Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 10 April 2009 (→Review of block; invitation to deliberative participants, please: you what?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP

Initial ANI post with timeline of edits on article

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has shown a disruptive, tenditious POV pattern on Barney Frank article. Frank heads the US Senate Finance Committee and is very prominent in mainstream media. He is also one of the most visible LGBT politicians, possibly in the world. He is also a continual source of derision from right-leaning commentators and our article is regularly vandalized. ChildofMidnight has made a few constructive edits but has been edit-warring to remove positive content overviewing Frank's career from the lede while inserting badly or unsourced negative-ish content. For instance we have that he's a defender of civil rights but ChildofMidnight insists we need to wedge in gay rights as well. The lede is rather short and the only other civil rights anyone wants to mention is also from ChildofMidnight as they want to insert marijuana reform, which does not seem to be a prominent issue. They may be doing other good work but I think their contributions to the Frank article have been a net loss and major time-and-energy-suck for the community.

Timeline of ChildofMidnight's edits over the past 2.5 weeks on the Barney Frank article.

17 March

Here they remove a positive, sourced and attributed statement and replace it with a "criticized by conservatives" one that is sourced to an editorial and a second source which doesn't support the statement at all. I reverted edits pointing out the sourcing problems. They repeated the edit almost exactly (slightly different placing in lede) with the same bad sources. These are again removed with explanation why the positive content is valid and the negative content is poorly sourced.

They insert "Frank supports gay rights and medical marijuana." Even though a statement regarding Frank's civil rights support is already there and little evidence supports adding medical marijuana to the lede, both are covered in the article. It's removed with explanation.

18 March

They remove the positive (attributed and sourced) quotes again stating "per NPOV. We can have balance. but not just one side". I reverted and encouraged them to find reliable sources for any criticism. They then simply move the lede content overviewing the subject's career to the "Early life" section which is illogical at best. I reverted stating rv, please stop edit warring over this. Per wp:lede and WP:Notability we should spell out why this person is notable; no one is stopping you from adding notable criticism if it is sourced well

19 March

User is asked directly on thier talpage why removing sourced content.

They again delete from lede stating - "does not belong in the lead unless balanced". Reverted with explanation - wp:NPOV does not state we have to tack on negative content to BLP ledes if there is positive content.

20 March

Repeats removal and reintroduced badly sourced negative content; it's reverted (again with explantion) and note concerning the sourcing problems.

Again moves the content (overviewing subjects career) to "Early life" section with edit summary "reorganize". This was reverted and they move it again. It's reverted along with clean-up of poor sourcing regarding Frank and the Fanny/Freddie regulating content which seem to be pointing that Frank should be held responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and by extension, the financial ecomonic slowdowns.

21 March

Removes sourced content written by the BLP as not reliable and POV; although one source is the subject's own website and the other http://www.house.gov. Deletes sourced and NPOV content unfavorable to Republicans citing "reliable sources needed". Inserts "Frank opposed increased oversight and reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while in the minority." and "Frank is an advocate for gay right and legalized marijuana." prominently into lede. Reverted with explanation "the press release here is actually reliable as people are considered experts about themselves".

24 March

again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." Inserts somewhat negative and vague "His role on the Senate banking committee and overseeing the financial sector and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been scrutinized." It too was reverted.

25 March

Removes the same (sourced) content with edit summary - "not discussed in article so doesn't belong in lead. the Fannie Mae subject matter is discussed extensively and should be noted along with gay rights advocacy." This is untrue. Franks civil rights work is discussed in the article and the Fanny/Freddie material doesn't suggest a big Frank controversy or that the current info about him being in charge of the Senate Finance committee needs to be expanded on in this way. Reverted with explanation "a "defender of civil rights issues" of which LGBT issues are a part; Fannie/Freddie bits are a current event that Frank is being blamed for by some"

Reverts it again stating "irrelevancy" and advocating for Fanny/Freddie content to be added to lede. Reverted as "notable biographical description".

27 March

Nicholas.tan now enters the picture and reverts after siding with ChildofMidnight in the thread on ChildofMidnight's talkpage. Nicholas.tan edit summary is "WIKIPUFF" which per wp:Wikipuff is innacurate as ... the sourced content is true. I revert with "sourced and speaks to this career politicians notability" explanation. ChildofMidnight reverts falsely claiming "not appropriate for lead. not discussed in article".

Nicholas.tan reverts more sourced positive ifo from the lede again citing "puff". They are both reverted with explanation. ChildofMidnight again deletes the same content stating - "against policy. this is promotional POV. totally inappropriate for introduction".

(article fully protected)

After talkpage consensus, content is restored. ChildofMidnight edit wars against several editors here and here and here where he also reinserts "Frank is an advocate for gay rights and the legalization of medical marijuana". It's reverted with explanation these other issues are not considered mjor issues for lede (beyond what we have). So naturally they revert again, which was reverted. They then added "and conservative critics note that he contributed to the housing crisis by opposing Bush administration proposals to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." to the lede with no sources, and against the talkpage consensus that this was appropriate. It's reverted so they again revert and stopped after it was again removed, likely because of a 3rr warning on their talkpage.

They were subsequently warned about personal attacks on three talkpages.

They then started a rather pointy "Notable content replaced with cheerleading" talkthread with the intro - Some of Misplaced Pages's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work. It has been refactored after several requests.

They also brought the excitement to My talkpage accusing me of deleting "notable and well sourced content" and insinuating my homophobia, which is pretty far-fetched even with a quick glance at any of my work here.

Based on this I wonder if the article could use a break from this help? They may have issues on other articles but my interaction has been limited, as far as I know, to the Frank one. Would a pageban make sense? -- Banjeboi 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would endorse a topic ban for ChildofMidnight on any article to do with politics. He created his account on election day in 2008 and then began a systematic campaign to attack anything vaguely liberal, particularly President Obama and anything associated with him or his administration. Frankly, it is astounding that he has managed to avoid bans and blocks all this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The trouble has at times extended to Israel/Palestine articles as well. I have been reluctant to broach the subject here because this has been going on so persistently for so long, but there is a large swath of incivility, accusations, edit wars, administrative notices, and protected pages. BTW, has anybody notified the editor yet? No doubt they will arrive and promptly accuse me, ScJessey, Benjiboi, and others of bad faith, POV pushing, and all the usual. Those accusations have been a big part of the overall problem. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Other editors

I'm moving this header here because we really do need to separate the original issue from the ensuing mud slinging - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is usual for you to be accused of bad faith editing and POV pushing, then perhaps it is you and not the "accusation" that is the problem. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty shocking comment from an administrator - all the more so because you just said it on this noticeboard. On what basis do you justify this off-the-cuff comment? Have you studied Wikidemon's edit history and found it to be problematic, or are you just making an unwarranted assumption? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a clue to the uninitiated, the accounts responsible for the majority of such complaints are now indefinitely blocked and/or banned from Misplaced Pages, in large part for being sockpuppets of the same editor. No, I am one of the harder working non-administrative article patrollers, as well as a frequent commentator on meta and process issues, not to mention a longstanding, very productive article editor. Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon is rehashing an old issue where I responded to a third opinion request and found Wikidemon blocing compromise over a well sourced content addition for months. He refused mediation (the only editor to do so as I recall). He's a very problematic editor whose edit history shows he only works on political articles and only makes political edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The price of editing here should not be responding to month after month of fabricated nonsense accusations from this editor, so I won't. My editing is simply not the issue here. ChildofMidnight was a terribly disruptive presence at the BLP to which COM is referring, Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COM repeatedly made overt accusations of bad faith there too, and by revert warring BLP-violations into the article again and again while alternately ignoring the talk page discussions or hurling insults in them, helped get that article edit protected three times, the most recent one indefinitely. COM also helped get Barack Obama protected during the most recent flare-up, and has lately been coaching and inciting other disruptive users, edit warring in talk pages, on and on. It's quite extensive. I would not have chosen this occasion to finally deal with the editor but now that the subject has come up, we need to put an end to it sooner or later. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the personal attacks and harassment against me. I've tried to be as patient as possible and I welcome anyone who wants to weigh in on the actual content that is at the core of this dispute and have suggested an RfC as a way to get more involvement.

The content has already been discussed in some detail on the article talk page, and numerous editors have stated the obvious. I know this noticeboard doesn't deal with content disputes, but let's be very clear about the content in dispute and the nature of my "tendentious" editing.

I've tried to add:

• A statement that Barney Frank is an advocate for gay rights to the last paragraph of the introduction. This is, of course, very well sourced and covered substantially in the article. It's unclear what the objection to this NPOV statement is, and I find it disturbing and possibly homophobic.
• A statement that Frank is an advocate for medical marijuana. Also discussed at length in the article with ample sourcing.
• Something about his role as the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee (in the minority and now in the majority) and his role and positions overseeing the banking sector. (I'm refactoring to add this point. I forgot it initially)

They've been adding to the introduction:

• The opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter saying how wonderful Frank is. This obviously doesn't belong on the lead and has been noted repeatedly by various editors in discussion on the talk page. If it is included it should be balanced with other notable opinions of Frank's work. And of course this trivial opinion isn't discussed anywhere else in the article.
• A New York Times quote taken out of context saying Frank is a bipartisan bridge builder (seriously!) doesn't belong in the introduction and is misleading. I've provided reliable sources that contradict this statement on the talk page. It's not discussed anywhere else in the article.

I'm happy to compromise and have made that clear all along. I've tried to use the talk page, but discussion gets hijacked with soapboxing and personal attacks from Wikidemon and Scjessey (whose been warned repeatedly by various editors and administrators). The opinions of good faith editors are disregarded and the pattern of reversions against consensus and guidelines and without explanation continues.

I know ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, but that's what this is about. Even the thread title seems inappropriate. Where are the supposed BLP violations?

These are some of the same editors who have been attacking anyone who makes suggestions on the Obama article talk page. Their editing is very limited to certain politicized articles. I welcome any and all help and suggestions for how to proceed to achieve an NPOV article that is consistent with guidelines. I am happy to compromise and happy to consider any and all suggestions. I don't hold grudges and if Wikidemon and Scjessey can cease their personal attacks, soap boxing, and other inappropriate actions I will certainly do my best to work with them. I'm not big on ANI reports and diff digging, but their inappropriate actions are there for all to see. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is, as you say, the most prominent LGBT politician in the world would it not make sense to include his efforts on behalf of gay rights? Is it just CoM on the one side and everyone else on another, or would mediation or an RfC perhaps make headway on this situation? Unless there is a history of formal dispute resolution or user conduct issues with CoM that haven't been outlined, it seems like some intermediary step might be useful. Also, sidenote, the Senate has a banking committee and Frank is in the House on the financial services committee. Pedantic, of course, but I just can't help myself! Avruch 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's reasoning above sounds, well, reasonable to me. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, CoM has completely misrepresented the details here. The introduction of the article already notes Barney Frank's work with civil rights (which encompass gay rights, of course), and the introduction already notes Frank "has become one of the most prominent openly gay politicians in the United States." CoM inserted an additional line about gay rights in order to act a substitute for the far more expansive line about Frank's civil rights activity. Upon reversion, he promptly accused editors of being homophobic - a disgusting tactic. I said at the time that I didn't think anyone would fall for this ploy, but it appears as if that may not be the case. Please review his activities carefully and do not take any comments he makes at face value. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first article where I've had to re-add gay and gender related content after it was repeatedly removed. I'm not sure what motivates the removal of this content against guidelines. Anotehr editor made a wikialert report on Scjessey's recent over-the-top personal attack against me and he or she has been warned numerous times about their personal attacks and other inappropriate behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Scjessey's edit war warning to ChildofMidnight, I also warned ChildofMidnight about edit warring not knowing he'd already been warned by Scjessey since ChildofMidnight immediately removed the first warning from his talk page. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Franks career is quite extensive and a well written article may do more than it currently states - in the lede, that is - but no, it is indeed CoM's POV being injected here against concensus. Their edit-warring has been extremely antagonistic and now they claim censorship and persecution which is rubbish. No one counters that well sourced criticism can't be in the lede. It simply needs to be reliably-sourced and demonstratable that it's notable. Injecting vague and disparaging statements badly sourced or tied to opinion peices is against policy. Yet they tried it many times. No one disputes medical marijuana is an issue - among hundreds - that Frank has worked on but it is being used in a disingenuous way that is not supportable that this is a major issue to Frank. In a prior discussion we decided to weight the policy issues of Frank by the volume of content. None of them are featured in the lede. This has been pointed out to CoM many times yet they choose to edit-war again and again. So the two items stated above they wish to add ... are already covered in the lede under the quote regarding Frank being a leader on civil rights. It would be silly for us to spell out a laundry list and no one has done a good overview of his career to see what issues are most important to him. He's been a politician for decades so this is not surprising - it's a lot of work. The two items CoM is again railing against were agreed by concensus to re-add after CoM's ongoing edit-warring. The New York Times is generally considered reliable on these things. I've listed fuller quotes in part to build consensus in the talkthread so others are welcome to look if our collective sourcing of these quotes is indeed accurate to the sources and presented NPOV; despite CoM's claims they aren't. And CoM's compromise tactic's? I think again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." and the concept that we can't say positive things unless we also say negative ones. I missed the section in BLP where mudslinging a BLP should balance out their accomplishments. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, the content here is not the point nor is the dispute significant content-wise. Who cares whether the Barney Frank article mentions his civil rights position in general or detailed terms in the lead, or whether his anti-regulation record is in the lead or just the body? Reasonable editors can work together on over time on this without revert warring calling each other names. The problem is yet another article fully protected due to edit warring (I'll have to look around to see which), and bald accusations by COM across multiple articles and talk pages that others are problem editors, acting in bad faith, homophobic, trolls, POV warriors, and who knows what else? It's gotten so so bad I don't really bother reading what particular insult COM is making at the moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Process suggestion

Can we simply stop answering or responding to COM's mud-slinging at other editors? Every time COM's behavior has been questioned the editor makes up a lot of stuff and accuses everyone in sight of all kinds of nonsense, and it devolves into a horrible mess. I suggest we thread COM's complaints into a special place, and keep the focus on COM. If we need an RfC to do that, fine, but it would be a lot simpler if some admins can simply make the effort to look at COM's behavior over time and decide whether a block, topic ban, or no-nonsense editing oversight would best deal with this. Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another attempt to hijack the discussion. Wikidemon recently made another report against me (I think it was recently archived) and he was advised that treating editors with respect is important. I would like to return to good faith editing which is what I enjoy rather than these endless dramas. But I do feel it's important that this type of inappropriate behavior stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon here. Once given a 3rr warning COM switched tactics to, IMHO, talkpage baiting and claiming censorship while accusing teh rest of us as homophobes. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment : the content issues are not the point, as a variety of editors were not having a problem discussing and reaching consensus, except when ChildOfMidnight was being unCivil, edit-warring, and not waiting for consensus when multiple editors had already politely informed him of those particular places where they felt his bold work was not representative of a neutral construction. The behavior is the point; as far as the content, we were a diverse group of editors with different political, sexual, and economic POV but we were working along rather well until COM was disruptive, which then opened the door to some poor imitative monkey-see monkey-do attempts by other authors to slip a little bit of non-neutral and non-consensus material into the recipe while it was skewed so severely by ChildOfMidnight's actions. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think any editor reading the lead's second paragraph will have a hard time siding against CoM. That 2nd paragraph is the worst bit of rubbish I've read in a long time. I doubt even Franks would write that sort of crap about himself. We're not here to write glowing articles about politicians. There is ZERO content about Franks being a bridge builder in the article - and yet there it is in the lead like he's some kind of bi-partisan saint - just as CoM indicated above. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec - responding to Teledildonix314) Agreed, so let's not worry so much about the content details. The point is simply that COM has systematically, across many politics-related articles, edit warred against consensus to force a highly partisan conservative POV, sometimes alongside other editors but much of the time as an army of one. The status quo consensus he fights is not obviously wrong and any arguments pro or con are simply content questions. By the same token, the objections to COM's edits were principled, and in many cases spurred by good faith concerns about BLP, POV, WEIGHT, RS, COATRACK, etc. Whether those concerns were ultimately correct or not is also besides the point because we are supposed to operate on consensus, not confrontation. Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And the line about Franks supporting civil rights is supported by a source which ONLY mentions gay rights. Content is the issue because CoM is correct in his assertions and his approach, and the editors opposing him are being quite unreasonable as evidenced by the content. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this specific content issue. If you feel the article needs improvement, why not go there to participate in a consensus discussion? Article talk pages are not the place to accuse other editors of things like homophobia and bad faith, and AN/I is not the place to decide what an article should say. It will help keep both venues on track if you keep that separation in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that: please join the article talkpage, your improvements are welcome, we were working by consensus, we will certainly continue to do so. We are here at ANI about the disruptive behavior of COM, not about the content which deserves to be discussed at the article talkpage. And if you look at the talkpages of the people COM edit-warred against, you'll find weeks of unCivil confrontational POV with strangely yo-yo-ing tactics, mostly in a badgering pattern. Think for a second, if you will, at the absurdity that COM repeatedly insisted there must be a homophobic agenda at work when COM didn't get their way; does anybody think the eight or ten editors doing most of the work on that page were "homophobic"? Hello, i'm amazed there wasn't an explosion of Flames much sooner, usually in real life we don't find that many happy gay editors holding back their retorts with such patience and civility for so many weeks. "Homophobic"? I almost fell off my dildonix. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is opposed to civil discussion but that has been completely absent from CoM. The methodoly has been edit-warring reverts, and now, accusations galore. And Rklawton, there is content about Frank working with Republicans and building bridges. We don't bludeon anyone with it but neither are we at even a GA article, it's been a slow vandalistic process to improve the article. And that civil rights quote? It's verbatim, - Frank has since proved to be one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues. If the source had stated something else we likely would have worked with it but there it is, civil rights. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See: Barney Frank#Intro Paragraph for what happens on the article talk page. A small pack of editors who work almost exclusively on partisan content engage in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking a reasonable discussion of content. You'll see also that the discussion was archived. Wikidemon likes to archive and/ or remove discussion he doesn't like or disagrees with. I think a topic ban from partisan editing would be a good outcome given his behavior. Even in this discussion we see Wikidemon engaging in refactoring and thread titling to obfuscate and prevent a reasonable discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have that exactly backwards as you were injecting the partisan content, engaging in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking an article. And I archived that discussion as you have been injecting your comments in the middle of previous conversations. This is about your behaviour on that article, and when you didn't get your way with consensus against you, your behaviour towards other editors. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a favorite target of COM and presumably one of the "small pack of editors" he's decided to antagonize I'm not even going to respond to the heaping on of pointless untruths. This would be at least the 50th time that COM has made up something out of thin air to say I did, and I'm not going to waste my time anymore or let COM change the subject with each one.Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How is providing a link to a discussion hijacked by personal attacks and soapboxing an example of a "pointless untruth"? All you have to do is quick the link and you can see who launches the personal attacks and who hijacks the discussion. Same old story. You've shown the same behavior here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to your previous comment which is, like the one immediately above, both pointless and false. It would be very nice if you could confine yourself to the truth and not make stuff up. Not being the subject of this incident, I'm not going to bother defending myself for the 50th odd time against nonsense you care to throw my way.Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for one week and encourage the involved editors to work it out on the talk page. LadyofShalott 04:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all very good and everything, but it does nothing about the disgraceful behavior of ChildofMidnight documented above. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please. Here's one of Scjessey's talk page comments . Speaks for itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to it. It saves me having to repeat it here. I stand by the comment. At least I didn't accuse you of being a homophobic POV warrior. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Scjessey to which ChildofMidnight objects is correct in substance if not tone and placement. ChildofMidnight had launched a campaign of harassment against other editors, and out of nowhere came up with a nonsequitur, ad hominem falsehood about what was supposedly going on in an Arbcom case. He was grandstanding about that, egging on a newbie editor who had made a bad edit, and then lashed out at other editors. All on the Obama talk page, which COM knows to be on probation. That's before COM began to actually edit war on that page, reverting at least three other editors to try to delete a long string of comments from the talk page. Here are the diffs from that revert war, which has already been discussed here at AN/I. . I have no opinion on socking, but the manipulative gaming, fabrications, and toxic attitude are a playbook out of last year's now-blocked sockpuppet accounts. The number of diffs it would take to account for COM's bad behavior would fill an entire Arbcom case. The case, if it is ever presented, would be pretty staggering. I'm hoping we can dispense with this more simply. The editor should have been blocked or banned for any of these incidents - edit warring on the Obama talk page alone could have used administrative intervention. It is very sad, and a complete waste of our time, goodwill, and hard work on the project that we have to deal with this awful vituperative nonsense. I really hope an admin can see fit to deal with this. Dozens, probably hundreds of editor hours now, have now gone down the hole for this one editor's needless trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LadyofShalott, I appreciate the full protect, this is the second time in a month the article has needed this and only because of CoM. The rest of the editors have been able to work fine with each other - even when we disagree - and have kept pace with CoM's reverting and POV action. CoM has proven themselves unwilling or unable, despite their claims, of even working towards collaborative editing. When they didn't get their way it jumped into a new gear of accusing others of the same behaviours they have employed. Wikidemon's take on this seems most accurate and based on my limited but unfortunate interactions with CoM - an experienced editor with 16,000+ edits on 5,000+ pages - they seem to be gaming to play us for fools here. Looking through CoM's previous visits to Admin pages shows a very experienced editor so this is smelling more like a sock than I had first thought. I haven't a clue who but experienced ANI editors might be able to sniff them out. I suggest looking into the Barack Obama-related articles although there may be smarter ways of sussing it out. -- Banjeboi 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban ChildofMidnight

From their very first edit to their many drive-by comments on admin boards this is a very experienced editor. Whatever their intent, I have little doubt they will find other ways to contribute to Misplaced Pages and hope those contributions will be collegial and collaborative. Despite red herrings and CENSEI's entanglements it seems apparent that ChildofMidnight is more interested in engaging other editors than in improving the Barney Frank article. Every opportunity to explain policies on reliable sourcing, due weight on BLPs and neutral POV on content has been met with silence and quick reverts from this user until a fullpage protect resulted in a consensus also against their edits. They continued to edit-war despite the concensus and page-protect until served with a 3RR warning. At that point they proceeded to personally attack other editors and post a contentious pointy thread to the article talkpage with more personal attacks and red herrings. When confronted on this ANI board we've had a parade of red herrings including the CENSEI drama and an almost mythical misrepresentation of events by ChildofMidnight as the victim of censorship which is in complete opposition to the diffs and edit summaries laid out above. That one editor can disrupt a single article in less than three weeks leads me to believe they have also participated in dramatic activities on other political articles as suggested by other editors here. The case here, however concerns mainly the Barney Frank article. It is absurd to pretend the editors on the Frank article are in any way trying to surpress any information, in fact, great effort has been taken to present all uncomfomfortable content in a RS and NPOV manner. No credible evidence suggests otherwise. I have little doubt that ChildofMidnight has caused problems on other articles but the evidence here doesn't support a community ban, IMHO, as of yet. Socking concerns are also alarming but also need their own evidence. For now I think a topic ban from Barney Frank, and articles/content regarding Frank be enacted. A sourcing ban - if we have such a thing - prohibiting the use of opinion peices may also make sense. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse a topic ban, but extended to cover articles related to Barack Obama (broadly construed). At the very least, ChildofMidnight should come under close scrutiny in the Obama-related ArbCom case. Running around calling everyone homophobic should've landed him a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm unfamiliar with their contributions to Barack Obama, do we have a record of their efforts there? -- Banjeboi 09:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that CoM deserves a topic ban. I can understand and sympathize with his outburst if he has had to deal with the same sort of stonewalling and bad faith I've had to deal with. Soxwon (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban may be in order for all politics-related topics. The problem is the editor has somehow managed to avoid being blocked, and hardly even warned by anyone in a capacity to back up those warnings. If not a ban, is any admin willing to step up to the plate to block COM next time they begin lobbing accusations against other editors, or edit warring articles to the point of blocking? And if we're instead going to send the signal that behavior and policy procedures mean nothing what are we responsible editors supposed to do? Edit war and flame in kind? Ignore it and let important articles degrade? Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was ChildofMidnight who took us to task for defending the Obama article against the WorldNewsDaily siege 30 days ago. That did not leave a positive impression of that user's credibility. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, not finding his/her satisfaction at AN/I COM began edit warring the Obama article page eight hours after starting that thread and was the editor most directly responsible for getting it edit protected. I've seen COM's edit wars result in five or six edit protects, and I'm vaguely aware of a number of other instances. All done with impunity. More than impunity, really, a sense of entitlement. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't that aware of his work in the Obama article, largely b/c we had Freeps and the like. However, in the Barney Frank article, I have met with a lot of assumptions of bad faith and stonewalling in any attempts to change it. I can understand frustration boiling over in that article. As for Obama, I'm wondering if perhaps the editors in question are blowing his roles out of proportion due to the frustration and annoyance caused by the Freep incident? I remember being accused of being a Freep and/or being an extreme POV pusher for suggesting anything contradictory to what Tarc and the like proposed. While I do not blame them (extraordinary circumstances) I do wonder if the harsh editing environment might have led all to edit in ways they are not accustomed to and if this ill will has carried over. Just a thought. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have been met with the same standard for content regarding BLPs. In response you, despite all the previous dialog on the exact same issue, presented opion editorials to introduce negative content to replace the positive content. Stunning. No one is opposed to improving the article with sourced content and that article is a hit list of against Frank already. The only thing we don't talk about is his speech impediment and being obese, I have little doubt as to those being injected as well. It's already been suggested. This is a BLP and these standards apply to all BLPs. The same standard is applied to all editors as well. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

NO NO NO, from the first I said to remove the cheerleading. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And then presented opinion peices supporting negative content as the way to go. Neither is supported by policy or consensus. This thread, by the way, is regarding conduct, not content. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, those were arguments against inclusion and not seriously meant for inclusion, as for the subject with the assumptions of bad faith and other comments I have received in the past 24 hours, I can understand his reaction of an outburst. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's tenditiousness, edit-warring and bad-faith accusations against other editors was not an outburst. It has been an ongoing campaign to remove content they think casts the subject of the article positively and replace it with coatrack-ish POV content - marijuana reform, gay rights, controversies, etc. You seem to be doing the same now filling the talkpage with arguments and, IMHO, disingenuous suggestions which parrallel the same problems CoM had. We don't want opinion peices and mud-slinging on BLPs. "Controversies" need to be well-sourced, presented neutrally and with due weight. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Despite my far-left credentials and disdain for CoM's political beliefs, I tentatively agree with him on the Barney Frank article that the quotes in the lead are cheerleading, unnecessary, unduly opinionated, and possibly misleading. I think people can fairly disagree as to whether Frank is really a "bridge" between right and left. I disagree with CoM that the propaganda about Frank's influence Fannie/Freddie needs to be emphasized in the lead. His bad-faith, civility problems, and edit-warring are only marginally greater than the average Wikipedian. There has been a refusal to compromise and present a neutral lead from both sides here. II | (t - c) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is okay for someone to edit war an article to the point of edit protection so long as you agree with their content position? I hear you but disagree on the civility - COM overtly accused a number of editors of bad faith in so many words, and then started accusing them of homophobia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, CoM is an experienced editor with plenty to say on admin boards, they know better than to editor war and disrupt, make bad-faith accusations and misrepresent their actions when called to task. That they completely fail to acknowledge thrie behaviours as disruptive and tenditious and continue to disparage other editors and mythologize their actions also fortells of even more problems to come. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• The lead on Barney Frank may need to re-worked, but CoM's behavior, and advocacy, on both it and about Barack Obama is not good. --David Shankbone
• Oppose For reassons stated. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature and unfair given that there is no block history or authoritative administrative warning that this behavior could lead to a ban. But can we please do something about this editor? It's gone from merely annoying to intolerable. Disrupting Obama articles on probation, filing false administrative claims, making stuff up to harass people with with. How long do we have to suffer this? I'll file an RfC if I have to, but if a topic ban is too drastic for now it would be a lot simpler if someone can just watch over COM and step in next time he/she crosses the line.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban WQA or DR are better first stops; this really didn't need to wind up here. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, take it to DR - while initially strongly supportive to the issues with CoM's obvious POV, the sentiments expressed in this thread by Benjiboi/Wikidemon/Scijessey have become increasingly shrill and demanding and, frankly, indicate quite clearly a much more two-sided POV struggle to me than is being advertised. Two-sided disputes require even-handed intervention, such as you would have found in the dispute resolution process, had you gone there first instead of hopping on AN/I and begging, pleading, and shouting for an admin sympathetic to your POV to simply summarily declare your ideological opponent to be the loser. That's not how we work here. Bullzeye 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have basis for making that accusation, or are you assuming that because there is a dispute there must be two sides and both sides must be POV? Opposing disruption does not make one POV, nor does asking the body of administrators for help make one "shrill" I happen to share the concern that a topic ban is premature, and on some of these issues I agree with COM's content position. But we have to do something in the meanwhile short of giving COM a free ticket to continue the trouble. Dispute resolution is for content issues and this is not a content issue. The problem is battlefield behavior, incivility, and edit warring that happens to have a consistent POV. Edit warring articles on probation, and directly and repeatedly accusing editors of bad faith, is not something you can resolve as a content dispute. We're supposed to resolve whether I'm a bad faith editor who is "one of the worst", a liability to the project, and whatever other insults we constantly get? Or that Allstarecho is a homophobe? Administrators have the tools to stop disruption; dispute resolution forums do not. That's the very reason we have article probation in the case of Obama articles, and AN/I in the case of flare-ups that should be addressed sooner than later. I'll add that while COM seems to have a special disdain for me personally, and more recently a few other editors, allowing him/her to make it personal in that way just plays into it. COM has probably insulted, offended, and gotten into edit wars with a dozen editors in the last week.Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

POV

I'm not sure why I keep getting accused of POV editing. If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting Barney Frank is a prominent advocate for gay rights in his article's introduction, or that he's the leading Democrat on the Financial Services committee, or that Obama is a Democrat (which, if you can believe it, keeps getting removed from the Political positions of Barack Obama article) I'm all ears (and eyes too). And as far as the controversies and criticisms, yes I think that notable ones belong in the encyclopedia with appropriate weight and according to guidelines. Hasn't that been our policy all along? But this stuff isn't even controversial. Does anyone approaching these articles fairly really think that Obama's political party affiliation shouldn't be included in an article about his political positions? I feel like I'm dealing with craziness, and I know if I dare call the actions of Wikidemon et al. for what they are I'm going to get in trouble. But seriously, this is what it's come to??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

These relate to content disputes. You know why - repeated explanations on talk pages have not stopped your from ignoring consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages show that consensus isn't against these reasonable edits, how could it be? You can't even argue the content issue here because your position is so obviously preposterous. The comments here and on the talk pages clearly show that you and Wikidemon are being unreasonable and behaving inappropriately. By all means lets do RfCs, as I've offered repeatedly, if that's really necessary. But this pattern of obstruction has been the case again and again and includes refactoring, soap boxing and personal attacks. So the real question is how to deal with you and Wikidemon when you refuse to act appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, personally, because I have not acted inappropriately. I agree with you half the time on the content. But the fact that I agree or not, or that you have a POV, is not the issue here. People can have POVs. It's the resulting article that should not. You could mend a lot fences by cutting out the constant accusations of bad faith, edit warring, and declarations of consensus that don't jibe with other editors. An RfC may be a last resort but it would be a lot of time and drama, and we still need to stop the edit warring and all this other stuff while the RfC is in process... plus an administrator to interpret and enforce the results. But if things can be calm for 30 days why not make that permanant? And if the outcome is simply going to be that an administrator says "no more", why do we need an RfC to establish that? It would be vastly simpler if everyone can simply agree to follow the letter and spirit of our various policies, and in the case of the Obama articles, especially so given article probation and the circumstances that make it necessary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've decided to semi-protect this article for 2 weeks. If anyone feels that I'm out of line, please discuss it here and then change it. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho violating OUTING

Not that I want to bring even more attention to it, but Allstarecho has posted my email address three separate times now . He needs an immediate block as he does not appear willing to stop. CENSEI (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Get real. Posting an e-mail address that consists of your (anonymous) wikipedia user name "@" a world-wide free e-mail domain such as yahoo hardly counts as outing. And the content he quoted from the mail consisted of a single sentence. Why don't you instead comment on your own nastiness as displayed in it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bull, posting my email with my real name, all be it just the first, is a textbook violation. My taunting aside, he had no god damn right to post it. CENSEI (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You seem to be unwilling to stop your harassment of me and need the immediate block, as evidenced by sending me the email boasting about a 3RR block you were responsible for. All I did was present the email as evidence of your harassment and frivolous 3RR reports. If you don't want to be "outted", you shouldn't have emailed me. End of story. For anyone interested, this is the content regarding where he and User:Ejnogarb baited me into a 72 hour block a few days ago, that makes it obvious CENSEI's agenda on Misplaced Pages and at 3RR:

This report, as well as his others, have been nothing more than retaliatory reports in line with his conservative agenda on Misplaced Pages. Again, if you didn't want to be "outted", you should have just left me alone rather than, in the middle of a current 3RR report you just filed on another user, emailing me to harass me and "rub it in". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, it could be an imposter but smells like ASE got that one right too. That certainly doesn't add to CENSEI's credibility as that other editor was on this board for problematic editing and CENSEI injected themselves there as well. Then proded that other editor to enable their email. And if CENSEI is doing offsite harassment them ASE deserves support. -- Banjeboi 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Echo -- don't know you but you should desist. Censei is right on the letter of the law. Continually posting someone's email (no matter how anonymous) after they've asked you to stop is, uhm, block generating. But as to the spirit -- censei is an unrepentant, overall drain on this project who is only interested in two things: Stirring drama here and pushing a political agenda. Usually when scrutiny swings towards him, he scurries back into the dark for a few days and we all forget. So while echo may be the one afoul of the "rules" here, the real problem editor is the "offended" editor (who was so worried about his email address being used he posted to a high traffic forum guaranteed to get maximum eyeballs on it.)Bali ultimate (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bali. Neither party comes out very well. Although it is only technically outing, it still is wrong to do anything of the sort. And the same with posting email. Yes, he is harassing you, but posting the mail is not the way to complain about it. (& This discussion should be blanked when finished) DGG (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Question. What should ASE do about the harrassment? They were baited and fell for it so now what? -- Banjeboi 04:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI does seem like a drama-inducing edit warrior. It seems like she/he has been discussed here every week or so lately. — ] (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget how this happened in the first place - with CENSEI using 3RR as a tool to try to get people he disagrees with blocked. This time, it was my turn to suffer his special attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI comes up a lot in WP:AN/3 3RR reports I've closed and although he's never been on 4 reverts, I've seen him at 2 or 3 quite a lot (where other editors have gotten blocked) and I've considered blocking or warning him. The content of the email, though reported in the wrong way, has been noted by myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecX11) Agreed that CENSEI is initiating collateral disputes with respect to the above issue regarding ChildofMidnight. After this report opened CENSEI filed a bogus 3RR report against Scjessey regarding the Barney Frank page. Allstarecho posted the private email that seems to show CENSEI gloating over an earlier, successful 3RR report. Per WP:OUTING, "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence". I believe it is legitimate for allstarecho to call CENSEI's behavior to people's attention. Otherwise we allow people to harass with impunity by forcing a muzzle of silence on harassment victims. CENSEI, having sent the email, is in a weak position to complain. Nevertheless, the email address and any other personally identifying information should have been redacted even if there was no explicit policy on that. Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• As usual, FutPerf has dropped the science: AllStarEcho 'outed' the incredibly anonymous email of CENSEI. The anonymous email that CENSEI used to harass and taunt AllStarEcho. How are we ignoring this? A known edit-warrior who was recently

AllStar went about it entirely the wrong way. If he'd forwarded me the email, for instance, I would have acted upon it. No, the email address is not exactly private and CENSEI didn't actually seem to care as he linked the diffs here, but one doesn't need to edit-war technical violations of crucial wikipedia privacy policy to get this sort of thing dealt with. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My previous encounters with CENSEI were disturbing and he was confrontationally working with User:Bushcutter who turned out to be somebody's sockpuppet, so i was already prejudiced against him, then he became hostile and uncivil and simply tried to shove his viewpoint on various political pages where he saw opportunities such as the hornets' nest around ChildOfMidnight editwarring Barney Frank's BLP. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 04:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's information about CENSEI's edit history. Can anybody find something constructive that he's done? — ] (talk · contribs) 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah blah. If All Star doesn't shut up about his right to violate other's privacy, I will move to have him indefed and banned. Likewise, I expect that CENSEI prostrate himself and throw himself on the mercy of the community for using the e-mail function to taunt other users. I would like grovelling, I will accept sullen silence and a private e-mail saying "I'm right, but I'll never ever do it again.--Tznkai (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to sleep. If I did not need to do so, and thus be unavailable for discussion, I would be blocking CENSEI for a week for apparent abuse of process and abuse of the e-mail feature. I will note for the record I fully support a block of CENSEI and oppose any unblock requests unless there is a significant mea culpa.--Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Process updates

To keep track of process:

• CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has filed a 3RR report against Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for posting CENSEI's email address in the 3RR report.
• Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fully protected for a week as a result of the dispute referenced above.

- Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Outing and e-mail misuse

I should note: as someone who is altogether unfamiliar with this situation, I blocked exclusively for the email address reposting; I know nothing of the merits or lack thereof of CENSEI and his/her edits, so I'll not participate in that part of this incident report. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please lift the block. I will do so myself, if necessary --unless there is some kind of weird consensus here to the contrary. R. Baley (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Copying a request posted on my talk page by Scjessey: "I second the request to unblock AllStarEcho. ASE suffered off-wiki harassment and is understandably upset about it. I do not think a person should be blocked for trying to do the right thing, particularly since this matter is currently being discussed at WP:ANI and the user is unable to comment". I will not unblock (although I'll not wheel war, and if a consensus develops here to unblock, I'll not complain), because in my eyes, repeated posting of an editor's personal email address by anyone other than that editor is altogether unacceptable, regardless of the behaviour of the editor whose address is posted. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as my name is mentioned above, I'm going to state for the last time that there was no collusion between CENSEI and me; he advised me to use mediation and to not anger well-formed groups. Allstarecho is complaining about harassment, but just in the last week he's brought up a frivolous ANI thread against me, slandered me on his talk page, and hounded me afterward by tracking my contributions and inserting edit changes and dissenting opinions. In my opinion, block him.  EJNOGARB  04:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suggested on ASE's talk page just now forwarding the email to ARBCOM. CENSEI's email is harrassment, and needs to have consequences. Posting it publically was not, of course, the way to effect the needed results. LadyofShalott 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest an unblock. This taboo of posting e-mails makes no sense at all if taken to these ridiculous extremes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be wikilawering. The complaining user apparently sent an e-mail message which was somewhat obnoxious ("Still smarting from that 72 hour block, ehhh? Tee hee"). The recipient posted the entire message, as one sometimes does with unusually stupid e-mails. I'd suggest putting a {{behave}} template on both accounts and ignoring the parties for a while. This is too silly to send to Arbcom. --John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A series of escalating antagonisms against various openly gay editors, culminating in petty off-wiki email harassment, is NOT too silly to address right here. Is that the sort of behavior you really think it's okay to allow to go unabated? Are we going to watch people get pestered via abuse of the email feature, and just dismiss it as too silly? How many irritating emails should one hypothetically accept from the gayhating editors before it becomes considered "not silly" so i can bring it up somewhere to be addressed properly? The email taunt came after a couple weeks of the bigoted and steadily contentious editing, editwarring, and unCivil stuff which the queers have been doing as much as possible to ignore, and when the WP:ADVOCACY issues were brought to ANI they were never resolved because we (queers) were supposed to just "try harder to assume good faith". Meanwhile, no less than five different people working hard on LGBT_project articles have been complaining of the way those contentious edits were an obvious attempt to portray gay people as nothing but vile diseased mansluts whose buttsex and promiscuity deserved to be propagandized in every possible way, whether it was on the articles for Promiscuity, Men Having Sex With Men, Homosexuality, Prop8, Barney Frank, and anything else remotely related. You can read last week's AN/I archives for all the gory details. I realize it's probably difficult for some of those tendentious editors to hear our pleas through their closet doors, but we have been begging them to give it a rest. The taunting email was really just the last straw, and although i don't condone AllStarEcho's posting of the email without obfuscation of email addresses (as those should have been sent only to the admins, not publicly posted) i must say that he was just doing us all a favor by forcing the situation to be dealt with more directly. When is CENSEI going to be blocked? He was warned repeatedly for Civil and Tendentious transgressions. When is Ejnogarb going to be asked by admins to please keep his WP:ADVOCACY out of all the buttsex manslut articles? Why should we Assume Good Faith toward the tag-teaming gayhating editors who team up with sockpuppet User:Bushcutter to skew LGBT articles, when we've already complained repeatedly? Do we give Good Faith to people who repeatedly rewrite comments over other editors' signatures? I thought Good Faith was an assumption, and when it is so clearly proven to be inappropriately assumed, certainly it's time to move past Faith, and into Consequences. If any of the gay editors had sent off-wiki emails taunting Ejnogarb, CENSEI, Bushcutter, THF, or any of the other WP:ADVOCACY warriors, would the admins be sitting here telling the warriors that they should just "try harder to assume good faith" and "forget about this because it's just too silly"? I'd like to know what sort of "tolerance" is expected in this community, because it seems to be demanded of some people while it's not expected of others. If an editor is blocked for editwarring, and is then immediately unblocked when they promise to desist, but then they continue WP:ADVOCACY right along the same pathway, why are we tolerating that while jumping all over AllStarEcho. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 08:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your mudslinging and name-calling are too much. LGBT groups are not the only groups that can edit LGBT articles, and to assume that I'm a gay-hater and a closeted homosexual is a serious personal attack. If you want to see abuse of the system, please see your most recent AN/I thread against me. The first thread lapsed because it was a ridiculous attack, and the second one brought up by you was primarily syrupy rants from you until finally an admin had to close it down. The admin told you to assume good faith because you were overreacting (as was I) to legitimate concerns on those pages. So CENSEI snubbed Allstarecho offline; is that worse than openly calling me a closeted homosexual and a gay-hater?  EJNOGARB  15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 sums up this whole issue reasonably and accurately. The rash lately of agenda-driven conservative editors who either a)ignore all rules or b) wikilawyer the rest of Misplaced Pages to death, has made this house an undesirable place to hang out, which is obviously their goal so they can have the place to themselves. Which is also why, unlike usual process where good editors finally throw their hands up in the air and leave forever, I'm making sure to rough it and fight through these ridiculous battles. I wont' be driven away again by tendentious editing veiled in "stop picking on me" rants and wikilawyering. The only leeway I can muster for any of these editors is the simple reality that people edit what they know. These editors know nothing about the real gay community. They only know the inside of their walls. Ejnogarb's edits have been taunting, baiting and at times outrageous, all veiled in "Please make this POV!" while at the same time screaming his own POV edits are "neutral" when they really aren't. So when many other editors point this out, he then trys the "picking on me" defence. The same goes with CENSEI and Bushcutter. I'd implore admins that if you don't do anything about these editors now, including looking at their current edit history and patterns, at least watchlist them and youll eventually see the pattern of their editing that has stressed so many other editors out lately. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolling?

This is ridiculous. I'm blocking CENSEI for trolling. Complaining about being "outed" because someone revealed you use yahoo mail (gasp) and then going on to give your surname in public is pretty obvious behaviour. I hate wheeling, so may I strongly suggest the admin who blocked Allstar consider reverting his actions? yandman 08:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure if this even falls under the definition of "trolling" in its traditional sense, but rather it's a simple case of being immature. It just saddens me that there are people who would actually do something like this, you would expect editors to act mature if nothing else, but things like this is ugly as it can get on Misplaced Pages. 山本一郎 (会話) 08:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I see a consensus here to unblock ASE and I have done so. R. Baley (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is likely to be attended by more drama, some tools for editors and admins:

• 8/14/08 AN/I complaint of partisan, battlefield type behavior. Ended up blocked for 48 for edit warring at The Obama Nation.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• 10/10/08 AN/I. Censei blocked for edit warring across multiple political articles. Also complaints of incivility and filing frivulous 3rr complaints against "opponents."
• 3/25/09 AN/I. This was when he said Obama is Chocolate Messiah (who) sounds like an extra from the special Olympics leading to his Obama topic ban. Also, extensive discussion of battlefield behavior by Censei.

He of course has popped up all over the place in other disputes where he wasn't the center. I wish there was a tool to search 3rr archives that actually works, as i bet he's on some kind of record for reporting other editors at 3rr who had not in fact violated 3rr (at least 7). This talk page archive of his is also instructive. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate that CENSEI has been blocked indefinitely? Is this a mistake? I don't see any discussion of why this would be appropriate, although it's clear his e-mail wasn't very nice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that an indefinite block is out of order.  EJNOGARB  17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course you would. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am the admin who issued CENSEI's topic ban. I was notified of this issue here, though the terms of the notification now appear moot. In the past, after I took an administrative action against User:CENSEI, I received a charming email which I read as an invitation to settle things via physical altercation. I know that he has sent similar emails to at least one other person. I chose to ignore his email, because a) I don't post private correspondence here, b) I'm no longer in middle school and so didn't take it very seriously, and c) I recognize the need to blow off steam occasionally.

  But if you consistently abuse Misplaced Pages's email function - and this is abuse of an editing privilege - then you can't be surprised when someone calls you on it. If one were to weigh User:CENSEI's contributions to Misplaced Pages, I see very little of any value to the project and an exceptionally high amount of negativity, drama, and unpleasantness. This editor isn't a good match for this site. This may as well be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or we can keep going another few rounds - whatever. I don't see any reason to lift the indefinite block, which I think is manifestly preventing further disruption of Misplaced Pages. MastCell  19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block: with this post from MastCell, we know of at least three people (2 by username) who have received harassing emails from CENSEI. This is not acceptable. Was Censei's ability to email users specifically disabled with the block? LadyofShalott 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Censei emailed me and asked me to come to his hometown for a fight.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse indef block and removal of user's ability to email users. Lychosis /C 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note I have re-blocked CENSEI in order to disable the email feature. This seems uncontroversial and appropriate under the circumstances. I didn't prevent them editing their User Talk page, so there is still an available appeal mechanism for what it's worth. Consider this an endorsement of the block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I think his e-mail was silly and inappropriate. But I think something along the lines of mandatory apologetic groveling and/or a shorter block would be more fitting. As indefinite block seems pretty radical. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: same as above, the email was silly but hardly offensive. Others have said far worse in the open.  EJNOGARB  22:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You 2 seemed to have missed the part just a few above that said his email to me to was the 3rd such harassing email he has sent. Not his 1st or 2nd, but 3rd. The indef block is most certainly warranted and appropriate. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I only saw the one prior incident that Mastcell mentioned. And Mast said he "chose to ignore it". So it seems a bit much to me to go from ignoring an instance of inappropriate behavior to an indefinite block. How about one week block, a stern warning that next time an indefinite block will result and a suggestion that an apology is in order and that CENSEI should closely adhere to policy guidelines. It seemed that the consensus was for something between a stern warning and a one week block until an Admin decided to indef. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You misread. Mastcell chose to ignore the one email he got. There have been other instances of Censei harassing editors via email, if you read through the messages above again. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I reread the thread and you are correct. My mistake. On the other hand no one has indicated that a warning or a shorter block was excercised in regard to any of those instances. And I think escalating responses would be preferable to an indef block as the first action taken in regard to misuse of e-mail functions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Indefinite block, per Mast.— Dædαlus 04:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• oppose per CoM. Make it clear to him that he is going to be on a very tight leash. The next bit he steps out of line, indef. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Blocker's comments: As Ejnogarb says, people have done far worse without being banned. But Mastcell sums it up: "very little of any value to the project and an exceptionally high amount of negativity, drama, and unpleasantness". Why would we waste our (and others') time and patience managing this troublesome user, when it's pretty clear that he's only here to create conflict? Maybe it is harsh, maybe editors in better standing would have got away with it, maybe etc... but this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. Anyone whose net contribution to the project is not positive is expendable. yandman 07:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support if it wasn't clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. Too long have we let CENSEI run around here pushing his fringe and POV views. The e-mail was not the only incident resulting in the block, simply the final nail in the coffin he'd been laying in for some time. Grsz 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block of course. 3 harassing emails that we know about have been sent to other users, by CENSEI - one of them obviously a threat of violence and one of them showing his true agenda on Misplaced Pages as well as proving how he games the system by filing frivolous 3RR reports. Now he's accusing me on his talk page of spamming his email with "GLBT spam mail". And I'll say definitively here that I have done no such a thing. He is a drain on the project and that drain has been plugged. Let it be. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - the straw that broke the camel's back. CENSEI should have been blocked a long time ago. Experience shows the editor does not improve after blocks or warnings. I personally didn't mind his calling Obama liberals' "chocolate messiah" (it was kind of funny in a homoerotic bad taste way) but I can see how someone might be offended, and beyond offended feel victimized, by that kind of language. Edit warring then taunting a legitimate, openly gay over the sexual promiscuity page, then filing a bogus 3rr over the Barney Frank page, all while topic banned from a different set of political articles... the bottom line is that Misplaced Pages is far better without CENSEI, and CENSEI has been around long enough and gone through enough process that it's safe to conclude he is not going to get better any time soon. He's been on his short leash for some time now. He's had his second, third, forth, fifth, and tenth chances already. At some point we have to respect the project, not just everybody's right to edit it.Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the indefinite block, and suggest a community ban. Not because I, too, received unsolicited email from him. (All it said was, "I warned you not to be a prick to me. So be it." Implied threat? You decide.) Not because he has distasteful POVs or an abrasive way of interacting with other editors. Not because, from his very first day of edits, he showed himself to be a seasoned editor looking for conflict. I witnessed him perpetrate, in my opinion, a much greater crime here. I watched him fabricate untrue content, inject it into a BLP article, and then attempt to disguise it by citing it to legitimate (but difficult to access) sources. Worse, when caught and confronted, he was allowed to slink away. This is insidious behavior; far more dangerous to Misplaced Pages than all of the more observable incivility and disruption problems described above. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

if it's a sockpuppet account, who do you think might be behind it? Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the same behavior at Martin Luther King, Jr.. In this edit, he flat-out lied about what the source says, and in other edits he was selective about what he read from the source. See Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Tag'n what not for details. — ] (talk · contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The issues raised here are too grave to ignore. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I'd say I'd miss CENSEI, but that would involve lying. He appears to be here for no other purpose than making legitimate editors' lives miserable. HalfShadow 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• I suppose, now that it's done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm a staunch believer in redemption but this behaviour is what drives away the editors we do need here. The ammount of time and energy unraveling damage won't get back the volunteers who were also driven away. Cyberstalking is completely out of line, this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. -- Banjeboi 11:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as ASE has unclean hands with respect to CENSEI. Between the options of blocking both, blocking neither, or blocking one... I recommend we block neither. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What does ASE's behavior have to do with the serial edit warring, personal attacks, game-playing and disruption displayed by CENSEI without ever, as far as i can see, contributing useful content. If ASE has been a similiar long-term drain on the project there might be a case to be made (separately, not in this thread) that he should go to. But the two things should not be linked -- and you've set up a false set of alternatives above. The only alternative to be considered here (in this thread) is "Community ban of CENSEI or not."Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Someone neutral and fair may wish to take a look at User talk:CENSEI. Although there is some useful discussion, some editors seem to be using CENSEI's talk page for statements that seem a little unhealthy, and are certainly not going to increase the chance that CENSEI would turn around... Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Might have a problem here

Resolved – indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm striking this, this smells too much like a sock to me. Not to mention the threat involved.— Dædαlus 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to bring attentions to this new editor who has copied another editors user page. User:Ronz has all this on his user page but I am unsure if this is Ronz's page but I doubt it so I am posting here for more qualified eyes to check it out. User:Rcnz has posted to Ronz's talk page here and signed by a bot. I don't know the policies/guidelines about this but if I remember correctly this isn't allowed. I appreciate any attentions to this matter. I have not notified either editor about this post, should I? Thanks, --CrohnieGal 13:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. Thanks. -- zzuuzz 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, have a good day. --CrohnieGal 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be a bit more to this than meets the eye. Besides the obvious username mimicry, I translated that single post the user made to Ronz's talk page: Once again podotresh a link from my article, pidaras, and you will be trouble.(google translater, if anyone knows what that mystery words mean, feel free to put in their english meaning as a replacement for them). Seeing as the user only has two contributions, I do not know what article they are referring to. All of this information noted, this user smells very much like a sock to me.— Dædαlus 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably just an anon IP who created an account after Ronz removed its link from organizational chart. See where it reintroduced links. Probably same as this one especially considering contributions is from St. Petersburg. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"пидорас" means "faggot" in Russian. Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that in the nice Somerset delicacy sense, the useful fuel sense, the somewhat archaic mensurative sense, or the abusive sense? DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. It's explained in the Russian mat article. The whole thing would be something like "Remove a link from my article once more, faggot, and you'll have some trouble". Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Haines unblock request

Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently posted an unblock request with an unequivocal statement about legal threats. He was unable to archive his talk page to remove previous discussions. Please could an uninvolved administrator consider his new request? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was rejected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Thomas de Quincey is an administrator (and on closer inspection they are currently blocked and definitely not an administrator) so it looks like the rejection was undone. The policy says that "involved editors should be unblocked if there are no other issues that warrant a block." after a legal threat is resolved. I'm not familiar enough with the case to know if there are other issues, but hopefully there is someone here who is. Camw (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look but it looks complicated. Could you fill us in a little on the background please. Theresa Knott | token threats 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Indef block of User:Alastair Haines from about a week ago; there was a consensus to uphold the block until he withdrew his legal threat. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Theresa. There was a previous thread on WP:ANI last week, where - as a condition for an unblock - Alistair was to post an unequivocal statement in any future unblock request that he "withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future". That is exactly what he has now written. Over a period of two weeks since his first block, after discussions with many administrators and editors on his talk page who have all encouraged Alastair to take this course of action, showing his recognition of this core WP policy, he has now done so. Cailil and Buster7 have helped particularly, urging Alastair to take this course of action. The formulation above of the unblock request was Durova's, who said she would support an unblock if an unambiguous statement like this appeared in an unblock request. There seemed to be some consensus. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so he made a legal threat and was blocked for it and has since withdrawn the threat. In which case I intend to lift the block in a couple of hours unless someone gives me a good reason not to. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, is this a good idea? Ordinarily I'd support your move, but if you (or someone else) don't quiz him sufficiently prior to an unblock to demonstrate he understands what he is promising and why it is necessary, I'm not sure it is a good idea. A legitimate point was raised in the previous discussion that the underlying problem may be that Alastair doesn't truly understand that legal threats are a no-no, and that it can resume at any time for the umpteenth time. But as a content editor, I don't want to see him site banned at any time either over legal threats. When I say "demonstrate he understands what he is promising and why it is necessary", I'm not talking about grovelling, nor is a response that says "as it's the only way to get me unblocked" satisfactory. It needs to get to the heart of the issue on why he should not make legal threats, and indeed, why they are not permitted. Working through the ArbCom decision would certainly help him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's only fair really The way to demonstrate that you truly understand that legal threats are a big no no is to stop making them. Obviously I will tell him very clearly that if he starts making them again he will be reblocked but surely once the threat of legal action is removed we really don't have the grounds to keep him blocked?Theresa Knott | token threats 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have grounds after that. Okay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would urge you to tell him that he will be blocked indefinitely if he ever makes a legal threat again. If that isn't clear, he will probably carry on passive aggressively hinting at legal actions to get an upper hand in editing disputes, as has been the very recent pattern. It becomes like serial edit warring or incivility or anything else. At a certain point, there should be no more chances or time wasted by volunteer editors dealing with someone who insists everyone's out of step but Johnny.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree and have every intrntion of leaving a very clearly worded warning on his talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I have done it. I also left a pretty clear note (IMO) on his talk page spelling exactly what will happen if he does it again. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa. Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite Theresa's copious good faith, it turns out that Alistair Haines had an agent resume the legal threats via OTRS instead. I've reblocked; and I would request that nobody undoes that block without confirmation from an OTRS agent, the Foundation, or the Committee. — Coren  01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the phrase "own worst enemy" spring to mind? Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one that comes to mind is "D'oh!" He lasted, what, roughly 1 shift before being re-blocked? Though I'm fairly certain I've seen worse. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. It's a shame but some people clearly don't belong here. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmmmm... well I for one have some questions about this. My understanding is that the 'no legal threats' policy prohibits any participation in this project whilst a legal process is specifically threatened or is actually ongoing - is this the case? might well be of course, but this isn't clear. I think you're right about some people just not getting on here, Theresa, but we've got to be very clear where the boundaries are, and I can't really see that there's been enough rigour applied in this case. It'd be great, Coren, if you could put a bit more flesh on the bones of the 'agent has resumed legal threats' thing - what's happening? Privatemusings (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the editor who is said to have acted as his agent and made a legal threat on his behalf SkyWriter (talk · contribs). If you go to this version of Haine's talk page and scroll to "Unresolved Issues" you will find SkyWriter prattling on about "defamatory statements" that need to be deleted and generally prattling on about damaged professional reputations etc... So, as long as skywriter was acting on haines' behalf (i trust that coren is telling the truth. Don't you?) Nothing further needs to be clarified. Throw away the key on both and be done with it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SkyWriter has anything to do with this reblocking. From User talk:Alastair Haines, it appears that his publisher has made threats on his behalf through the OTRS. --Onorem♠Dil 13:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this sure makes it look like he was involved somehow.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You do appear to be correct. I didn't notice that. Interesting...I thought that SkyWriter had been intervening as an interested fellow wikipedia editor. I didn't realize that he was also his publisher. --Onorem♠Dil 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PM, the wording in WP:LEGAL specifies that it is the "chilling effect" of the legal threat that needs to be countered, not the specifics of how the threat is couched. There is no difference between "link to that site again and you will hear from my attorney" and "I would advise you that papers have been filed at X Court in respect of this matter" where the intent is to deter other parties in editing Misplaced Pages otherwise in compliance with rules, policies and guidelines. Specifically, in this matter Haines has opened an OTRS with an accompanying legal threat in an apparent attempt to have content reflect their preferred version when discussion has not achieved that aim. It doesn't get much more clear cut, I should think. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah - you could well be right - I'm just trying to make sure that legal action has been specifically threatened here - I mean we're all up for removing any and all defamation wherever it may be, right? - There's no requirement (as I understand it) for a wiki editor to disavow the concept of legal action to protect reputation, just the clear policy that while any such action is threatened or under way, the protagonist shouldn't edit the wiki. Maybe my addled mind is being slow (or cynical) but it's not clear to me at the mo. that we're dealing with the later (slam dunk, very clear) rather than the former (less so) here... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) LHVU explains it quite succinctly. The point of NLT is to avoid editors using legal maneuvering (or threats of legal maneuvering) in order to bully or intimidate other editors into complying with your demands. Whether or not the threats are sincere, explicit, veiled, or bluffing is immaterial— they are still used as ordnance in "battle".

Besides, at this point, I'm not sure that unblocking Haines would be wise even if they did manage to stop the legal bullying: the cumulative amount of disruption has, IMO, reached the tipping point. But regardless, complete and unequivocal (and definitive) withdrawal is prerequisite to even examining the possibility of unblocking. — Coren  13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... that's not entirely the emphasis I'd place on the legal threats policy, but that's moot, I guess.... I think you've answered my question anywhoo in this post - you seem to me to be saying that the OTRS ticket contained a specific legal threat which is currently being actioned, and must be unequivocally withdrawn prior to any unblock - is this correct? Privatemusings (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, the email reiterates the "deadline" approach, and restates that "defamation" must be removed lest legal action be taken at its expiration. Threat of future legal action is also threat of legal action. — Coren  14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In a related point, I really wish they did talk to a lawyer who could take the time to explains the legal basis for the concepts of defamation and libel. They keep using that word, but I'm not sure it means what they think it means.  :-) — Coren  14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok I'm throwing in the towel here. I tried, god knows I tried, to help explain to Alastair, and indeed to Tim/SkyWriter, how WP:NLT works, but if Coren is right (and I have no reason to doubt that he is) then these blocks are sound. As I understood it Alastair wanted certain diffs posted by Abtract to be examined under BLP. He also wanted us/wikipedia/the poster to apologize for posts that were made about him that he doesn't like. I have no idea what Tim and Alastair think they are doing. They were begged to read WP:LEGAL and WP:NLT. I give-up--Cailil 16:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Shakes head* What else am I going to say other than I told you so? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing? Mathsci (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep (obviously excepting this reply). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that I have had recent contact with SkyWriter at List of converts to Judaism. During the discussion there, I very definitely came away with the impression, possibly unfounded, that SkyWriter is very possibly a rather precocious early adolescent with an exaggerated opinion of himself. I can very easily believe that SkyWriter might have intentionally misspoken regarding being an attorney and acted in a way which many youths with ideas about being "big men" behave. I cannot for a second believe SkyWriter is an attorney; for that matter, I have trouble believing he has yet graduated high school. If SkyWriter did arrogate to himself the position of attorney without Haines' approval, which I think very possible, perhaps Haines should not be penalized for the unwelcome intervention of others. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both users were blocked for the same OTRS ticket. SkyWriter was certainly extremely disruptive and outspoken on Alastair's talk page, even when warned by Cailil. He seemed to want Alastair to continue on the defamation tack (he and User:LisaLiel continued to bicker after the second unblock request was posted). So you could well be right - he might have tried to wreck the unblock. Quite a mess, really. Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

We have more legal threat nonesense within 24 hours after a number of admins wrote a retraction of the legal threats for alastair and spent days begging him to cut and paste it (which he finally did at their urging) so he could be unblocked. He has consistently treated almost every editor who has disagreed with him with contempt and worse (the evidence page from his arbcom case is instructive ). And he has shown no indication that he intends to change the underlying incivility and IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems. This is the indef discussion from late March . I have never encountered alastair while editing, and am completely uninvolved. Having looked at this, I'm convinced that enough time has been wasted, legal threats eventually withdrawn at this point are irrelevant. I support a community ban.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The retraction was at my urging too, a common-or-garden editor. I also have never edited articles with Alastair, although I was aware that he had made valuable contributions. I am extremely disappointed by the legal threat by proxy. Coren has given Alastair the chance to retract and/or explain the threat off-wiki, so at the moment it seems best to wait to see whether any response and/or explanation is in the pipeline. I am not at all optimistic. If Alastair doesn't have a thicker skin, wishes to edit with his real name, claims to have been defamed by remarks uttered in the rough-and-tumble of editing and feels that it his right to take legal action, then, as Theresa rightly points out, this is regrettably not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to put my two cents in, I see this two different ways. If this is a case of someone acting on his behalf, but not with his wishes, then he just needs them to contact via OTRS with a "I'm sorry, this was an error, and we retract any and all threats." If this is the case, then I don't see why any ban discussion should take place. However, if the response from Alastair is in the vein of 'I retracted the threat, but the specific wording I used did not preclude having another pursue legal action on my behalf', then I think a ban is most assuredly in order. I think the ban discussion should be delayed until a response comes out, though. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He knows exactly what he's doing, and the ban should go forward. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a good point there. I stumbled into this recently, and I just got to the earlier parts of his talk page. I'd say this is definitely the second case, and if his talk page wasn't blocked off, I'm sure we'd be hearing the 'but I didn't threaten it!'. Fully Support Ban. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do not endorse ban proposal. I don't think this is helpful right now. I like to assume he is confused/angry/upset rather than deliberately being difficult. Lets leave this to OTRS/the Foundation - if there is something happening they will not unblock him and this conversation is moot. If however he is unblocked I do think we should investigate what exactly Alastair Haines thinks is wrong with the RfAr findings - I'm not saying we NEED to overturn the ArbCom ruling, I'm saying we need to figure out what his issue with it is so we can get through to him or in the worst case scenario consider a restriction/sanction. Personally I feel exhausted from dealing with this (and I've been here from the beginning last July) but my patience is not exhausted - not yet--Cailil 21:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Do not endorse ban proposal - There seem to me to be some questions about whether other people presumptively acting on his behalf were either doing so with his knowledge and approval, and whether the actions of that/those people had an effect on the outcome here. I think this matter needs to be looked into a bit more deeply before a final decision is made. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD of unrelated articles needs closing

Can someone close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations? Two previous bundled discussions have already been speedily kept because notability varies widely among bilateral relations, and discussing some many disparate articles in a single discussion is impossible. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chile-Whatever relations and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations for two previous train wrecks created by bundling such articles. WilyD 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the same at all. Argentina has 100x the population of Malta, and Chile more than 30x. Even Leeds has almost twice the population. And the articles are hardly unrelated. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The creation of these state relations articles, though probably well-intentioned, was extremely disruptive if we now deal with them individually. This is a case for WP:IAR if ever there was one. I think the right thing to do is to delete all those which don't contain any interesting information, with no prejudice against recreation if and when there is evidence that they are notable. But we don't need articles such as Malta–Peru relations consisting of gems such as "Peru is represented in Thailand through its embassy in Rome (Italy)." --Hans Adler (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The creation of these articles was not disruptive; it was the extraordinarly lengths to which some have gone to delete them that has provided all the drama. That some of them have closed keep only serves to demonstrate that these are not wholesale commodities, but must be treated individually - just like, well, every other article here. What a concept. Reminds me of the creation of Foo at the 19XX Olympics series about 1/2 of which contained "Foo competed at the 19XX Olympics" and about 1/2 contained "Foo did not compete at the 19XX Olympics". All unreferenced. If memory serves, some of the former were kept (of which, perhaps a few have by now been expanded), and nearly all of the latter were deleted (though a few "boycott" noncompetes were kept). Net effect: positive for WP that we got some more information. We do want new articles, don't we? If we don't want people to create articles, someone ought to make that explicit. And other than WP:CSD if the community cannot decide a priori which new articles are keepers and which are not, it is certainly not disruptive to create them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at whom the "extraordinarly lengths" comment was directed, but I resent the charge if I'm one of the targets. I made a nomination of related articles (and 10 isn't, you know, a huge number) and participants unanimously favoured deletion. One individual (who didn't even attempt to argue for keeping) came here and created (I suppose) drama. Apparently, he has decided that the only acceptable way to delete these silly "articles" is by individual AfDs for each and every one -- no prods, no bundled AfDs, regardless of their absurdity -- that is an "extreme" measure, not my own very rational nomination. - Biruitorul 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have closed, and suggested individual renominations, especially since one article was already specifically defended at the AfD. DGG (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, at nine votes for deletion and zero for keeping, isn't that a clear indication of the way the discussion was headed? - Biruitorul 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one !vote was to delete "all but one", which I think is the defense DGG is referencing. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, i've opened up an SPI on the creator of this latest spate of "X-Y relations" articles, which is reminiscent of indeffed-blocked user Plumoyr (talk · contribs) and his sock Groubani (talk · contribs). It's here if anyone cares to review my reasoning.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that prodding all of them would be the best way. Editors can rescue specific articles if they find sources showing notability --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gjr rodriguez

Gjr rodriguez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They're having some issues over at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball regarding the creation of many many articles of non notable baseball players. Lots of these have gone to AfD and have been deleted but new ones are still being created by the dozen. The user does not appear to have engaged in any meaningful discussion regarding the creation of the articles. I am sure that some of the articles being created could be deemed notable but the vast majority are not. At the moment the actions of this user are causing disruption and taking up lots of time in AfD. Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's this ongoing debate that somehow minor leaguers are "notable", which if taken to its logical extreme could add somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 articles to wikipedia, nearly all of them stubs. The debate is good. The unilateral creation of these articles, ignoring discussion, needs to be stopped. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the user to stop, and told them of this discussion. Bugs, where is this debate taking place so i can provide them with a link? Thanks. --GedUK  13:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball, or that's where I've seen it anyway. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor has started creating articles again despite three (or more - I haven't scrolled up) requests on his talkpage to stop. I've issued another request warning him that I may have to consider blocking him if he continues - he's just creating work for other people if the consensus is that these players are not inherently notable. (Not to mention that he's practically copying the articles from the MiLB website - there may be a copyright issue here as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 21:59, April 8, 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours per WP:IDHT. If they don't wake up and start paying attention to the reams of "Please stop" posts and advice they've been getting, I suggest the next block should be indef. EyeSerene 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of guideline pages for nationalist agendas?

In Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) there is a dispute about using the example of Vilnius (Russian: Vilna; Polish: Wilno) to illustrate wiki practice of using "historical" names for certain cities in historical contexts. The example of "Wilno", the Polish form of the name, is being used along with Danzig and Constantinople as examples of historical usage of place names. This was cited in a current WP:RM,Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655), where this very matter is under contention. The initiator of the RM and author/maintainer of this example's presence in the guideline is the same user (Piotrus). There have been at least four attempts by at least 3 different editors (including me) to remove it or replace it with a less controversial example.

When the example has been removed, 4 times, it has been reverted Diffs with edit summaries

Text added:

• (Piotrus)

Removal of this example reverted

• putting Vilna/Villnius/Wilno back in since it belongs there (Radeksz)
• please don't change examples that gained community acceptance w/out discussion or add new (Piotrus)
• restore useful example, please gain consensus on talk before changing the policy per your liking (Piotrus)
• no consensus to remove (Piotrus)

Application:

• move 1 (Piotrus)
• move 2 (Piotrus)
• list for RM (Piotrus)

All participants in restoring and removing the text voted along the same lines at the Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

Here is the text:

For example, we have articles called Gdańsk, Istanbul and Volgograd and Vilnius, these being the modern names of these cities, although former names (Danzig, Constantinople, Stalingrad or Vilna or Wilno) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Free City of Danzig.

I'm concerned that, even if done in good faith, this kind of thing doesn't adhere to the purpose of guideline pages, i.e. to reflect widespread consensus on editorial practice, not to add extra weight to advance an argument. I am baffled as to why, given the thousands of available examples, anyone would dispute using a less controversial example, which is what I tried to do.

Opinions?

Needs good-faith mediation from users, default pref. seasoned admins, who are not from the area and who aren't already friends of any of the users. It'll surely just become an edit-war if no-one does, and people will get in trouble, and we don't want that. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to mention the full and chronological context (readers are highly advised to look at timestamps of the above diff). Here are chronologically ordered diffs from the last few days (the oldest diff cited above is from 2005...): Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey, a RM initiated by me, is opposed by Deacon; after I cited I cite the naming policy, Deacon attempted to change the very policy: , (and was aided by another user who also supported his position in the vote: ). I would appreciate input on whether it is good editing policy to attempt to change a an estabilished policy (which as Deacon's diff show was challenged once in the past 4 years) one's opponent cited in an ongoing discussion (vote...)? In any case, input from neutral editors both at Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#No_consensus_to_remove_the_example would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why can't this be easily solved by replacing this example with one not under dispute? I just can't understand this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It was stable and uncontroversial for months, if not years, until some users decided to make it into a controversy. Should we remove the Instanbul/Constantinopol or Stalingrad/Volgograd example next time somebody makes them an issue? The proper way is to take this issue to the talk page of the policy, ensure that there is a consensus for the removal of an example, and remove it then; certainly trying to edit the policy the second time after it has been made clear on talk that there is no consensus to remove them is not the best idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered it above, second sentence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting outsiders here, please. And Piotrus, you didn't answer my question. Why can't this be easily solved by replacing this example with one not under dispute? Wilno is not a former name anyway. It's just the modern Polish way of writing it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered. The example was stable for ~4 years. If we were to remove an example every time somebody challenges it, we would have none left very soon. In particular, removing an examples that are used in a discussion you are engaged in and that weeaken your argument is not the best policy, I am afraid. Further, Wilno is a former name, and is not only a "modern Polish way of writing it". First, you can find it used in English sources dating as far back as 18th century (thanks, Google Print!), so it is hardly modern. Second, it was certainly an uncontroversial official name for the interwar period (see Wilno Voivodeship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The example is no more controversial than Danzig/Gdansk. It's a matter of historical periodisation versus modern usage - see Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655) for further details. This is a content dispute. There are Polish users on one side but, so what, there are Lithuanians on the other. --Folantin (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deacon may be right that the guideline page is being used for nationalist agenda but he's confused about which side is engaging in it. The situation is simple: there's an RM and a naming dispute. The guideline, which has been around for a long time, is cited as part of this discussion. Deacon goes and changes the guideline as if to pretend "what guideline?". Guidelines are there to help resolve disputes. Hence they cannot just arbitrarily be changed every time a dispute comes up because the guideline does not support ... a particular agenda. Let me address Deacon's statement that "Wilno is not a former name anyway. It's just the modern Polish way of writing it." as well. This in fact is the crux of the matter. Deacon assumes that this is true (whereas it's just his POV) and then argues that the guideline regarding Wilno is not needed. But obviously quite a number of editors, myself included, disagree with this characterization of the name "Wilno" (and so do sources) - it is a former, historical name. Hence the need for the guideline for when it should be used - which means it belongs in the relevant text as it was in there originally.radek (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Radek. This btw is the other Polish user mentioned above who once against joined Piotrus in yet another nationalist dispute. So I have a nationalist agenda? Being Scottish and having no family links to eastern Europe? Is it Russian nationalism this time? Polish nationalism? Lithuanian nationalism?

At everyone else, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS are totally unworkable, and WP:GUIDELINE non-credible, if nationalist editors with a conflict of interest are allowed to muscle neutrals out of guideline pages to gain an upper hand in a nationalist dispute in article space. I've noted this here, so everyone can say I at least tried to get more outside involvement. Not much more I can do. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobbykhawk

Creating multiple short articles that all seem to be copyright violations. Can someone nuke all their new articles asap. Exxolon (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User editing his own article

Miami Beach Mayor Alex Daoud is obviously inserting self-serving comments and advertising his own book on the wikipedia article about him. see here . What are we to do? Silk Knot (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, improve the content he added? Although, I must say, this is the first time I've ever seen a subject insert details about being indicted into their own biography... Daniel (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the mayor is still advertising his own self-published book in the article though... Silk Knot (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Then edit it to make it less advertisement-like and more encyclopedia-like? Daniel (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I say we get an admin to leave an official warning, then block him for a short time (7-10 days). Silk Knot (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I say we don't. Firstly, there's no such thing as an "official warning". Secondly, editing ones biography isn't actually a blockable offence, only if they act disruptively in doing so. All that needs to happen is to gently explain Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion, verifiability and neutral point of view policies, and emphasise that all future additions must be neutral and this is extra-important because they are the subject.

Misplaced Pages should do all it can to encourage subjects to edit their own biographies, in a responsible manner in line with Misplaced Pages policies, especially as the scope of the biographies of living persons problem becomes bigger and bigger. Knee-jerk reactions such as the above only discourages this, and causes more problems than it solves in addition to being a gigantic case of biting people who aren't yet as understanding of our content policies as us. Daniel (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd mention our neutrality and conflict of interest policies to him, but there's no need for any harsh action yet. If he edits non-neutrally in contravention of said reminders, then it might be time to bring out the warnings, but for now, no. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Something very weird just happenned. After I leftthis comment on an article talkpage, I was unexplainedly unlogged and the edit was attributed, instead of me to Palaboys (talk · contribs). I haven't a clue how or why but could someone fully block Palaboys? With the recent block and disruption regarding Barney Frank I'm concerned about a technical hack. -- Banjeboi 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds...wierd. Maybe you should bring it up on WP:VPT and/or ask brion about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll repost there. Could that account be blocked until we have an explanation? -- Banjeboi 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You made the actual post but it attributed it to another logged in user?? With all the drama surrounding certain editors lately, that user account should definitely be blocked until it's figured out what happened. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That edit attribution is the only edit in User:Palaboys's contributions, and it is a new account. I have blocked for 24 hours just to give time to figure out what is going on. Perhaps a checkuser could look into it? LadyofShalott 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Palaboys did anything wrong. See the thread at WP:VPT. He's probably as innocent as Benjiboi, except he's just been blocked. I don't understand what you think you've prevented by blocking that account? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread at VPT didn't really tell me anything new. I did it as a precautionary action. I alerted the account to this thread and my action. If anyone (Palaboys or otherwise) can convince that it's just a fluke, I will unblock myself, or have no objection whatsoever to another admin's unblocking. In fact, if other admins disagree with the block, they are welcome to revert me now. LadyofShalott 03:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, I guess it's up to Palaboys. I'm just imagining how I'd react if I was a newbie, minding my own business, just created my account, and was suddenly blocked with a pretty-hard-to-figure-out-if-you-haven't-been-here-a-while message on my talk page. I might just leave and not come back, feeling, somewhat justifiably, unwelcome. So to be clear, you think he somehow has the ability to take over other people's accounts, but blocking his account will stop him? Just seems like "quick, do something! Even if it's wrong!" --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some to what I posted on his/her page to try to make it a little less intimidating if it is just some innocent fluke. Anyone else watching this page have any ideas??? LadyofShalott 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm off to bed now, and the more I think about this the more I can feel myself becoming annoyed, so it's probably time to log off anyway, but I have to say I'm quite disappointed that the instinctive reaction from three separate people to a situation they don't understand is to immediately assume bad faith and block a newbie. I didn't think that's how things were supposed to be done. Too late now, of course, as Palaboys is likely long gone, but it sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I defy any of you to tell me how you think he intentionally accomplished this technological marvel, why he would use this amazing power for the mundane purpose of claiming that particular edit as his own, and how blocking someone who has this amazing technical ability is going to stop him. Blocking out of fear, because you don't know what else to do, is bad karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Have I got this right? Benjiboi made an edit which the software apparently altered. Palaboys gets blocked for it. Is that the gist of it? DuncanHill (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, either the software or someone, but yes, otherwise that's it. I may have been in error. I'll unblock. LadyofShalott 04:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, with an apology to Palaboys. LadyofShalott 04:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, LadyofShalott, I believe that was the right thing to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the recent history of Wiki-Battle going on, of which Benji has been involved in as well (not saying that as a bad thing, just showing you're a likely target), Lady did the right thing. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • DuncanHill, it was an alarming alter; and in the context of the contentious editors I'm dealing with I was concerned some corruption of my account or some cyber attack may have been at play. Blocking may not have been needed except on my account, or the IP but as of yet no one has a reasonable explanation of what happenned. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Here is link at VPT, Checkuser came up with some puzzling results so this is being looked at further. -- Banjeboi 11:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of Betacommand?

Discussion closed and moved to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Return of Betacommand?

Why? --Conti|✉ 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was it moved, or why was it closed? It was moved because that appears to be the common practice once these things have run their course, and it was closed because no one spoke up to support the unbanning and it was just a piling on. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the close. But AN/I subpages usually are created solely due to size reasons. Unless I'm missing something, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand is not the noticeboard to discuss everything related to Betacommand. By now, it's an archive, just like all the other archives, and this thread would have been archived automatically soon anyhow. --Conti|✉ 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a not unreasonable fear of unnecessary drama? Wiggy! (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

eh, I was under the impression that's where these threads went, so that All Things Betacommand can be housed in one place so people don't have to poke through the AN/I archives to find each block-unblock-ban-unban-etc discussion. *shrug* –xeno (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much now, anyhow. That page (and all the others like it) should probably get a big, fat "This is an archive!"-tag slapped on it, tho. --Conti|✉ 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Swamilive, yet again

A one month range block was previously placed on 216.211.0.0/17 and 216.26.208.0/20 due to indef blocked user Swamilive continuing to disrupt using them (seen in this ANI thread:Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Rangeblock_notice). It's now been one month, and on schedule, he has returned and is doing the same thing on Winnipeg Folk Festival‎ that he did last time (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Winnipeg_Folk_Festival_vandal). Compare some of the diffs there with these and it's obvious that it's him again.

For the most of the history here, see:

• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_activity
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_rampage
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive168#Yet_another_Swamilive_sockpuppet
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive_-_Sockpuppeteer_and_harasser_wrapped_up_and_ready_to_go

As of right now, the IPs that I've seen him use this time are 216.26.222.216 and 216.211.115.115. Could someone please re-block him? Thanks. Apparition /Mistakes 03:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone might wish to block recent Swamilive sock User:Garydaniels in the meantime. If I recall correctly, I think there's also another (non-216.X.X.X) range that belongs to the same ISP. Someone should check the collateral damage, though, of blocking an entire ISP in a fairly small city. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhydfelen@gartholwg

Hi. I placed a speedy delete tag on this article Rhydfelen@gartholwg about 10 hours ago but nothing has happened! I am pretty new to placing deletion tags and wonder if I have made a mistake? The aticle already has a page at Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg but because some pupils at the scholl are unhapy with the school name and are campaigning for a change they keep on creating pages for all the alternative possible names.

Another editor or admin asked me to watch the page whilst he went on Easter holidays and told me to come here if it gets too bad. ] I didn't mind but I am now finding it hard work to keep up and seem to be the only one who is trying to protect the pages. I feel like packing this in to be honest. I also put in a sockpuppet check request but nothing yet.

If someone could also watch and delete these pages I would be greatful.

Rhydfelen Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen Rhydfelen@gartholwg Thanks for your help, Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy deletes get horribly backlogged. I've redirected the article to the school and protected it. If this board thinks it would be better deleted and salted, i've no problem with that. --GedUK  07:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I full protected the other redirects as well, although I'd also have no problem if others thought they should be deleted and salted. If and when the school changes its name, an administrator can move the article to the new name. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for helping so quickly. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading to characterize this as "some pupils at the school" "campaigning for a change". This is not on the WP:NFT level of schoolchildren vandalizing the encyclopaedia with stuff that they've made up, for starters. The campaign is to undo a change, and is verifiable. Read these:

• "We like our name, says school". South Wales Echo. 2006-05-18.
• "Please don't change name of our school!". South Wales Echo. 2006-05-19.
• "New name for valleys Welsh school". BBC News. BBC. 2006-06-04.
• "Effort to save school's name gathers pace". South Wales Echo. 2006-06-17.
• "'We won't wear the new uniform'". South Wales Echo. 2006-06-27.
• "School name protest". South Wales Echo. 2006-06-25.
• "'Don't change historic name of our school'". South Wales Echo. 2009-03-25.

You have a neutrality problem, and rather than addressing it by making Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg#Background and History less one-sided (The above are some sources that can be used.) you are addressing it by escalating this into a cycle of creation and deletion, edit warring and protection. Fix the article! Have it describe the whole dispute. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I wish the warring would just stop. I actually would like to keep the old name (Rhydfelen) the same as these pupils do as I went to that school myself. But in reality the name already changed to Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg 3 years ago! If the name does indeed revert back to Rhydfelen or whatever the article must be changed. The name change has been mentioned in the article and I'd love to see someone add more to it, thats what Wiki is all about. But the only things that I am seeing get added are dates of forthcoming meetings like they think Wiki is some sort of notice board. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had a go at making it more neutral. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note that this is Misplaced Pages, not Wiki. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It sure is a lot quicker to type! and I think its got a ring about it. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP is quicker again. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP. Thats a word processor innit. This is what me and my group of friends calls the Wikis. You've got Wiki (English wikipedia), Wiki commons, Wiki Dict and Welsh Wiki. Thats the only ones we use at the mo! Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, wiktionary.org doesn't really fall neatly into that, while some non-WMF wikis do, which is reason enough to avoid referring to WMF wikis as "Wiki". The original wiki remains unconnected to the WMF, for example. "Wiki" is a type of software, and that's why some editors (me!) face mental anguish when they encounter "wiki" as an abbreviation of "Misplaced Pages" or "Wikimedia" ;-) This flag once was red_deeds 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of getting sidetracked, "wiki" is a type of software that enables a website to be edited easily by contributors. Misplaced Pages is one type of wiki. You wouldn't call every coin a penny, so why do you call Misplaced Pages "wiki"? Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was only pulling your leg as I thought you were mine! But I type wiki into the explorer bar of Mozzy Firefox and it brings me straight to Misplaced Pages. Sorry if I offended anyone! I'll have to be more careful in future. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

:-) I have Firefox set up so that if I type "w searchterm" in the URL bar it searches Misplaced Pages for "searchterm". I use it more than I use "g searchterm" (search using Google). In fact, sometimes I find myself wondering why Misplaced Pages doesn't have articles on "book, seller, uk, -site:bbc.co.uk"! Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Analogy doesn't quite work. "Wiki" is a type of software. Misplaced Pages is one type of wiki. Coin is a type of currency. Pennies are one type of coin. The analogy that follows calling Misplaced Pages "wiki" would be that you call pennies "coins"...and that's perfectly acceptable when the context is clear. What's up with the recent push to stop the abbreviation when context is perfectly clear? --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamish Ross - urgent help needed

Jthuggett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalism spree, including vandalizing the report on him on AIV. DuncanHill (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Pedro. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vaishnav93 repeatedly removing AFD template from article

Vaishnav93 has been repeatedly removing the AFD template(for an ongoing discussion) from MES Pattambi. He has been warned numerous times, and has now done it again after a final warning was given. He has been told that he should instead take part in the AFD discussion, but he has completely disregarded that advice, and continues to remove the AFD template(with no reason given).WackoJackO 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Friday

Hi, Some user just went past the 3 revert limit there. I only have 2 reverts there, and do not want to start an edit war. Therefore please issue a warning. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, but you can warn someone about 3RR yourself. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but it is also User:CapitalElll who has passed the limit on Good Friday, and it is no longer a question of warning, but block perhaps. Real question: how seriously is the 3R rule enforced? Is it just there as a warning item, or does it get strictly enforced? If so, CapitalElll's edits should be reverted. Shall I break the rule and revert him, given that he has broken the rule? Or do I assume that he can break the rules and I can not? Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Danan

Vandalism to the Paul Danan article features in this week's Popbitch mailout. Given some of the recent edits to that article, I would expect a lot more of the same. -- The Anome (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now semiprotected following a request at WP:RFPP Tonywalton  16:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Modernhealthcare

Hi, gang. This is a strange one. The username is clearly blockable as a spam account, all the edits have been to either the company or the CEO...yet both appear notable. I just warned the user about some edits he/she made to the article on the CEO. There's never been a response to any concerns either. So, how do we do this? I don't want to block a legit account, but this person seems pretty determined and unwilling to work with the site. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Start at Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. The fact that they are notable is fine, the name isn't appropriate at all. It should be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the 3 revert rule for real?

Hello, I posted above, but no action yet beyond warning. User:CapitalElll is clearly breaking the 3-revert rule on Good Friday. Is any admin going to do anythig, or shall we all assume that 3-revert rule has been removed from Misplaced Pages policies? I did 2 reverts then stopped. Is that rule forgotten? Please clarify. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have more luck at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which is "used to report violations of the three revert rule, and edit warring." Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:CapitalElll hasn't been warned about WP:3RR - you should probably do that before reporting them on WP:AN/EW. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, CapitalElll (talk · contribs) has not formally violated 3RR, so a report would be declined even if he had been warned. Second, CapitalElll seems to be pushing the Christ myth theory in a very disruptive way. This editor popped into existence on 18 March 2009 and immediately began to edit in a highly sophisticated way on skepticism-related topics. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars usually start because people are a bit to committed to an agenda. Check Talk:Good_Friday#The_Real_Debate and you'll find that his opponent, who reported him, is just as good a used car dealer in this department. He had a go at me as well for imaginary 3R violations. Anyway, the rule is you can make 3 reverts. Hence the name. -Duribald (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CapitalEll and Duribald have both been warned for 3RR. CapitalElll has removed the last two admin warnings from his talk, so you need to look in the history to see it. History2007, since he opened this complaint, doesn't need a warning. It takes four reverts to break the rule, but people who are not editing in good faith occasionally get sanctioned even before four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of block; invitation to deliberative participants, please

Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under 24 hour sanction for violation of WP:NPA. I have opined at Giano's talkpage that he has not violated the policy, and have some support, while the blocking admin remains content in their interpretation, and also has some support. As Giano + sanctions related issues have some history in growing into major drama, can I ask some of our more even tempered and less politicized contributors glance over and give a calm consideration of the case. My hope is that when we do block Giano it has to be seen that the community is largely content that violations have indeed taken place, and a dignified discussion there may achieve that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim was made on his talk page that there was an off-wiki aspect to this, but it's not evident to me on first review. Can someone clarify that please? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki context was here (scroll down to the replies, or search for "Giano"). Quite frankly, if someone were posting the kind of abuse about me that Neurolysis was posting about Giano on a national newspaper's website, I'd be more than a little snarky as well. – iridescent 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the situation on his talk page, and I'd rather see a wider discussion on this situation. I believe its getting heated, and conversation needs be moved here if we're going to poll for his unblock. Synergy 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Preemptive oppose unblock. Giano knows precisely what he is saying and when, and he is under zero misapprehension about what the rules call for here. He knew what he was doing, the block is entirely justified. We have to stop coddling him because he lashes out--he needs to stop lashing out on a depressingly regular basis. If it were once a year? Fine! It's not. //roux   00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Synergy)I feel the discussion there is more civil than has previously been the case when on the 'Boards - which allow passing comments to be made that doesn't help with considered debate. Hi, Roux! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the argument on the talk page seems to be about whether terms effective through February are still effective. Avruch says they are not. If there are no specific statements to the effect that the term was prolonged, and it doesn't seem that there were, I have every reason to believe the block is probably perfectly acceptable. I can't see any immediate need to lift the block, particularly when it is as short as it is. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU: Civil is subjective, which is why I chose to say plainly, that it was getting heated. Regardless. A poll should be done here, not on a blocked users talk page. My primary reason for posting here. Synergy 00:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@John Carter: the summary for the block was NPA violation - my and others comments can be found below. Synergy: Well, it has been done. I felt the less visited area of Giano's talkpage was easier to moderate, but transparency is also a creed to me so I am content for it to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page. Seddσn 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (sigh)Is there a link to the Giano ArbCom where blocks, particularly under civility/attack criteria, are only to be made after consultation... Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history (and if said admin isn't aware, on what basis are they blocking without warning or discussion). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of the block... You are referring to the enforcement motion from the SlimVirgin case, which applied specifically to Giano's civility parole. That parole expired in February, presumably rendering the enforcement restriction moot. Avruch 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do you refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on further enforcement? I was vaguely aware that there was something like that, so I looked it up before issuing this block. The motion prohibits "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole". I did not block this user to enforce any civility parole, just to prevent ongoing ordinary policy violations that I came across when viewing an ongoing RfA. Moreover, the parole that must not be enforced according to this motion appears to have expired anyway. But if you feel that the motion must be construed so as to prohibit any block of this user for civility reasons ever (which would surprise me very much, since it would in effect exempt him from the policy), we can make a request for clarification to that effect.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein did provide diffs, so perhaps perusing them before passing judgement might be a good way to go. I think it's fair to say Giano did not take the "high road", and a 24 hour block seems like a pretty appropriate action in this instance. Giano's opinions have certainly been noted, but I think it's reasonable to expect conduct that is slighlty less confrontational. Sorry Giano! I can certainly understand where he's coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Although upon reflection there is a question about whether a warning was given? Rules is rules... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)*That is the one; fair enough it has expired, so there is no need for it to be examined. As for the purported violations of NPA, I would quote Misplaced Pages:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, bullet point (4) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki...". Giano has made it quite clear, since it has lead further editors to oppose or strike their supports, that this is in regard to off-Wiki comments made by the candidate in respect of Giano and the Hattersley claims debacle. Unless you are arguing that Giano's perception of events are wrong (which would make your block problematic under COI) I suggest that Giano has provided reason for his claims of the candidate being capable of pronouncing falsehoods; I am uninterested in the veracity of Giano's claims, other than he has provided sufficient evidence to make it fair comment rather than an attack on the individual. Lastly, I have seen worse in the bearpit that is WP:RfA - it isn't right but I have not seen editors blocked without warning before. I feel you should reconsider your action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To CoM, of course I reviewed the diffs - which is why I am making the point that Giano is referring specifically to events/comments made by the candidate (in an off-Wiki but public page) which he considers varies considerably from the truth to which the comments cited by Sandstein refer. I do not don my mask and cape without making sure that the stitching is still in place... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets take as granted that any one of Giano's comments were correct and not personal attacks. In fact, lets take them all as true and not uncivil, not personal attacks. Does the collective effect of Giano repeating himself stridently and in multiple forums create a significant problem? Perhaps a more useful and functional test: "Did Giano's comment disrupt the normalized editing environment?" I have no answer yet. Also stopping in to confirm that Giano's probation has expired, and thus the related ruling has no effect as well. Its a wash: Giano is, procedurally, like any other long term contributor.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)My apologies LessH. I misread your "Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history" comment. Clearly you were referring to the Arbcom issue and not the history of today's edits. And I see you had in fact noted that a warning wasn't granted, and that would most certainly have been best protocol. My apologies to you and to Giano for cluttering up his page. I suggest an unblock would be appropriate, as only now with the block has warning been clearly served. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My exasperated comment did, in fact, refer to the deprecated civility parole - so my bad there, and therefore nothing for you to apologise for. However, when I reviewed the basis of the block as logged I found another problematic area. My luck not to appear a complete bozo (the mask and cape helps a lot, too). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with CholdofMidnight; unblock is indicated. Also, I have to wonder, did Neuro lie? Its not a personal attack if its a just charge, as there is no nicer way to phrase it. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I just said on my talk page, in view of the block log of Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I believe he did not need a warning to know that we have a policy prohibiting personal attacks, and that it may be enforced with blocks. A warning would accordingly have been superfluous. I'll be offline for about 24h soon, and assume that any administrator considering an unblock will be so collegial as to seek consensus for it in an open forum such as WP:ANI. I'd like to note that, if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is, and accordingly would not support an unblock absent a convincing apology.  Sandstein  21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the merits, even if one were to consider "liar" not (as I do) to be a personal attack, "deluded" and "half baked candidact" (sic) certainly are personal attacks.  Sandstein  21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have invited (dignified) discussion to take place here, where it might not descend into the two usual warring camps, over at ANI. I have made my position clear, so I shall act further only as a moderator to hopefully stop excessive and off-topic postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::You could have asked him to stop first, before blocking. If what he claims neuro did is the truth I would be upset too, especially if he never apologized until his request for adminship. Giano's comments were certainly uncivil, but blocking was getting pretty carried away IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E/cIn an attempt to head any possible drama off at the pass (and in the spirit of the season for certain folks), would you consider an unblock as clemency? That is, Giano requests an unblock, neither denigrating you, nor Neurolysis, nor apologizing either, and that it be granted time served. The implicit understanding of course, is that Giano leave the issue alone, which is biw moot now I believe as Neurolysis has withdrawn.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Doubly moot as Giano has surely gone to bed. Talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

• He is not enjoying an evening that may end with a Midnight Mass? I am disappointed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick word on the matter: there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable. Accuracy of statements can be disputed, certainly, but "liar" means someone who makes intentionally false statements or willfully deceives. Given that it posits malice (which is the opposite of assuming good faith), it cannot be anything but a personal attack.

I make no comment on whether a block was an appropriate response, or whether its duration is adequate, but arguing that it was not a violation of NPA is ridiculous on its face. I'll grant that no warning was given, but I am under no delusion that Giano is not aware of the meaning of the terms he uses, or that he has somehow forgotten our policies. — Coren  23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly untrue. If an editor has admitted to being a liar, or has been demonstrated to be a liar, then the statement is simply one of fact. Is it your intention to suppress all statements of fact, or just those that you find inconvenient? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. A statement made without regard to the facts, and not corrected in the face of such evidence, which impunes the integrity and contributions of another person, may be termed a lie - and the utterer of such statements is thus a liar. I am using the term "mistruths" because it sounds less offensive, but the fact remains that the candidate was caught in a lie, Giano provides the evidence of it, and therefore NPA is satisfied. NPA defends editors against unfounded claims, not protects practitioners of poor behaviour, conduct, morals whatever from being castigated for their actions. Finally, Giano's obvious contempt for abiding by certain policies does not constrict our absolute adherence to the word as well as the spirit in sanctioning violations of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But how do we know that Thingy deliberately lied? He might have been mistaken, or just giving his opinion. To WP:AGF or be collegial, we should say he was mistaken, rather than lied. Sticky Parkin 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The same AGF that Giano is justified in terming it a lie. I may have given the impression that I am sold on Giano's interpretation - I am answering for him in reply to Corens points (I am sure I am going to be royally thanked and praise by G for doing so...) without taking a view upon it. Neurolysis may have been in error for all sorts of reasons, but in only admitting the error when deeming it expedient for the purposes of applying for adminship but being content to allow the mistaken comments to remain unaltered for that until that time is extremely insulting, I suggest. You might not wish to take such liberties with the many calm editors of this project; doing so with Giano invites responses that we are very familiar with. Again, we appear to be punishing the bear for responding to the poking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there was incivility here. Giano went too far and should have received a warning to cease and desist. He's now been blocked. We've had the ensuing drama. I don't think asking Giano to apologize is a good idea in this instance. I suggest he be unblocked in good faith and asked to refrain from engaging further with Neuro. He is of course reminded that no matter the provocation, editors are expected to abide by the civility guidelines.

• Support Unblocking. No need for futher drama. Message has been communicated. Giano knows what is expected of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren, whilst your statements are correct, we also know that Giano flies off the handle the odd time or two. In statistical terms, we ignore the outlier data and we also correct for systemic bias (read here, poke Giano - Giano snarls - whack Giano - Giano roars - block Giano - hilarity ensues) The present case is an obvious injustice done off-wiki, which should be considered as a provoking factor. It's pretty well-established that if you hit Giano with a stick, he doesn't react well. Neuro hit Giano with an off-wiki stick. Support unblocking. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What was done offsite in this? Please provide context... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry GWH for not providing a link, for some reason I thought everyone else clicked the same things I do. :) Anyway, what LHvU says just below. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This 09:48 post]. He misrepresented Giano (I suggest - you may disagree) in making points which, later, transpired to be not altogether accurate either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages is NOT a battleground, remember? Don't hit people with sticks, and if someone hits you with an "off wiki stick", don't bring your anger and aggression on wiki. Flame away, but go elsewhere. Further, wikipedia isn't therapy. If you've got a bad temper and fly off the handle, don't expect us to make allowances for you. Keep you temper off the wiki. But really? This is the same old script, with just a few actors changing. Can't we get a new script? These repeats are boring me. And, for me, boring is worse than incivility. (Oh, and I don't care whether you unblock or not. Frankly it will not make any difference to the boring script.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think I support Giano's underlying point - Neurolysis' behavior on the blog post wasn't remotely good form. I can understand why Giano would still be angry about it a couple of months later.

But I think two months is long enough that the initial poke should have faded, and Giano should have expressed himself in a civil way regarding this. Especially to the RFA supporters he went after .

Even if we absolve him of guilt in the direct attacks on Neurolysis, the attacks on others were temper getting the better of him... fahadsadah and FlyingToaster are certainly innocent victims in this.

I propose that for the purposes of this unblock discussion, administrators ignore the attacks on Neurolysis and consider whether the behavior against the other two was sufficient to justify retaining the 24 hr block, or not. Whatever the anger at Neurolysis justifies or doesn't, it clearly should not extend as far as allowing anyone to go off attacking random third parties. If those two attacks are sufficient for a block then he should remain blocked. If not, then not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: does the allowance for the statements apply to only those on the RfA? .. or do they also extend to the attacks made on Neuro's talk page? Note: Giano did request that Neuro not post to his talk page, and Neuro did offer an apology. I would think it could be expected that the claims could stop after the apology. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Reading over that blog, Neuro's behavior was slightly troubling, but I honestly couldn't agree more with Roux. With how UNBELIEVABLY MONUMENTALLY GINORMOUS Giano's block log is, I think that Giano's lucky that his block isn't a good 5 or 10 times longer than it is. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren: "there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable.". I'm sorry, but if I have diff evidence that an editor has been lying about an issue, I'll call them a liar. To do otherwise would be lying myself. Withdraw that one, please. Black Kite 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

Something needs to be done. -download | sign! 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already warned him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned numerous times. -download | sign! 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Difs, anyone? "something needs to be done" is rather vague. (grumpy puppy) KillerChihuahua 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. Tilting at windmills again I see. KillerChihuahua 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The concern here is QuackGuru editing Jimbo's userpage to state that he was co-founder, not founder of Misplaced Pages. See the history for more details. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the worry is also Jimmy Wales. By the way Download, Quack can blank warnings from his talk page as he pleases, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Theadrock13

• Theadrock13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This new user has been causing trouble right away. He immediately made several unsourced additions. Then when he was warned he started calling people "Wiki-facists". He is confrontational and his comments show that he disagrees with WP:V. Also, I don't deal with biographies much, but this edit seems inappropriate. Thoughts? swaq 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I say block away. Surely the above diff, along with the rest, clearly indicate that the user is not, and will likely never be, productive nor constructive. Calling other "fascists" or "Nazis" is surely bucking for a block, no? MuZemike 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this user also has at least been utilizing two other IPs before this. Going to SPI. MuZemike 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 9

Something has gone wrong with it. It was OK at this revision. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. User:Lambmeat vandalised the formatting. I gave them a 4im warning. – ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I accidently copied the wrong code from a webpage I was working on instead of the code that would transclude my afd. Lambmeat (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this was a complete accident. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially when no AFD was made soon before by you (nor were any pages tagged by you). FunPika 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat reverted that only seconds before I did, it looked like vandalism to me then and still does. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards