosen or... stuff. I'd he happier in Lederhosen, swigging a Maß... Doc talk 04:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Summer Vacation may have gone off the deep end...

Summer Vacation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I have had a short but eventful history together. Our interactions began with a mass-reversion on a major category shift without consensus. Discussion of that at Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization#Waterparks.. Insults against other contributors and personal attacks happened there.

Then after cleaning up an article on Camp ASCCA, Summer Vacation posted on the talk page of Elen of the Roads, which Elen of the Roads replied to and then notified me about. I then responded, explaining that I believed at that time that the user was acting in good faith, and indicated matters related to Summer Vacation relating to WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL that I was troubled by.

On Sunday, checking up on my cleanup on Camp ASCCA, I noticed that the image that I had left in the infobox had been deleted. I followed the trail for that back to Commons, and discovered that a mass-deletion of a number of Summer Vacation's images had occurred (see the thread on Commons). This is where I discovered that the remainder of Summer Vacation's images were likely copyvios. This led to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Camp Farwell images uploaded by User:Summer Vacation and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All remaining files by User:Summer Vacation, citing copyright concerns.

Now today, I sit down to Misplaced Pages and find this posted on my talk page, and discover that the same message, with a few modifications here and there, has been cross-posted here, here, here, here, and here.

I have put up with quite a bit on Misplaced Pages as of late, but this is seriously crossing the line on harrassment. I believe that Summer Vacation has kind of gone off the deep end, and I am starting to become concerned about what this user might do next. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The same off-the-deep-end rant was also cross-posted here and here on Commons. Will be notifying Commons' equivalent of ANI as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

More like gone off the shallow end... from the high board. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't credit him with that much athleticism. Ps. I didn't realize there was a template for small writing, ty for using it above.AerobicFox (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I first used it when I noticed someone else use it. Unfortunately, I failed to note who it was. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I first used it when I noticed someone else use it. Unfortunately, I failed to note who it was. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"How could anyone that ugly upload a picture of himself? No wonder he has no life."

Is a clear violation of WP:NPA. I recommend warning and/or temp block. Admins! I summon you!AerobicFox (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the other guy didn't upload his own portrait, just imagine how he must look, compared with the guy who did. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't show my face after a 30 ft. dive into 12 in. water.AerobicFox (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved with this user and I believe a temp block would work best. The user started out being friendly and accepted comments as seen here however since the reversion of his category changes by SchuminWeb, Summer Vacation's attitude changed. I posted a message on his talk page after he began the attacks in an attempt to commend him for some of his earlier edits (adding coordinates on hundreds of articles etc) and to advise him to continue with some smaller changes to learn the ropes. I also offerred my assistance if he required it. Summer Vacation replaced all of the content on his talk page with "Positive, Creative and Constructive Notes Only - All others piss off. HA!". I feel the user had the right intentions and would be of great benefit to Misplaced Pages if he took the time to learn the ropes and to understand that there are guidelines and procedures that we follow. Despite WP:COOLDOWN I think WP:IAR may come into consideration here and a cooloff block could be implemented. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

His userpage (prior to him replacing it with another version of the rant and Floq blanking it ) does not inspire me with confidence that he is prepared to work with us. I advised him yesterday that SchuminWeb was not a vandal and that saying he was could cause problems. I have left him what I consider to be a final warning - if he goes off like that again, I will block him myself if someone else doesn't get to him first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have everyones attention, I would like to make a point about respect. The procedure here at Misplaced Pages is to destroy and justify. Not a single person asks the author first, or tries to reach a consensus about a large change first, prior to undoing a lot of work. Do you people really understand the impact that this has on an author or someone who is trying to help clean up Misplaced Pages. You slap someone in the face, and then expect them to say thanks. SchuminWeb and Themeparkgc know that I posted my purpose and scope on my user page first, and they could have contacted me at any time about the changes that I made. I also made it clear that what they are doing is arbitrary and that the rules are not being applied evenly, especially in summer camp and amusement park articles. All of these articles are ads, and have no educational value whatsoever. Amusement park articles have surplus photos that should be deleted exactly as the Public Domain photos were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Amusement park ride descriptions should be deleted exactly as the activities were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Themeparkg will fight to the death to prevent this from happening, since this is his hobby. A strict application of the rules would wipe out all amusement park, waterpark and summer camp articles, as they are nothing more than promotional ads. And they duplicate what is on the park website. And the photos are not educational. So, until you people get your act together, and show some respect for others, Misplaced Pages is not worth my time. Summer Vacation (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, where to start. First, do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Also, please attempt to remain civil with your communications and be aware that personal attacks are never acceptable, discuss content and contributions, not personal opinions on the person's looks, living conditions, lifestyle, etc. Next, you do not own the articles, changes are made by community consensus in line with site policies and guidelines - you seem to feel that you can make all the changes you wish, but that others must follow your personal processes instead of Misplaced Pages guidelines and processes. Others have attempted to assist you, yet you proceed in your actions , continuing as if you didn't hear them, either misunderstanding the advice given or not reading the assistance given. Also be aware that other articles not following appropriate content guidelines does not mean that a new article can avoid those guidelines - Misplaced Pages is a big place, and some articles can go quite a while before being cleaned up. Misplaced Pages also has policies and guidelines that distinguish appropriate content structure and notability, most of which revolve around verifiability using reliable sources while maintaining an objective neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk) - 14:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Thornofhate's page moves. Again.

Thornofhate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wooblz! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previous account)
HiMyNameIsTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (past sockpuppet)

Thornofhate has been brought up here before as Wooblz! (, ) for a number of issues, one of which was cut and paste moves, and has been warned 1 2 3 on his talkpage since his "clean start", yet he still continues to use copy and paste moves. There isn't a huge number of them every month, but most of his work here seems to be focused on disruption or complete ignorance of policies, despite repeated reminders of policy (see page history).--Terrillja _talk 06:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Between user accounts I think I must have tried to educate this user on the move function near a dozen times to no avail. Later having to resort to pleading him to not move pages at all, and instead request someone do it for him. This has all fallen on deaf ears as he is still as of yesterday still doing it. This was one of the reasons his main account was blocked, to me this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue the user just can't seem to get over. After his last block, he was pretty quick to create a sock and continue obliviously, but he should be very much familiar that is was not acceptable, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wooblz!/Archive. His last sock, Thornofhate, was later unblocked and has become his primary account - but he's still not getting it. Someone should rally decide once and for all if he really is a worthwhile asset to the project or not. Rehevkor ✉ 14:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The upbeat vandal

MrMan12321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do feel a little bad about bringing this here, but user MrMan12321 is an SPA whose sole purpose is to leave 1-line compliments on people's talk pages under the heading "Well done!". I'm not going to raise any complaints, but I would like to raise awareness of this.AerobicFox (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this lemon may have soured after I brought this up. A recent post by him on my talk page seems not so nice.AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since this user is basically a bot that searches for random contributors from the Special:Recentchanges page, and then congratulate them for that contribution, and since I believe I speak for all when I say such a bot would never be approved, I thus am voting to have this user deactivated, the same way we would pull the plug on such a bot.AerobicFox (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Don't we all want to have the gift of manliness bestowed upon us? sonia♫ 08:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Editor notified. "Be not afraid of manliness: some are born manly, some achieve manliness and some have manliness, erm, thrust upon them."--Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well done, he was already notified. 2 notices is admittedly more manly though.--Atlan (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Well! I archived mine out of sight. This is quite annoying, especially when in the middle of fixing up a complex table. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)

I still hesitate to do this, but I think enough is enough. I became aware of this situation recently when PPdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made new section at Talk:Alternative medicine claiming that he had found a source confirming that AltMed/TCM is pseudoscience (or something like that) - a “prominent TCM practitioner” had said (in an interview with another TCM practitioner) that he thought TCM was ‘a science’ because of its complex rituals in planting, harvesting and preparing medicines, even if ‘lab science’ didn't confirm its effectiveness (I'm paraphrasing) diff. For almost two months now, he has “worked” on Traditional Chinese medicine, introducing obscure medicines (like human penis), deleting sources he didn't like as “NRS” (probably meaning non-reliable source) while admitting that he couldn't assess at least some of them because he doesn't have access to them and/or doesn't speak the language and cherry picking sources that match his POV. When others tried to revert him, he assumed it must be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet attack, opening a case and adding everyone to it who objected to the way he changed the article (SPI case); while one editor later admitted he had, unaware of WP:SOCK created two new accounts, when he learned of the policy he promptly abandoned them and - as suggested by PPdd diff - changed his user name (which by the time was his real name). PPdd added his new name to the list of suspected sockpuppets even though he was the one suggesting the re-name, so he must have known that this is not a sockpuppet but the the same account. Those who want to change the article are constantly accused of either having a COI or not knowing anything about TCM (TCM practitioners are usually accused of both, and imho he's also showing signs of ownership.
Since it was made clear to the newer/less experienced editors that simply reverting or deleting material they don't like isn't OK, the most active opponents of PPdd (Mallexikon, Herbxue and Calus) have started using the talk page instead and - in my eyes - made reasonable suggestions. An experienced editor (Ludwigs2) very early on told PPdd that his both his editing style and the results of it were less than ideal and said he (Ludwigs2) wanted to try and improve the article. When Ludwigs2 offered his help on the article talk, most of the editors there agreed that this was a good way to move forward, but somehow it made PPdd feel he had to “out” himself to show he was competent. After Ludwigs2 started working on the article yesterday, he was reverted almost immediately by an IP user who later registered an account and another IP that had never before edited Misplaced Pages. In a sockpuppet case initiated by Ludwigs2, PPdd later said that the new user was a friend of him using the same internet café, that he knew her well and had told her about “what Ludwigs2 had just done after walked away”. After telling people for some weeks now that they should give him time to finish “his” work on the article and assuring them they'd be happy with the final result, he should give Ludwigs2 the same opportunity at least for some days and he certainly shouldn't do what he'd call recruiting meatpuppets if anyone else did it. Could an admin please have a closer eye at the article and weigh in if things get too hot? --Six words (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded here. PPdd (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

User repeatedly reverting against admin-placed cite that has been in place for years at Kerry Katona. Nude photographs being eroneously described as 'topless'. The Sunday Sport may be trash, but it is a registered newspaper and if its veracity as an RS is to be challenged, it needs to be done elswhere. As it stands, Wolfowitz is vandalising the page. Block? Warning? Protection? --82.41.20.82 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

no Hullaballo is reverting BLP violations, stop hassling him, you're the one in the wrong, and why would you report him to AIV thats not the place--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:oknazevad

A wholly unwarranted, threatening talk page message. I simply removed a recently added header I thought was unneeded (and clearly explained such in my edit summary here), merging the material in the header above it, in line with WP:BRD. Instead of proper discussion on the talk page (where previous concerns of mine have never been addressed), I get a clear threat from someone trying to WP:OWN the article.

Funny thing is that the edit wasn't even by Tomatosoup97, but User:Oanabay04, who's pattern of edits and behavior is similar. oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A vandalism warning was clearly inappropriate, a level 4 warning all the more so, especially from an experienced editor. Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting contrib history for Tomatosoup97. Very sparing over the years, but with a fair knowledge of WP protocols, and a suggestion of a harsher stance than someone with a similar editing history such as, for instance, Oknazevad (a couple of specific transport subjects and Billy Joel...) As for the warning, which I note you have removed, I think it can be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I don't remember editing Billy Joel. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oknazevad, you've notified Tomatosoup97 but not Oanabay04 - please note you must notify ALL editors you ask this board to look at - I have notified Oanabay04 for you. Exxolon (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I've never files an ANI before. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove me from this subject. For the sake of transparency, it should be known that I am familiar with the user with the handle of Tomatosoup97 and have communicated with the person before. But this threat did not come from me, and it does seem a tad harsh. Thank you kindly.Oanabay04 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still have concerns about your lack of communication on the talk page at SEPTA Regional Rail, but I apologize for dragging you into this. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you are apparently familiar with this editor, perhaps you could advise them on the appropriate use of warning notices and what does and does not constitute vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

maybe i overreacted, though don’t think so. oknazevad, while knowledgable on many Wiki editing techniques, is a blowhard and suffers from WP:NICE and WP:OWN, editwise. several cases noted below: CASE #1

do not make personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did with the edit summary you left with this edit. Although you were correct that the IP user should not use the talk page as a forum, the incivility in your edit summary is never acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a "moron" in an edit summary is a really bad idea. You might want to take a "breather", and read up on policy, Oknazevad... Doc9871 (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing something, anything, to handle that persistent moron IP editor.
Prari (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)”

CASE #2 the Rudeness continues with the WP:OVERLINK. That entire argument was an example of nitpicking and not acepting that several editors disagreed with you. Epeefleche is respectful, you arent

WP:OVERLINK

I think you may be misreading wp:overlink, when you say it does not apply to leads (and use that as a reason to re-link New York City). Rather than revert, I thought I would drop by and say hi and ask you to perhaps take another look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it didn't apply to leads, but to infoboxes (where you had delinked New York City). My understanding is that infoboxes, as well as each row of a table (sortable or not) should be able to stand on its own and not be dependant on anywhere else in the article for wikilinks to other articles. (And vice versa.) That is the reason I re-linked New York City. Not that there isn't some egregious overlinking in the NYC Subway article, which includes some termslinked twice in the same paragraph. Those I would fix if I had the time. oknazevad (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- I had intended to say infoboxes. Following up on your statement that " Infobox links are not WP:OVERLINK." What is the basis for that statement? I've never heard anyone assert it as a position, and can't see it in the relevant guidances. The relevant guidance does somewhat clearly indicate that words such as New York City should not be linked. I see no exception for infoboxes, nor any that makes sense to me when considering the rationale for the rule.

I am also of the understanding (as has been discussed on policy pages) that the infobox stands on its own. That means that if the phrase "asdg" is linked in the text, you may also link in it in the infobox. But it is not a basis for linking in the infobox words that should clearly not be linked in the text, whether they be the word "the" or the geographical location "New York City."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, see I vehemently disagree that New York City should not be linked in the main text. While it is pretty obvious to anyone with any intelligence that the New York City Subway is in New York City, we cannot assume that the reader knows anything about New York City. We must keep those reader in mind in our editing.

WP:OVERLINK exists to guide against linking irrelevant terms (because they're distracting in their irrelevance) and linking the same term an excessive number of times (because they're visually distracting). That is the essence of the guideline. New York City is hardly an irrelevant link for the New York City Subway article. Even if all other links were removed, I would abolutely insist that New York City be linked, along with rapid transit, as those are not only the most relevant terms, they are clearly the fundamentally defining characteristics of the system. That is to say, the one semtece version if he article would read: "The New York City Subway is a rapid transit system that serves New York City." All else beyond that is elaboration. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The guidance says: "What generally should not be linked ... Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Misplaced Pages, including ... the names of major geographic ... locations". Where is our disconnect? Do you think that most readers of the English Misplaced Pages do not understand what "New York City" is? Do you think that New York City is not a "major geographic location"? The rule seems somewhat clear to me, and application of it to delinking of New York City rather uncontrovertible, to be honest.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article ← That's our disconnect. As I fully explained in my last edit (which you must have ignored), New York City is of supreme relevance to an article on the New York City Subway. Period. It is a fundamental, defining characteristic of the system, namely what city it serves. It is actually the second-to-last thing I would delink in the article. But I already explained that. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; I see your viewpoint, but am not quite convinced. But of course I may be wrong. I'll post this at the guidance, w/a diff leading here, to see if we can get consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oknavezad, can you point to the styleguide that restricts the ambit of styleguides from infoboxes? I've seen this fiction put about before by infobox / link-everything people, and it doesn't cut the mustard. Tony (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find an explicit guideline that call for always linking in infoboxes, but that doesn't make the argument often put forth that it is standard practice "fiction". Not all conventions on Misplaced Pages are explicitly codified or recorded, and the widespread practice of heavy linking in infoboxes appears to be a major example of "consensus by silence". So, in short Tony, no I can't point to the specific style guide, but that doesn't make me wrong. And, frankly, I'm not on trial in a court of law here, so I don't particularly appreciate the tone of your question, which I find overly legalistic and confrontational. oknazevad (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in defense of Tony, you made a rather stark assertion, as your basis for reverting me. Writing at the outset: "Infobox links are not WP:OVERLINK." I asked you somewhat gently above: "What is the basis for that statement? I've never heard anyone assert it as a position, and can't see it in the relevant guidances." You didn't respond to me. Now, it seems that what you are saying is the standard -- presumably based on what you've seen during your 5,000 edits -- is not in fact reflected anywhere but in what you've seen. Which is at odds with what Tony and I have seen in our combined 90,000 edits. So, I'm just wondering if perhaps there is a possibility that your presumption is not the case; and whether to the extent that it is the case, it should be deprecated.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CASE #3. Then there’s this to oanabay04“Oh, where do I start with this load of crap?” Nuff Sed.

CASE #4: an entire set of your edits annoyed someone and i dont see any response from you unless you edited them out which based on your you do alot of so you come out smelling like roses: ==Station building== I cannot agree with your comments about this article. My response to those comments is as follows: First, the Polish language article has many paragraphs about the architecture of station buildings, illustrated by many images. These paragraphs make it clear that the topic of station building architecture deserves a separate article. Secondly, there is a clear distinction in the English language between a station building and an overall station facility that includes that building. In any case, en.wiki has a "worldwide view" (or "global perspective") policy. Thirdly, I have created dozens of new en.wiki articles on individual train stations (most of them translated from other languages), and contributed to dozens more. I can assure you that Grand Central Terminal is not a typical station. In fact, the main reason I created the station building article is that I kept encountering places in articles about individual stations where a link to an article about station buildings would have been appropriate. Although I could already provide links to, eg, goods shed and train shed, etc, there was simply no station building article in en.wiki as yet, when one was required and several were available for translation from other wikis. Please see also my comments on Talk:Station building. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

oknazevad fails on the following on all counts:

• WP:CON
• WP:PA
• WP:3RR
• WP:Ignore all rules (see CASE #1 Doc9871)
• WP:NPA (see CASE #1 from Prari)
• Also see talk

How oknazevad has been allowed to continue is deplorable.Tomatosoup97 (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This (most of which looks irrelevant) seems to be in response to another recent thread here on ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards